mr. iagea

Well, that's my point, really. Vectorworks is attempting to be a solution for several disciplines, that of architects, landscapers, machine engineers and by incorporation of modeling and rendering capabilities, digital modelers, for lack of a better term at the moment. One way to look at this is that these disciplines all share some commonalities (from an object-creation viewpoint) when one considers their "digital end products". By that measure, it makes sense that a central engine should drive the application. And a really good application should allow users to be able to create whatever they wish with it, using a set of tools that is sensible to their discrete disciplines, or at least universal enough to be able to be effective to all. By simply allowing buildings to be one of the types of objects created, from a pure modeling standpoint, architecture can be incorporated into the capability of the app. The logical offshoot therefrom is landscaping. I am torn on the idea that software should do one thing very well or several things adequately. I am personally an example of this: a self-proclaimed (and verified, according to my friends!) autodidact and jack-of-several-trades, I have come to respect an inter-disciplined approach to just about everything. That's not to say that I disregard the singular approach, that to do something very well one should focus on that thing with an eager and open set of tools. Architecture and the skills and toolsets used to produce drawings is a creative endeavor that has traditionally had a solid (and highly protected) set of practices. For decades, AutoCAD has been the tool of choice for producing drawings, but with the introduction of BIM and 3D modeling I see these skills beginning to merge. Because of that, I see the direction of BIM tools such as Vectorworks, ArchiCAD and others to be a logical step in our brave new world. All that said, when it comes to software, I feel that if you are going to present a product as having certain capabilities, then that aspect of the product should do those things very well. Go big or go home.

That worked perfectly. Thanks, Michael!

I know I saw this somewhere, and now I can't find it. I wonder if someone can help, please. Basically, I want to duplicate a polygon in place (know how to do that), and then scale it down so that it is 8" smaller equidistant on all sides from the original. I'd rather not have to figure out the math to Resize it with a duplicate array. Ideas? Thanks!

I tried trashing the prefs, but that didn't work. I tried a few experiments today to try and isolate the problem, but I just cannot make sense of it. There is way too much work gone into the drawing already to attempt to redraw it. I started a new blank file, and the classes seem to be working correctly in that file, although I just made a couple of polygons, nothing too advanced. I did start this file in v2008, perhaps that has something to do with it. The trouble seems to be regardless of how I start the object. If I preset the active class menu first, and then with OIP, I need to reset the Attribute palette after every attempt to set the class via the OIP. Hmm.

Jeff, et al: Well, I suppose I'd better say something, since I was an active participant in the previous milieu. First, and most importantly, I am not interested in trashing Vectorworks in this forum with negative hyperbole. I am committed to making it "my" software, as well, because I chose it for good reason over other apps I was researching. So far, it's proven itself to be quite powerful, and I am thankful for that. It's important however that in the effort to make the almighty powerful app, the important basics are not trodden upon (such as user interaction, a trumpet I will be sounding loudly until the day I die, I expect). In general I am enjoying using VW, despite it having some quite frustrating idiosyncrasies that have disrupted my workflow. Remember that I am working to get things accomplished in my profession as an architect, rather than re-design software. I've spent a long time in that field already. I understand very intimately that software needs to appeal to a wide group of users, especially one as ambitious as Vectorworks. I understand that platforms, code bases and technological approaches all have their strengths and weaknesses. I appreciate the work involved to develop software and employ changes?that a "simple change" in the interface is not as easy as rewriting a few lines of code. I get that. My approach has healthily digested those ideas and I am on to something else. I'm kind of hoping you're with me on this. I like Vectorworks' potential. I'm impressed with its strengths. I have been able to get my real-work projects done and I'm generally pleased with the results. I am excited to see where future versions will go. I applaud your commitment to improving the software, and it is reassuring to hear that the suggestions that are being made are taken to heart in the dev team. I am excited to be learning more and more every day I use it, despite feeling frustrated by some issues with interaction, which I hope will be sorted out in future versions. Speaking of...that list...any comments? Perhaps an acknowledgment of receipt, at least (I did spend some time on that). Finally, in the spirit of the word "forum", I am expressing my opinions and I feel that am doing it in a thoughtful manner. I do not expect to be censored because my opinions do not align completely with the moderators' market strategies, even if that is your prerogative. My posts about this topic of usability have attempted to focus on the concept of intuitive user experience, rather than implicitly steering anyone away from using the app. None of that is meant to suggest that my frustrations using the app and a loyalty because I spent some money isolate me from looking at other options. That's just basic free market sensibility. The terse response might be: make an app that doesn't have glaring interface problems and you'll get fewer posts complaining about it. It's that simple. However, that's not a very nice way of saying it. I am committed to making Vectorworks better by sharing my experiences in as constructive a way as possible. I apologize if some of my posts seem otherwise. I appreciate your desire to create a constructive environment here, and I will do my best to respect that.

All the classes have "Use at Creation" checked on.

I seem to be having a problem with setting classes. Whenever I create an object, and then set its class from the OIP, I need to then go to the Attributes palette and also select the "Make All Attributes By Class", in the tiny little drop down menu. I have to do this every time, even if I select that setting before creating the object. Does anyone else have this trouble and perhaps a solution? It seems to me the logical function should be that when you set the class of an object in the OIP, the object should by default take on the attributes of the class, without having to select ANOTHER menu to do what I thought I was doing by setting the class of the object in the OIP. Feels kinda like opening the door to a room, but then I can't go in until I open the door again, even thought the door is already open. Thanks.

Life's too short not to keep this option open Mr Gog. At the end of the day we can argue until the cows come home about the details but ultimately, for me at least, it's about enjoying life. I drew manually for 5 years when I started out and found it immensely enjoyable but even back then I was imagining what it would be like to do all these things we do in 3D on computers. In terms of enjoying life CAD has been quite a disappointment to me. I expect BIM and 3D to bring back that enjoyment and more. Graphisoft, it seems to me, is possibly the only company that seems to understand this. I couldn't agree more. I am very interested to see where v2010 goes, as well. It will ultimately cement my decision about whether to stay with VW or go with something else. I spent most of today drawing in the eval version of ArchiCAD, and I have to say, I was able to accomplish quite a bit, and it was pretty fun. There were several "Aha, that's cool!" moments. ArchiCAD has a version that is priced similarly to VW, so now it's not just about price anymore. It's now also about usability. The race is on!

I would agree with all the points on this thread. Yes, the selection tool as it is may not appear broken. However, it is unintuitive in its current employment. I have run into this time and time again, where I select an object with the intention to move it, and with my next click, some other nearby object is selected and then the software moves that object instead. That result is unintuitive because the software has already taught the user that the selection tool is used to move an object. So the solution is to use the move tool. That's fine, but the move tool has no selection functionality, and it should to be an intuitive tool. It also means that the user is expected to remember all the conditions where another object may be on top of an "intended" object and also remember that he/she must use a different tool than the one that is already known. This ignores the power of the computer tracking data for a given object. This unintuitive process, which seems to be a theme in VW, is that unique situations all require unique tools and mini-workflows even if the core functionality (or purpose) of the situation is very similar to a common one, such as the situation this thread is based on. This adds to the complexity of the software as well as the learning and use process. The functionality of the common tools, commands and functions should set the paradigm of use for similarly functioning actions. It's sad to me that VW doesn't employ this basic usability guideline. Either the selection tool should employ JBender suggestion of not engaging any other object when the tool is active on a selected object, or add selection capability to the Move tool (perhaps via a keyboard command that temporarily allows selection while held down).

@Dieter: Ah! OK, I see it now. Thanks for that. I will play around and see what I get. @Wes: Is that possible? Can I change my roof face object to a simple 3D object and reshape it more completely that way? That is what made sense to me at first, but I couldn't figure out how to do it. I expect that once I make that change, I'll lose the roof face functionality of that object.

Christiaan: See what I mean about ArchiCAD? VW has got to get its user interface flaws worked out to be more intuitive first before it can really compete. Forum: I think talk of BIM software and interoperability is great, and steps in the right direction for getting architects, designers and engineers to be able to work together more easily. But, all of that goes out the window if the software tools we are using slow us down because we are spending more time in our day trying to come up with workarounds, or being frustrated because the software is not doing things in the way that we as creative minds naturally think. From my relatively objective position, the winner of the intuitive use challenge is ArchiCAD. The winner from the cost standpoint was VW. So, I ask NNA, do you want to be the good software or the one that people buy because they can't afford the good software at the moment? My attempt to communicate some of my first-use observations and ideas have been met with total silence. Makes me wonder if our efforts to help are even worth the price we pay to buy the software package. Not even a "Thanks for your thoughts". A bit unprofessional, I felt, from a company that has otherwise high marks in my playbook. But hey, I'm just a user. What do I know? BIM as a concept is a fabulous thing and at this point in practice for most of us just that: a developing concept. As designers and architects however, we have been thinking about BIM already in the sense that we must design building elements with data assigned to those elements, albeit in rudimentary forms, historically. So, if a software tool is meant to propel us all forward towards a workflow that not only incorporates BIM as a workflow concept but makes it easier and our projects more cost-effective, then that software needs to function in ways that are fluid and sensible. Its Achilles Heel shouldn't be its usability flaws. If you'll indulge me a moment...the problem I see with software developers is that they all see things from an engineering standpoint. Rightly so. I would expect a software engineer to be skilled in working well in his/her craft. Will this piece of code fit in with that piece of code? Can we do something a certain way without crashing the user's computer, or slowing things down to the point where the software purpose is defeated? These are important questions and certainly from an engineering standpoint, the primary questions. But an equally important question, IMHO, should be: how does our target user think about what they are using the software to do? In other words, how can we make our software speak to the user in their language rather than ours? For example, one of the things that made Photoshop so uniquely popular initially was that it did not force photographers and digital artists to rethink photography and art. It communicated in photographic terms, created a darkroom metaphor and duplicated photographic tools that were already in use in the real darkroom. In fact its original name was "Digital Darkroom". Other tools and functionality in the software came along out of necessity or desire, but always the core of the app spoke to artists in familiar ways. The software has expanded (I feel because of the universality of its tools and its ease of use), and is now in use by everyone from photographer to engineers, and includes collaborative workflows and server-side image management and CVS (via Bridge and Version Cue). This is the basis of a well-written application. It MUST communicate to the users in ways that the user is used to thinking about his/her craft and with familiar graphical and conceptual metaphors. And the software developers need to employ good usability engineers and interface designers and listen to the voices of their userbase to help eliminate irregularities in the usability. Another example is Apple. The best thing they did for computing was employ the Desktop Filing Structure?a paradigm we all take for granted today?the metaphor of a desktop, folders and files. These were concepts people were already familiar with. 30 years ago, almost overnight, the computer made sense and began its meteoric rise to common use. This need for an intuitive interface has never been more important than in Design, Art & Architecture applications. Users are generally right-brain centric, meaning that they think in visual and dynamic ways. They process information in what may not seem like logical ways, yet they come up with amazing solutions to challenges. Thought processes are generally global and as such, success is best achieved when there is a paradigm for a given set of functions that are similar (shape creation vs shape manipulation, for example). In the systems that we employ, things need to make sense from this global and artistic perspective. If they don't at first use, then the user is confused. The more situations like this a user experiences, the more detached and uncertain they will feel about their experience with the application. They will get frustrated more easily, and ultimately be unable to do their best work. Enough of this type of experience, and a user will start looking for a better software tool. So, what's the point of this diatribe, and how does it fit in with the original question, where are we with BIM in VW2009 today? Very simply, VW is not an intuitive piece of software to learn and use. This is an opinion that is shared by a great many users, and not just the noobs. Just because there are seasoned users doesn't meant the software is great. It just means that seasoned users have been a part of the development process and have knowledge of why things are the way they are in a software app. Take them away from it and put them in front of something that works better, more easily, and they will choose the better tool. Often they will say, 'Wow, that was easy...that takes so much work in my other software.'. Or (The Killer), they just get work done with less trouble, because the software supports their natural processes. So, for VW to truly be a BIM tool does not just mean employing a bunch of BIM-y concepts like group collaboration workflow, interoperability and standardized file systems like IFC. It also means being a tool that is written lean and presented intuitively, because that is what will make the tool usable to a greater audience in the industry.

Hmm. OK, I get what you mean about creating a double roof, and that certainly has me thinking about other things that I could be doing to this roof system. I see how you've placed your axes in different locations and that has resulted in different edge angles. I thought the axis placement was the point from which the roof elevations are determined. That is to say, the axis point (line) stays at the elevation where it's drawn relative to the Z of its design layer, and everything else moves accordingly (the high "up" and the low side "down"). Maybe I'm misunderstanding the use of the command, and I just need to play around with it some more. I guess I'm not quite following how the two different axes placements in your example creates the difference I'm seeking. Can you explain how your sandwich is a roof plane (as in, which way is the peak?) I need my acute fascia angle to be on the gable end rather than the eave end.

That's exactly the way I built them. I created 2D polygons first, then used the AEC> Roof Face command. I am not happy with the AEC > Create Roof command, as it failed to create the roof I wanted as easily.

To add to Peter's comment, be sure that your Wall Insertion Mode is turned on before setting the door into the wall (see image). If it is off, the door will not be placed in the wall, but next to the wall (or "on top of", in Plan view, which will become "inside of" in 3D views.). You can set this button beforehand, or while using the tool by tapping the "I" key on your keyboard. You will know when the door will place properly when the wall's edges highlight in red. HTH

I have a very simple roof system that I'm trying to get correct. Referring to the two images attached, the left roof's peak extends past the axis of its eave ends. When I created the roof plane, I got the resulting vertical sides (fascias). I'd like the fascias to angle inward, giving the roof a more "prow-like" appearance. I tried editing the roof plane using the 3D Reshape Tool, but I cannot seem to get at the "thickness" of the shape and move the lower vertex inward. The help files and manual are, of course, no help. I know this is possible. Ideas? Thanks!

Jeff, I would love to see what you're talking about with "Big BIM", i.e.: interoperability. What direction VW would like to go with that. To be able to dynamically collaborate with colleagues would be a welcome feature, especially in my situation, where my engineer is using VW. It seems to me as though the trend is going there in other software industries. Open source, plug-in modular programming, etc. Not just that, but the ability to transfer data cleanly, be that via IFC or even Acad's DWG's, although because its text-based, IFC seems to be a better choice. There certainly seems to be an aspect of modularity on VW's programming. But to include a simple CVS and networking interoperability would be wonderful. PS: sent you the list, BTW. Did you get it?

Thanks, Jeff. I do appreciate that VW is a modeling program, and if I sounded ArchiCAD-centric, it's only because my approach to VW so far has come from my discipline, which is architecture. So, naturally my comments are going to come from that standpoint. I completely understand that VW has many capabilities, and that is exactly why I feel it is even more important that it be intuitive to use. I will reserve my more detailed thoughts on this for off-forum communication. Despite what I may have alluded in my post, I will stress here that I am impressed with what VW can do for the price. All these capabilities certainly cost much more in comparable apps (such as ArchiCAD, for example, which weighs in at over twice the price of VW). It's definitely a good app and 2009 has me excited about the possibilities. I do feel that is an important distinction that needs to be reiterated when comparing it to others (such as ArchiCAD, an architecture-centric app that is much older). I also want to make a stand for VW's support. I have had nothing but excellent service from the staff at NNA. I purchased my 2009 upgrade from the same fellow who gave me excellent help when I was first approaching the software back in February of 2008. He contacted me about the new version, and has always been patient and helpful. When I was uncertain about it, he included all the training DVD's in the deal (a reasonable incentive!), and those were immensely helpful in getting me up to speed on the software. I can also say that about the Tech Support (I called repeatedly about the Sketch Preview bug in 2008, which is fixed in 2009). Of course, this forum's irreplaceable value speaks for itself. Nick, I am happy to provide the name of the sales rep I was working with. I'm sure he would be pleased to know that his service was appreciated enough to be tapped as a reference.

Hadn't turned on Stack Layers (but I have been looking for this super-helpful function for a while. Thanks!). It's definitely a layer Z thing. I had set the floor object Bottom Z based upon the global Z of the building (which made sense at the time). The whole process seems slightly confusing. It could (should?) be simpler, but I have to think about that for a bit. I started a blank file, ran the Model setup command and looked at he later structure of that. Seems like I was doing it backwards by including the Floor Object layers (Slab) in the overall dimensional Z of the Design layers for the actual floor plan. I think I got it figured now. Thanks for the help!

OK: AEC > Floor... > Create Floor. Two values. Bottom Z and Thickness. Makes sense. I make floor, setting the "Bottom" (presumably of the Floor object...right?) to -11.375", because that would be the bottom of the floor object. With a thickness of 11.5", that would put the TOP of the floor object at altitude 0 (the T.F.F. of my first floor). But when I click OK, my the TOP of my floor object is 11.5" below altitude 0. So I had to go back and set the Bottom Z to 0", leaving the Thickness untouched. This seems pretty illogical. Backwards, really. But I want to make sure I'm seeing this correctly. Anyone?

Before I committed to Vectorworks, I primarily considered it and one other app: ArchiCAD. I am a devoted Mac user (although I do suffer through using Windows when I have to), and I wanted an app that preferably was designed as a Mac application from or near the beginning of its life cycle. Both of these fit that bill. I also considered price as well as how the app appeared to be set to scale itself in an industry that is quite dynamic, considering the baby shoes that BIM software finds itself in at the moment. ArchiCAD is quite powerful, and I have several architect friends who use it and are quite pleased with it. I have a fully-operational evaluation copy of version 12, as well as a full group of training files, which are very comprehensive (more so than VW's training files. Sorry, NNA, truth is truth), all free. Vectorworks is also quite powerful, and capable of excellent results, once the time is taken to learn the software and the ways to get the desired results. Ultimately I selected VW back in early 2008 because of the price and what it can do for that price. As has been indicated plenty of times in this forum, by myself and others, VW has plenty of bugs and idiosyncrasies. I feel these are related primarily to its interface and operability being designed by what seems like engineers, rather than by interface designers. ArchiCAD's interface and functionality is more...well, architect-like in that it seems geared towards creating buildings and the documents that go along with that process. It seems centered around virtual buildings and many of the more standard aspects of construction drawings are either done automatically (with options to alter, of course). With VW, you must know what and where and how and why and when, and where to input that data (often in several locations before the settings will truly apply) and even then, those aspects can be somewhat confusing. That said, once one understands this, the software can do quite a lot. VW makes no assumptions about what you're trying to build, whereas ArchiCAD does (and many times, rightly so). So, in truth, had I felt as though I had a bit more money to spend at the time, I probably would have gone with ArchiCAD. But that said, I do like the improvements in Vectorworks 2009. It feels more stable to me, and I have learned how to make it do what I want it to, even though the process feels somewhat like trying to convince an impetuous kid to just be cool and take fewer prisoners. This forum has been an incredible help to me in my learning process. If you have not yet purchased, I echo Bill's suggestion and highly recommend that you download evaluation copies of any app you're considering, as well as training files. Go through the tutorials, and then dream up a small project and try to build it using each app. Which one feels easier to use? Which one seems the most invisible? Intuitive? Which one does what you need it to without making you tear your hair out? Remember that you may consider cost now, but a bad application will cost you more in lost time than a well-designed slightly more expensive one. Consider also that if you learn to enjoy the process BECAUSE of the software, your one or two a year projects could grow to more. Decide which will fit your needs and budget best. ArchiCAD is over twice the cost of VW, and that is something to consider if you cannot recapture that cost because of limited professional use. I would also suggest reading as many of the posts in this forum, as well as log on to support forums of the other apps you're considering and get a sense of what things users find most useful or troubling about the apps. That's where the rubber really hits the road. You cannot argue with actual user experience. My two cents. HIH.

Hmm, will there ever really be a monoCADism? That'd be nice. I definitely hear what you you're saying Petri about the tools in VW. Some drive me bonkers. I did use ArchiCAD briefly for a bit, and it was interesting. At least the tools seemed intuitive. I will say this: in an attempt to build a BIM software that enhances workflow, NNA has certainly confounded me from time to time. I have a running list now of stuff that I feel is totally backwards, from a GUI and usability standpoint. I don't want to take this thread too far off-topic, but that's the real key, it seems. The tools we use to do our work should essentially be as invisible as possible, I think. That's a tie-in to the interoperability point as well. Adobe did a great thing with PostScript and its incorporation into the PDF format. We have DWG and DXF, but really, how interchangeable is it? Our industry could learn a lot from the Open Source geekdom. We are on a very exciting jumpoff position with BIM right now, and I'd love to see it taken further, but also done sensibly. Why Microsoft-ify our work, cluttering it up with confusion? Certainly, Christiaan, I can see how projects of the type you are doing have their own set of complications without the software being confusing. CADism. I just want to draw...

Absolutely! Thanks for the suggestions, guys. I'll experiment and see what works best.

BIMserver? Hmmm...THAT looks interesting!

I need to set a window in a stairwell. The sill is just below (about 14") the top of Floor 1 and the head is well into the middle of Floor 2. When I place the window and set the proper size and altitudes, the result is that the second floor wall renders straight through the window. How can I avoid this? Must I manually edit that particular second floor wall section and cut out a hole for the bit of window that intersects it? Am I missing a method that might be simpler? Thanks!

He uses AutoCAD primarily, but recently bought a seat of VW for his office, because he was trying to "keep things moving". It's an interesting story, actually. He's a young-at-heart visionary trapped in an old-school engineer's body. It's a perfect combination, really. Anyway, he was fooling around on the Internet one day quite a while ago, discovered Sketchup and downloaded a copy, thinking it'd be a cool thing for his son to play with. That evening after supper, his boy was drawing away with it, and he comes in to have a look. He says he sat down, saw what his son had done in an hour or so and immediately went back to his computer, loaded Sketchup and apparently didn't get to sleep until about 2.30 in the morning! But that got him basically seeded into the concept of 3D building design as, being an AutoCAD-using engineer, he'd always thought about drawings in 2D and only dreamed and imagined in 3D, never having the opportunity to see what happened until whatever was built. He'd heard about VW after using ArchiCAD, but he liked VW a bit better, and the cost was more reasonable for him at the time. That's got his office on a better track to BIM, and we are as well, so in a way, we're learning BIM implementation from each other. So now I just give him my VW files by posting them to an FTP server I have and we both have a copy of Dreamweaver (web design software), which has a rudimentary CVS (software design version control) system built into the FTP module, so we post the files with that and with the telephone or email, we manage to control changes to the most recent version. I'd actually like to set up a VPN/MAN with his office, so we can share a server and incorporate a real CVS system so we can eliminate the FTP thing. Later...later... Liability is actually something we've discussed at great length. We have an agreement that structural elements are his responsibility, and we both prefer it that way. Fortunately, I do have a good sense of structural design as it is, and I always defer to him for anything I don't understand or feel is outside of my ability. But if I read you correctly, I think you're referring to liability with changing the file. We use our hacked little CVS system to avoid those troubles. None of our methods are by any means elegant. But they're simple, using tools we already had on our machines, and it's working without any major glitches. I'm constantly amazed at how far we've come with networking and computing, and how truly simple things can be. Where there's a will, there's a way, right? Classing is another thing entirely. He uses ISO, and I've been simply using the Arch system that is the default in VW. While that is easy to read, I actually prefer the ISO classing system. I've already set up my accounting to use the CSI Masterformat, and we've been implementing that in our project binders also since the start of the year. It's a change that isn't without some grumbling, but we feel it's more universal. In a perfect world, we'd get this country to start using the metric system too, but that's a whole other argument, and a whole army that will tell me to go jump off a metric cliff! ;-) How about you? Do you employ similar systems?