Kaare Baekgaard

Oh, perhaps I should say, that all has not been lost with the failed solids. Usually I edit the solid and find, that it is a fillet, that has to be undone and redone.

All of them do this, Jim

My copy of VW crashes 1-3 times every day. It always has and probably always will. So it happens quite often, that I have to rely on the latest backup file to save my assets. But the backup files have been stripped of some of the 3D geometry – and VW almost always fails to regenerate some of my objects correctly. I guess this function works fine for houses, but I am a product designer and my objects are often more complex. So I get a bunch of failed solids, that I have to regenerate manually – at a time where my patience is already strained because of the crash. I wish I could set the automatic backup function to create full files – without stripping any geometry. It would be nice if older backups were automatically compressed somehow, but the latest should be full, regular .vmx

When I send 3D-files to a manufacturer, it is usually in the STEP format. To ensure the exported files are OK, I always import them into Viacad to check the content. With VW 2016 all information about groups & solids in STEP files are lost in Viacad. But when I re-import the same files into VectorWorks, they look fine. In VW2015 this did not happen, so something has changed. Can I trust, that the STEP files from VW are standard and that the fault lies in my elderly copy of Viacad – or should I use Viacad to translate Iges files into STEP until further notice?

I use the tool a little different in that I identify two edges by clicking one after the other. It is a little awkward, when the edges are very close; in this case I have to drag one of the vertices of the first edge away, so I can safely identify that edge with the connect/combine tool and let its position match the second selected edge.

Hi Jim As a product designer, I have shelled complex nurbs objects before, so it can certainly be done if you are careful. Here is what I did: The original converted nurbs surfaces could neither be used for shelling nor as cutting tool in a section solid. So I painstakingly position-matched every pair of connecting edges of every patch using the connect/combine tool. After this I could use the resulting solid as a cutting tool for a section solid and I could shell that solid to a limited thickness. If I had made the efford to reduce every patch to 25 vertices, the shell could have been made much thicker. But it would have taken me a days work to make sure that the surface of every patch were tangent to its neighbours. What this tells me is, that when a subdivision is converted to nurbs or a nurbs-based solid, the edges of the nurbs surfaces have not been reliably position-matched. (they don't meet up) This is a rather serious flaw in the programming, so i urge you to pass on that information to the programmer in charge of subdivisions.

I am in the process of using the first subdivision-derived object in a design. The overall shape is good and I am pleased with it: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxL3Oyph55RRRVpKRUtzeWJpZ0E/view?usp=sharing But as it turns out, the square patches of the generic solid - which you can see in the top illustration – have been poorly programmed, and as a result, I cannot use the command 'shell solid' on the object – or on any object derived from it. I now have to use hours to clean up the surfaces one by one and rebuild the solid patch by patch, because I need to shell it. One problem is lots of redundant vertices. Each square patch has been loaded with 110. The sufficient amount would be 25. This may or may not be the actual root of the problem, but makes it a lot harder to get reliable results in solid operations. I wish that you will make sure, that objects derived from subdivisions can be used with the shell solid tool.

Art V: "The problem that I got in this case was that only a few resulting solids could be merged and I would have to manually repair the remaining solids to be able to merge them so that I would end up with a single solid. But that is something I can work on later." Your method is not optimal. The first step is to use 'Add Solid' on your surfaces. Sometimes, you cannot add them all in one go for some reason, but all surfaces need to be inside a single solid, which would be open in your case. Then you use the shell tool on the lot by shift-clicking each surface (option-shift-click for back faces). The point being, that adjoining surfaces and rounded edges will automatically be tapered corectly – and that the inside/outside of the surfaces are all oriented the same way. There are a number things, that can go wrong here. If the edges of two surfaces do not meet corectly, the tool will fail. If the surfaces are 'sloppy' with excess vertices on top of each other, you may need to clean them up before you try. If the weather is slightly damp, it might fail as well. In other words, it is not the most forgiving tool of the lot, but if you get it right, it can do surprising things.

I guess both would be OK, Jim. The cage is generally not so complex, that a permanent color code would be annoying.

"Based on what I have read in the help, the Shell Solid tool does not generate a solid at all." But it does. It sure does. In fact the Shell Solid tool will do everything that you request in this thread – although it may take a few steps to get there. Also it does not require a proper solid as base object, nurbs surfaces will do just fine.

Maybe I an not looking hard enough, but I cannot find any way to ensure, that the the crease state of a segment of the cage in a subdivision is either one way or the other. On sharp edges it is not a problem, but on a subtle edge it is bewildering. I am sure, there is a color code somewhere in the intactive settings, but I have failed to locate it. In case there is not: Please include this as soon as possible.

Thanks for the information, that is a great find for me.

+1

I am not sure that all users realize how much can actually be done with the Shell Solid tool. But there is room for improvement: 1. To supplement the inside/outside setting, it would be nice with a 'center' setting. 2. A tickbox next to the inside settings saying: 'Subtract from solid' and another one next to the outside setting saying: 'Add to solid'. Theese two tickboxes would allow a one step thickening or thinnening (if such words exist) of the base solid worked on.

I can replace symbols with other symbols which is nice. I quess it could be a risky move, but I wish I could replace any object or group with a 3D symbol.

The VW icon in the dock jumps every 15 minutes, when there is a request for an automatic backup. I hate that.

I use the extend nurbs command quite often, but it is a somewhat clumsy element in a workflow. I wish the I could just point on an edge of a nurbs surface with the push/pull toll - and push/pull it (or at least pull it). The 'move face' mode would correspond to the 'smooth extension' mode of the extend nurbs command and the 'extrude face' mode would correspond to the 'linear extension' mode. Also I wish I could use the loft tool between existing edges of objects – without first having to extract the curves. Finally I wish there was two additional modes on the connect/combine tool, where the edges of the two selected nurbs surfaces would extend to the place where the surface planes cross each other. – One mode would be for straight extensions and the other mode for smooth extensions. I hope these wishes are understandable

I have been working with the new subdivison feature enough now to get frustrated with its shortcomings. It seems as if the object type has not yet been entirely implementet in VectorWorks. Here are a few important issues: 1. Selection handles – there are none. If I select a subdivision with the ordinary selection tool, there is little reason why it should not display standard selection handles – and allow basic adjustments to overall dimensions. 2. Ring selection – option click a cage line to select all nodes along the extensions of that line – boy is that a missing feature! 3. Reshape tool integration - even if it is really just an alias/shortcut to the 'Edit Subdivision' tool. 4. The blackness of a wireframe representation of a subdivision object is really overpowering. Could some of the wireframe lines be omitted or greyed down somehow? Oops I see, that you answer before I an done editing, Jim. Sorry, I can't think in an organized manner, so I have to edit multible times

Hi Jim I have tried to import 3D figures from Poser or DAZ 3D into VW 2016, but the texture mapping is lost in the process. I am not sure why, because I previously imported meshes with correct image mapings from Archive 3D. I have used 3DS as well as the new OBJ – but with no success. It is too bad. I hope the Vectorworks developers will spot the problem and fix it.

I have tried to import 3D figures from Poser or DAZ 3D into VectorWorks, but the texture mapping is lost in the process. I am not sure why, because I successfully imported meshes with correct image maps from Archive 3D. It is too bad. I hope the Vectorworks developers will spot the problem and fix it.

With VW 2016 you can now do a 'cheat version' of HDRI, that only requires a regular panorama image, that you can create with most smartphones. Any image can now be mapped onto the background 'sphere' regardless of its proportions. It will automatically be stretched to fit. The resulting panoramic background is similar to a hdri in the sense that it lights the scene and is reflected by objects, but as far as I can see, it does not come close to the dynamic range from highlight to shadow, that a true HDR image has. So I guess the scene would need some extra lights to get sufficient contrast. But still – it is an awesome feature. Perhaps someone has tested this feature more than I and can share additional insights.

I must have seen versions of this error message at least 100.000 times since the dawn of the Powerpack. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxL3Oyph55RRUFNuQ3lXVWVfTTQ/view?usp=sharing Right or wrong, most of the time I like to draw in the screen plane mode. I wish that the annoying error message would be changed into a dialogue – so that if I hit the enter key, all selected screen plane objects are automatically turned into layer plane objects and taper-extruded. If I hit command-period or press cancel, the operation is aborted. That would be nice.

Thanks, I'll turn it on until further notice

Hi Jim Here is the file - note, that it was originally created in VW 2015: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxL3Oyph55RRU0VmcEFSYU01MWM/view?usp=sharing Here is the data on my Mac: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxL3Oyph55RROHk5OXJlamZONkU/view?usp=sharing Thanks

Exported image to the right - versus the on-screen rendering to the left. something is wrong with exported renderings in VW 2016 on an iMac. But if the same geometry is placed in a viewport and rendered, it looks normal.