M5d

I continued to wrest with this. If I had to guess at a cause, I'd say the larger the image size (perspectives in particular), the less likely it is image effects will stick in an export. I also downloaded 2023 to check if the issue has been resolved, nope! Tried several tweaks before exporting, all in-date viewports, switching image effects off and on + minor adjustments, no luck. The solution is adobe acrobat and an external image editor. The way image effects have been implement on viewports makes them near inaccessible anyway. If you attempt to work in the background during a render, image effects get locked behind the out-of-date viewport.

Moved to 2022 in December and have the same problem, image effects, desaturate, exposure etc, not exporting to PDF, strangely soft edges still works. I tried @line-weight's idea and raster without success, any other quick solutions / workarounds would be much appreciated.

Couldn't edit my post for some reason; scratch the above, you have multiple sections of the same wall style, they'd all be wrong if it was the Core.

Where you have the two wall styles end to end, you can use the corner (L) join mode. I tested your example though (in 2022), without using a join, and the slab tool still worked . . . so maybe check both Wall Styles have the same / desired Wall Components selected as their Core.

If you want the stud and gypsum to remain at their default construction heights, deselect the 'Follow Top Wall Peaks' option in the Wall Component Settings, or in the Wall Style itself if you want this as the style's default behaviour. You don't need to do this before you reshape a wall, the stud and gypsum will reset to their default heights once you deselect the Follow Wall Peaks option for each component.

No good solution unfortunately. What I typically do is create duplicate Structural members and have a separate class for the modified members. Then you can pull data and display either where appropriate, using viewport overrides. This has been on the wish list, as are many good things, for some years now.

Ok, they’ve got two now, should be fixed twice as fast. 🙂 Where do you see the VB number after you submit? Yep, I’ve used it as a plug-in for many many versions. Strange that it’s ok in the script editor, then crashes VW.

Thanks, will Bug Submit.

I’m moving to 2022 and have a problem with a very basic tool/macro/plug-in created via the Custom Tool/Attribute... command and the Double-Line Polygon Tool. It makes a quick ground line plug-in that has worked ok in previous versions, but it hangs 2022 every time it’s run. In the attached file the script has been re-created with 2022, but it still crashes Vectorworks. Any clues? macOS 13.0.1 - VW 2022 SP5 Hanging.vwx

The associated line is separate from the tool’s symbol contents. My default is to execute all tools while in the None Class and simply set the Repetitive Unit Object’s Pen Type to None in the Attributes Palette after creation. Alternatively, you could have a container class for the Repetitive Unit Tool with the Pen Type set to None and either draw them in that Class or set them to that Class after creation.

Yeah, that’s an extensive piece of work and a fantastic overview in itself. His details, dates and connections, almost certainly, will become the basis for further investigations and work on his subject, not to mention the general history he has captured there.

Thanks @jeff prince, the critique in that series was a worthwhile and pretty relevant read. The scope is huge though, perhaps a little too broad for our BIM orientated brains? Still, I believe some of his investment fund observations are contextually relevant to Nemetschek’s own foibles and strategies as a holding company. After making my way through most of the series, I’m thinking the conclusion of bias in this thread was based on Part 2 in isolation? If so, I’d urge anyone thinking this is unpaid advertising (for either camp), to keep going . . . All 7 Parts are linked here: https://bigdataconstruction.com/history-of-bim/ The overarching motivation for the series isn’t particularly obvious in Part 2 and one of his primary hopes, being a truly “open” . . . BIM exchange format, one that behaves effectively and as efficiently as a single file format (like RVT), isn’t discussed until the subsequent Parts. Part 2 was more about building his argument for the fact that, in an open market, efficiency wins, and that in terms of market share percentages, base on the Zigurat institute’s observations of search data, it likely is winning!

Thanks @Tom W. I wasn’t aware subscriptions had been available for a couple years already. The snapshots were interesting, I have no idea what the VW numbers or market share are like here (au). Perhaps as @line-weight suggests, these are closely guarded secrets.

@Tom W. would you be able to add a link to the page where the graphs are published? I don't think we have an equivalent page for the Australian market, but I have always wondered what the numbers are like here.

Christiaan, that sales data will be interesting to watch, can you post where it’s recorded? Uncertainty over when subscription revenues will supplant traditional revenues is most likely the reason NV “can’t predict” when they will retire Service Select. If subscriptions go gangbusters, I expect we’ll see Service Select retired at the short end of ndavison’s estimate. And if uptake is sluggish, then they’ll probably hold off until their subscription revenues have met some magic number.

I think the impression from the marketing, like the graphic @MarcelP102 posted above and your much earlier comment that @Art V responded to, was that the subscription model equated to continuous development, or that it might “bring forward” new features in a more timely and continuous manner. But the annual cycle will effectively remain as it currently does, it’s just that the new features scheduled for a particular release will no longer arrive as they have previously (mostly in SP0). They will instead be spread out and/or delayed throughout the cycle of future releases, until they're ready and stable for a service pack. The Chief Revenue Officer (ndavison) put paid to the earlier concept in this post . . .

Yeah. Or to be specific, more viable for the usage / download patterns of an all year round, somewhat transient user base. The software will need to be stable across every quarter, not just the latter SP’s, to properly service the expectations of subscription users.

Yes, more frequent service packs within each annual cycle to facilitate the gradual release of scheduled features, meaning fewer new features at launch day (SP0) as a way for them to maintain stability.

In terms of the annual cycle, I don’t think they’re suggesting a significant change from what we currently get. The promised focus on quality and stability just means future annual updates will only contain a subset of the “scheduled” features, at launch, for that particular year’s release. The remainder of each year’s features will simply get rolled out in service packs when they’re ready and stable. The statements here have implied spreading out / delaying the release of new features, for the sake of stability, more than they’ve suggested a new, or continuous, development paradigm. I believe the stability mantra, more or less, comes down to a requirement for subscription based software to be more stable due to its propensity to attract a new, and potentially more transient, user base inclined to drop-in on the most current release. —————————— The motivation for transitioning to subscription based software was well articulated in Nemetschek’s previous financial summery: https://ir.nemetschek.com/websites/nemetschek/English/2110/news-detail.html?newsID=2309449 The relevant statements / theme: +56.5% increase in subscription/SaaS revenue . . . Recurring revenues, which reached a new record high, were once again the main growth driver, in particular due to the strong demand for Subscription and SaaS models. Growth driver continued to be the revenues from Subscription and SaaS models. With a plus of 56.5% (currency-adjusted: 47.8%) in Q2 these revenues reached a record high of EUR 47.3m and therefore were once again the main contributor to the increase in recurring revenues. Consequently, the share of recurring revenues which includes Subscription and SaaS as well as service contracts further increased to 63.2% of group revenues in Q2 (previous year: 60.3%). In the first half of the year revenues from Subscription and SaaS models grew by 58.1% compared to last year (currency-adjusted: 51.0%). Design Segment: “The strong increase in subscription revenues (Q2: +58.2%, H1: +59.3%) confirms the success of the segment's hybrid strategy to offer both, subscription and licenses to its customers.”

Yes, via the Title Block Manager button in the OIP. + The "Select Sheets to Use" button to determine which sheets, if not all sheets are being updated.

Thanks for the reply. Clearly the timeframe for decommissioning Service Select is a very different proposition from the “as long as” statement that seems to have populated throughout NV’s communications. It’s easy to see how these statements would be casually observed, your own forum admin was restating it, more or less, directly from the Subscription FAQ header and drop-downs on your purchasing page and as it appeared in your mail-outs . . . Will this language get corrected, because while it may have nothing to do with NV's right under the letter of your Service Select agreements, it certainly portrays a different (external) intent from your clarification and the action NV will inevitably take? (just curious) With regard to the ‘short-term’ / ‘long-term’ / ‘short-term’ / ‘I can’t predict’ context of your answer, are we (the user base) meant to be reading the 2-3 year timeframe as your current estimate for decommissioning Service Select? A timeframe would be instructive. I expect just about everyone will be looking at this announcement, doing the numbers, considering the various reasons they were on this platform, its differences and difficulties, where it will sit against the industry standard as a subscription platform in a few years and be evaluating how to navigate the space in-between. Without a timeframe, it’s difficult to plot a course, and your “buy now” promos become a somewhat unquantifiable and speculative proposition as a result.

Yes, it appears a case of watch this space now. Maxon ended their equivalent (Maxon Service Agreements) for Cinema 4d, 2 years after they introduced subscriptions. NV may not be planning to transition so quickly, but the VP of Sales, @ndavison, was quick with qualifying ambiguity after your question and JuanP's, "you will keep your perpetual license for as long as you keep your Service Select active" statement. Technically speaking, the 'twin-track arrangement' ends on the 30th of December. After then, it will be subscription only and our "legacy" agreements for as long as NV is willing to maintain them. Until the "at this time" intervention, the latter appeared a relatively long term prospect. @ndavison, can you confirm NV is not going to follow Maxon's model and end its Service Select Agreements a few years down the track?

Also, try changing your Navigation Graphics setting. I encountered the same, or similar, in 2021.

The debate, or controversy, over the Ultra's poor GPU scaling in rendering applications has happened in a bit of vacuum unfortunately. WWDC should be interesting. Maxon / Redshift has just commented, in their forum, in an encouraging way while outlining that there are significant architectural differences to accommodate. I hope they don't mind their comments being reposted here, since we're in the family 🙃 so to speak:

Yes, I’ve been waiting, patiently, for Apple to give us another iMac Pro level device. The Studio/Ultra fits the bill perfectly. Hopefully we’ll hear from NV on RAM expectations and the current problem in line-weight’s and Zeno’s posts soon. Based on what I have worked with, 64GB should be plenty, but if NV says there’s an issue or tangible benefit . . . ? The Mac Mini rumours referred to above sound pretty solid, based on the A/Si tiers we already know about: Mini = Mn & Mn Pro | Mac Studio = Mn Max & Mn Ultra | Mac Pro = Mn Ultra and Mn ??? Credit to Apple, it’s a very simple, understandable, lineup if this is how it turns out.