Tom G.

Cut 2D and Cut 3D are very problematic on a model of any complexity. They typically don't work in my experience, not since the last few upgrades anyway and that's why they are in the Legacy Folder. They still, in Vwks 2012, work when sectioning simple elements so for some of us, are worth bringing back to our workspaces. In Fundamentals (v.2012), under View, Create Layer Link is an option to assemble layers but Cut 2D and Cut 3D Section are NOT offered as default sectioning options nor is a Viewport creation or Viewport sectioning process. (As an aside, can this kneecapping of Vwks be considered a positive in growing the Vwks community?) Keeping a model whole and drawing over it, whether as a DLVP or a Viewport in Annotations, is very unsatisfying, in my opinion. In real world conditions, there will be parts of the model purposely left unfinished; lines will have the incorrect weights; some PIO elements may need tweaking in ways not available via the OIP or because of time constraints; Vectorworks might not model all lines in a Hidden Line drawing--roofs adjacent to walls is an example. And drawing over lines reveals misalignment of overlaid lines and dot-spots at line ends when you examine your printed output. This becomes ever more of an issue as the model grows in complexity. For these and other reasons, when drawing a Hidden Line view of the model, I create a copy of the model from the Viewport and simply move it back to a Design Layer to ungroup for cleanup and correction. The process above does not remove the original Viewport so it is available should the model change. There are some techniques which make it easier--I won't go into them here--but I sooo would like to have NA provide me with the means to one-click this process instead of the kludge I now employ. Tom

Object Info Palette Make sure you have the window in the wall first of all. Sometimes we think the window is in the wall but it isn't. If you uncheck the Wall Insertion Mode* button (shows as not darkened) and try dragging the window off the wall, if it's in the wall properly, it won't come out. If it comes out with this lock on, it never was correctly in the wall in the first place. *first icon in the top most menu bar next to the (3) double headed arrows.

If you did a focus group test on users trying to figure out how to have a solid hidden line model shown in sketch mode, I think you would see that 99% struggle to find the right process. I know many people post asking how to do this. It doesn't help that the Foreground render offers Sketch as an option. This, along with background render of Hidden Line, should be all that is needed. Two Hidden Line options selected--one for front and one for back--in order to get to a Sketched version, does not make sense. Please test some newer users on this one to see for yourself. Thanks

We've loads and loads of sky HDRI's and more if you include the set from Service Select. Please include HDRI's with trees, houses, industrial buildings, etc. to give context to our models. Include these as bonus files if you must but bring back the kind of HDRI's that existed a couple of versions back. Since we now can rotate our HDRI, there is a lot of solid payback in using an interesting HDRI to provide a physical context.

I have to agree in general with djb. We have a substantially remodeled tudor under construction currently which has a truss design with 36 separate elements--not trusses--unique truss members. There is no way I'm going to attempt to design the trusses myself, not when I have an experienced truss designer on hand who I can call on the phone. I can refer to the truss documents and extrude key parts to cross-check fit if need be. I can also use the print-out's total L&D loads to verify loads onto supporting members. Given the man-hours needed to produce a reasonable roof truss tool--one that doesn't generate howls of anguish such as the stair tool--I think NV is wise to put their energies elsewhere. Where that might be is a subject for another time. There is one thing that Vwks could do to improve the roof tool, however, and that would be to include an input box in order to add a drop heel to the roof volume. Tom

taoist: The winder treads on Picture 5 do not look like 6" minimum width to me which is why I posted my question about UK stair codes. I think if one was going to note the 6" minimum width (US), it would be imperative to also note the min. 10" width 12" out (walkline). Neither part can exist without the other. Tom

The Stair tool under Stair Settings allows you to get pretty close--choose L-Stair, Winder. If that doesn't work then I think you have to model the winders one at a time. You could keep the L-Stair on a grayed layer, getting it modeled as close as possible and add your individual extruded treads on a second layer to see how things fit together, then mix and match as needed. Tom PS. Do the codes in the UK concern themselves with minimum widths of the pie-shaped stairs at their narrow ends? In the US we would be prohibited from such a construction.

I use grayscale throughout my construction drawings as you can impart so much more information. Once you start, you'll never want to give up this advantage which is a strong point of Vectorworks' 2D tools. (I don't know if Apple's Quartz 2D plays a part in this.) I actually use most of my grayscale textural fills on the framing and foundation pages and less on the exteriors. I set my grayscale print level in the printer dialog box (Mac) to 65% but this is a function of printer quality or lack thereof. If you send your work out to be printed offsite, you must make sure that the printer tech doesn't do a fast run and burn your grays off. The printer tech is your friend. Since we issue PDF's along with paper, if the print gets worn, the GC can print him or herself up a new set or page. Tom

all of those videos are great sales tools. Tom G.

In Dworks image, at its center, in elevation view, outlined in blue, is the high wall that seems to have an offset pulled out, filling the void. Vwks won't allow you to model a wall in this way in which case the wall must run on into the attic. This is fine since framing would sometimes follow this path although the jack studs filling the gable are often stopped at the bottom of the adjoining rafter and so, in a perfect BIM world, the wall should be able to have the wing modeled into it. In any case, wall bits must be inserted, fit to roof, and accounted for when changing siding types or revising floor plans. A grand unifying theory has yet to emerge. Tom

bc shows the upper portion of the wall but just to be clear here, there has to be-- presumably hidden in his last example--more wall running leftward through an assumed attic. Again, you can't reshape a wall into an unbalanced offshoot--my "Woody Woodpecker" reference. In my first post I said I put these wall bits into another layer meaning I wanted to keep them from showing up in Plan view, same as has been suggested above. Thanks, guys, for hanging in there with this and providing examples. Tom

bc: OK, how do you 'cut the wall backwards' then? Still don't understand Peter's explanation. Perhaps bc's description will clear things up for me. Much appreciated! Tom

Peter: I don't think you can pull a peak out beyond the edge of the wall a la Woody Woodpecker in order to fill in. You'd have to pull the wall fully under the gable void which would make the wall too long. In these cases I add a wall to my roof layer and modify it to fit. Careful to not send these wall bits to another layer unless is has an identical Z-height. If you do, they won't retain their z-height but instead default to zero. This is a problem. Tom

I should have listed my specs to accompany my above comment: 2008 2.5 Ghz 17" MacBook Pro 6 Gigs of Ram Mac OS 10.7.3 (recent upgrade) 750 Gig 5400 rpm HD (recent upgrade) Vwks 2012 Designer, latest SP upgrade

Thank you for the positive contribution. Would love to read how you do various things in either program. Tom

Yes, Vincent, you're spot on regarding your inference from my post. Tom And Christiaan, shame on you for reading negativity into my last post. I was not being snide or snippy when I said "Forgive me if my post seemed to challenge your assertions." You might open the window and enjoy some of the spring air. It will do you good. (Still being sincere.)

2012 is far improved over v.2011 for me personally. Far fewer crashes, no real slow downs. There are odd glitches here and there that I live with. I've been married 26 years this April so I've learned to overlook certain behaviors, expecting the same in return. Tom

Christiaan: You'll note in my post that I didn't spend any time at all elevating one CAD program over another or taking issue with the way Vwks works, good or bad. I tend, in my posts, to write for the Unknown User* rather than to the author himself who is frequently already well informed. Forgive me if my post seemed to challenge your assertions. My point is that when working from the 3D model, the path toward efficiency and productivity is different with each user or group of users, and this has to be learned first-hand, in battle. This is true of the sole proprietor--of which I am one, thank you--to multi-member firms. It stands to reason that if we are debating the meaning of BIM, we may still be in our infancy regarding how we manage it in our practices. There is no argument about BIM vs Freehand. My point was about managing the tools, period. Tom *I've spent near to a decade hosting or co-hosting the Seattle Vectorworks Users Group which, as a result, informs my response in discussions on CAD.

Hopefully this is a bug. My first 3D model converted into Vwks 2012 caused all of my parametric columns to reset themselves to zero elevation. Tom

I would not draw a dog house without doing it in 3D. Consider that all of your decisions about the model, once done in 3D, are there for you to review for accuracy. I've just completed a complex upper story addition. I've been back to the 3D model many, many times to assure myself that I've got the correct assemblies of floor to wall to roof in order to provide clear instruction to the plans examiner, the lumber supplier, the truss manufacturer and the job superintendent. I know it works. I have the evidence. The tricky part is deciding which path to take on how to best extract info from the model and when to stop drawing in 3D. There are huge variances in how Vwks users use the program and you'll see lots of opinion in these pages on how to do that with little consensus. And that's OK. I agree with DWorks in his posts above. Tom

With respect to Christiann's post, in my opinion it takes quite a while of working in the single-model format to decide how to address that format efficiently and hence how effective your BIM processes are. You can't set out to design in BIM without the evolution of your own drawing processes. You need many projects completed from the extraction process of mining the 3D model before you can know how effective Vectorworks is or is not. Your creativity and disciple--not just the quality of the CAD tool--is most important, same as when you were drawing by hand, only now more so since CAD options have exponentially expanded in the last decade. Bottom line is this: You define what BIM is via your own unique 3D experience. You can't really, meaningfully compare Vwks with Revit, etc. without this experience. Tom

To answer Christian's question fairly, yes, you can composite photos if you use a second program like Photoshop. http://gallery.me.com/tomgreggs#100016/Upper%20Story%20CAD%20composite&bgcolor=black Simply measure from your camera location back to the object being photographed and replicate that position in your file in Top Plan view. Import your photo onto a new layer with the opacity reduced so you can see through it. Redo your Vectorworks camera settings until you begin to match. Once you are happy with the model position, export is as a jpg and import it into P'shop. Dissolve the base of your model to nest it and adjust contrast to match your original photo. Use the stretch feature of P'shop to warp the existing structures to match the vertical lines of your model. Merge the layers. Use the stamp tool to add greenery to the base of your model. In fairness to Matt, his plugin is easier and more accurate, to say the least. If you are going to do more of these than two, buying Camera Match is the way to go. Tom

I"d kill for some plants and trees comfortable in the Salish Sea region. Rhododendron and azaleas for starters. Tom

Thanks, Monadnoc! Tom

Can't you add a 3D loci, color it, lock it and reference it either by class or, if you need it by itself, on its own layer? That way you could move them away from your primary 3D building layer names on the Navigation palette for clarity. Tom