GWS

I seem to have 'lost' some tool set icons from the palette and they have been replaced with spanners (wrenches). I notice in the edit workspace dialogue box at the bottom there is a "set tool set icon" button but I don't know where to find the icons. Can anybody give me some pointers please?

I've had my upgrade from 09 -10 for a few weeks now

That seems to have done the trick. I completely overlooked the convert to Generic solids comand! Many thanks for your help

I am revisiting an old project and trying to solve an unsolved problem. I have a plug, shown in green, that I am trying to add a solid centre to. I have managed to loft the surfaces from extracted curves and stitch them together but the object that they create make a hollow form, Shown in blue. (I have done a solid subtraction to show this hollowness). What I would like to do is make this a solid as the 3d printer I have used will not recognise the stitched surfaces as a solid. To get round this problem I imported the object into 'AutoCAD Inventor', which seemed to create a solid, and then exported as an STL file. Is there a way to model the blue area in VW that will produce a solid filled object?

I had indeed managed to turn off the Tool Hightlighting and having turned it back on am now getting the expected results. Thanks guys, as helpful as always. (Sorry for the gap in communications...been away for the weekend)

Ah got it. What is different is that when I click on an edge the curve selected would high-lite in red, and when the green tick was clicked it would then extract the curve. In 2010 the curve selected does not high-lite, BUT DOES extract after the green tick is clicked. Is there a setting somewhere that I'm missing?

I'm having trouble extracting a curve from a simple extrude. Whenever I try it the OIP says that the object or extrude is locked. I'm sure I was able to do this in 2009. I have tried Modify>unlock but to no avail. Any thoughts?

That is a revelation...so simple and so useful

Gosh....how much does that cost and can I run it natively on my Mac!!!!

Try selecting the polygon and then going to the "Tapered Extrude" option under the Model menu. Enter 0.5" for the height and 0? for the angle.

I got my copy just this last week having only ordered at the end of the previous week, perhaps you should check again with your seller.

Having watch the DCM video I can definitely see where things might be heading, I'm sure 3D DCM is just around the corner.

3D associative dimensions would mean that viewports could be dimensioned without having to redraw 2D circles, arcs etc over the 3D object and when the design is altered the dimensions would update...both situations would be a massive time saver. I also agree with David that a 3D dimensioned drawing is a very clear way to convey the info to clients

I am planning to stick with it. I do believe that VW offers an awful lot and covers alot of differing bases which means I have less restrictions when designing and do not need to use 2 or 3 programs. I have just ordered my upgrade to 2010 (should arrive soon) and was pleasantly surprised at the cost, perhaps I shouldn't say that too loudly as it might put the price up!!! Optimistic for 2011!!!!!

No, not that I've found.

As we are encouraged to work in a 3D world, perhaps it might be useful to have:- 3D dimensioning so viewports that are taken from the 3D model can be dimensioned without having to draw 2D objects over the top them. 3D filleting/chamfering tool that means you don't have to ungroup the fillet before you can then edit the object ( a real pain if there are many differing fillets) 3D constraints. I saw a lovely video techtip thingy the other day about constraining cogs at a set distance.....which was nice, except designing in 3D makes it rather irrelevent. From a Machine Design point of view these things would make the upgrade worth it, as it is once again Machine Design seems to be the 2nd cousin; perhaps it will be abandoned all together!!!

I have a 2.33Ghz and 2Gb RAM and mine does get hot when using Vectorworks and the fan does kick in but it never seems to be a problem.

Does anyone know if you still have to ungroup a fillet before editing the object in 2010

Collision detection is not so important for architects, I can see that, but for those of us who design moving machines it would be a great asset as would the ability to move the moving parts and determine the effectiveness of the mechanism that is being designed, much like in Solidworks. We are not all architects who use this, very good, software.

If not 3d Dimensioning, are there 3D constraints?

That's me too!

Not tried either myself but I've seen Rhino being used by a colleague and was impressed. I had heard somewhere that Rhino might be developed for the Mac but that was sometime ago. I agree there are certain things that I find in other programs that deal with 3D better but VW gives me the ability to cover a wide range of problems including the more organic. I use machine design and work in the Film industry where the projects I come across can be obscure to say the least so I need a program that may not be the best at doing one type of design but gives me more creativity. There are some great 3D tools in VW and once you get the hang of them the modelling can be quite diverse. i.e. the lofting tool is one. Having said that, and I know it's been mentioned before, 3D contraints, collision of moving parts, 3D dimensions and assembly style contructions similar to SW or Inventor would go along way to improving the Machine Design module of VW. I sometimes feel, and maybe I'm wrong on this, that VW Architect gets the lions share of the attention. Then again for the price of this software compared to the other two I mentioned I don't really feel I can grumble.

Manipulating 3D scans of a human figure to take mounting points and harness attachments is one such instance and then forwarding on to a 5-axis mill to replicate in real life for silcone moulding. Both Inventor and Solidworks struggled with this. As they did with converting the to STL files for 3D printing.

Agreed, Ray

I have been frustrated with this issue in the past until I was enlightened through this forum. If crop odjects were defaulted to the none layer, at least one would know where to look for them and could then change them at a later date. I can't see why this wouldn't be beneficial for a generic operation like cropping.