mr. iagea

Perfect. Thanks, Mike!

David, this is closer to what I am suspecting the trouble may be. The file is a new file, originated in VW2008, was converted (successfully) and then continued. It is also the first complete project that I've had a chance to do entirely in VW since my learning the program. I am by no means totally fluent, and any review of my past postings will easily illustrate my frustration with several aspects of this app. I'm sure there is plenty of stuff in this file that may be contributing to the trouble, simply because I perhaps have not deleted...um..."learning objects" ;-). Anyway, there have been various changes, but nothing that I considered outside of the realm of what the software is able to do easily. I discovered that a new test file, built with a simple Doors class and Stairs class (.05 pen, white fill) exactly as my problem file, was able to render new doors as expected (with the proper container class attributes), as were the stairs. So, the trouble is clearly with the file itself, and that's the baffling bit. I've since run the "Purge Unused Objects" command, and deleted some symbol resources, as well as looked at the door schedule, and other resources to pare the file down to what is actually needed. That seems to have fixed the trouble?I can now place new doors and they render as expected with the attributes of the Doors class (again, .05 pen, white fill, no extra parts classes assigned). At this point, I think I'm okay, after a very frustrating and confusing door storm arrival on my little boat, but I think we're sailing in clear weather again now. Thanks again everyone for their input, especially Mike for the offer to take a look at the file. Much appreciated!

I know this is in here somewhere, but when I try to actually find a topic, I always get 80 pages of returns. So, how do I locate an object that has a particular class assigned. Say I have a mystery class, and I simply want to search my document for objects that have that class, and then have VW show them to me. Can VW do this? Thanks!

No, as I've said three times already, the doors all have the same container class ("Doors"), and the class has a fill of white. Wow. Seriously, this IS happening. I really have better things to do with my time than make stuff up to post on user forums. I very much appreciate the attempts to help, but really, I don't know how to be any more clear than I already have. This is totally strange behavior, and the software hasn't done this before, and I haven't done anything different. I literally added a door (that came in fine) and then added another, which drew "bad" and I was unable to alter it. The next 10 doors all rendered the same (as the bad one). The file is 5 MB, so I can't really upload that. Anyway, I played around some more (because I apparently have all this extra time to screw around with this unstable software instead of finishing the drawing for my client), and discovered that if I selected ALL the doors in the whole place (the OIP indicated 20 door objects, all with the Doors class), gave them ALL the "None" class, then gave them all the Doors class again, they rendered correctly, except for one, which I had to repeat that procedure to get that one to fill right. Now the stairs aren't rendering properly. Whatever grounds VW made lately in regard to being stable, it just lost.

I'd love to tell you that the info provided here is the solution for my file, but it's not working that way, and I have never had to set those parts classes beforehand up to this point. As Alisha (in the Video Tech Tip #9, see link below) points out at roughly 0:42 of the video, when the door is originally placed, the entire door renders with the attributes of the class it is originally assigned to. This is consistent with the way my doors have been being placed up until yesterday morning. They all have a "Door" class assigned to them, which has a simple white fill, exactly as the tech tip suggested. There are no other discrepancies. Let me say this a third time: THE DOORS ON BOTH LAYERS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME IN EVERY WAY. Look at the file "Door-3.png". That's a brand new file, with just a door added to a wall. I created a "Door" class that has a simple white fill, nothing else and assigned the class to that door. It renders as expected, and as all the other doors in my previously dubbed "good" layer. In the "Parts" tab, were I to set the leaf to "Custom" and select a leaf style, that would duplicate EXACTLY the condition of the door in my earlier file "Door-1.png". Now, have a look at file "Door-4.png". That's my original working file, after taking the suggestion to individually assign a class to each door part. I created a class with a delightful chartreuse color (a developing trend in doors...you just wait! ;-)) and assigned that to every part using the "View" tab of the Door Prefs. Note here that the leaf is still transparent (even though it is set to "Solid" in the "Parts" tab of the Door Prefs), has the "Door" class assigned to it, with the "Door" class having a white fill. This contradicts what was specifically indicated in the Video Tech Tip, as well as about 20 other doors that were created in this file. I get the concept of setting classes to the discrete parts. No trouble. The point here is that, in typical VW fashion, the behavior is INCONSISTENT. Why would it work fine (as in Door-1" and "Door-3") and then stop working as it was, and start producing doors that render as in "Door-2", and literally by doing nothing more than adding another door? Makes no sense. To compound matters, I now discover this evening that I can add a new door, and it renders fine (as expected), but I cannot change the "bad" doors. Now, if someone can tell me how this is consistent software behavior, I'm all ears. Video Tech tip #9: http://download2.nemetschek.net/TechTips/Window_and_Door_Render_Settings/Window_and_Door_Render_Settings.html

the "good" door retains its goodness when place on the "bad" layer and vice versa (bad stays bad on good layer).

It would be nice to have the 3D Wall Reshape tool accessible from the toolbox, in the same way that the 3D Reshape tool is available now. Perhaps the 3D wall Reshape can be set as a sub-tool of the 3D Reshape tool.

Is it the same? It is certainly doing the same "type" of thing but I don't think it's the same tool. Perhaps Jeff can weigh in on this. This tool only works in views other than Top/Plan. In all views, when I have selected the wall I want to edit, then select 3D Reshape, I do not get the functionality I want (to alter the actual shape of the wall on the Z-axis). I tried that unsuccessfully, hence my posting to begin with. The only way to get to this tool is to switch to a 3D view (anything other than Top/Plan), then double click on the wall. I can add/remove/move wall peaks in a way that is certainly similar to the 3D Reshape tool, which remains unselected in my toolbox.

Yes, one shared model. For example, when I initially developed the relationship with the engineer I use regularly now, we immediately were able to discuss projects using the same model. I was able to send him all my data, which he incorporated and was able to use immediately. What used to take a couple of weeks for the engineer to study all the drawings and get a real understanding of the building, we were able to do together in a few days. My comment had more to do with the levels of mid-management inherent in larger contractor firms, and to a degree the desire for individuals to nurse their individual relationships. Larger firms generally have systems, preferred suppliers and supply contracts already in place that, in my experience, tend to govern the choices they make in the build process, which ultimately ends up affecting the design process, as well. Perhaps echoing panta's comment a bit, if I, as an informed architect with build experience under my belt, can identify design solutions that have additional cost benefits, then I'd prefer to implement them, rather than altering my design to accommodate the "Costco" model of only designing around what is in a contractor's existent inventory or supply chain. This ultimately can save money for my client, or allows us to design with higher-quality materials or even a "bigger/better" design, if that's what's called for. Notwithstanding the economic benefits of supplier relationships and using those when appropriate, I'd rather see the building and design possibilities define the choices, rather than the other way round. Ultimately, I see BIM as a crucial aspect of addressing this all-to-familiar challenge in design & build (or AEC as an an industry, for that matter). If we're all working from the same model, with the same idea in mind, then hopefully all the related disciplines can be addressing the same challenges together, rather than each working on their own and spending more money on overlapping concerns.

all classes are on and visible. there are no special styles attached. all doors are exactly alike. tried trashing the prefs, restarting, etc. no difference. even the doors with solid leaf panels are transparent.

Okay, so I've got some weird door behavior in the beginning stage of a new drawing. On one layer, I've got some doors, all with a class "Doors". They show up great, all nice and perfect (see "Door-1.png"). On another layer, my doors are all showing up unfilled and just as lines (see Door-2.png). Both layers' doors are EXACTLY the same, same class, same visibility, everything. What gives? THIS is the inconsistent behavior that steams me about VW. Everything else is just peachy. Any ideas?

I just found it...double-clicking on the wall (in any view other than top/plan or top) automatically accesses the 3D Wall Reshape Tool, a different tool than the 3D Reshape (which didn't work). This allows one to add "wall peaks". Perfect! ...still need to find out about my weird door jambs. trim is transparent, too (see drawing).

I need to build a pantry that extends under a stair in this project. When built, the top of the wall will meet the bottom of the stair horses. How do I edit the a wall so that it follows the rise of the stair? Is it possible to maintain the wall properties? Also, something else I noticed, anyone know why the jambs of my doors (and some panels) are transparent? I've checked the class, and everything seems right. Even when I change the class to something else, it doesn't work...hmmm. Ideas? Does it have to do with the door being a part of the wall? I cannot find, in the door PIO, where (if?) to change the class of the individual parts. I know I had to fix this once...I just can't recall how...grr, Thanks!

Yes, savings are good. We're seeing similar cost reductions with our so-far limited implementation of BIM concepts. Certainly our use of VW, which I just now feel I am much more fluent (bowing respectfully to the learning hill climbed so far) has improved our ability to design carefully, with fewer errors due to "in-the-field generated solutions" ;-). Finally buying a plotter reduced our costs even more. That conference looks to have been interesting?some seminars I should have enjoyed participating. I wonder, how much LEED and "green build" talk was bandied about the halls and coffeetalk between seminars? It seems here that those concepts are exciting, go hand-in-hand with BIM implementation, but taking a while for larger contractors to implement. Smaller firms like ours can do it more easily?our clients certainly re amenable to it. I just wonder how larger entities are following suit.

Mike: pear-shaped. LOL! Jeff: Thanks! I guess I do have a moment now and then...

If you already know any of this stuff, I apologize for reminding you. But then, I ask, if you are doing ALL of this stuff, why are you crashing? In my experience (which includes three years as the network and support guy for a design firm), most computers crash for two reason only: 1. When there are resource conflicts such as missing, corrupted or relocated file data; 2. A lack of adequate clean RAM. Having plenty of memory is important. I'm sure there are others, but these are the two most popular, in my experience. If you are working on OS X, you probably know that you are working in a Unix environment. While the improvements to the OS due to multi-threading and protected memory are terrific, there is nothing in the automatic process of a Unix environment that clears out old cache files, RAM mappings and so on, unless you implement the daily, weekly and monthly maintenance scripts that are built in to the OS. These scripts are accordingly and automatically run every time you restart the machine. Also, Macs are very particular about font technology, as well they should be. Just take a look at the mess that Windows users deal with. Fonts are built using vector (bezier) math. If font files are corrupted (bad math, incomplete/incorrect glyph maps, etc), then you can run along just fine for a long time and then have a "mysterious" crash because an application is trying to access a corrupted face, glyph or hint in the font family. This is exacerbated when you have a LAN, because unless you use a centralized font server (which can create its own set of troubles), each user is accessing a local version of a font face that may be called for in a file. With the myriad TrueType fonts out there, there are bound to be conflicts. Here are my suggestions to you to help ferret out and reduce/avoid crashes: 1. Restart your machine on a regular basis. Use tools such as OnyX to automate maintenance routines and clean out corrupted data caches. I restart my machine automatically every night, using the routines in OnyX. My machine works great, every day. To be quite honest, I cannot remember the last time I had a crash (he said, knocking on wood and winking at the OnyX icon). 2. Get a font analysis software application and use it to manage and repair corrupted fonts. Linotype has a free font management app called FontExplorer X, and it's the best free utility I've seen for helping fix and manage font files. If you share your files with a design team and/or colleagues, be sure to give them the font file(s) that YOU used to build the file. This is a standard practice in the printing industry for a good reason. Just because we're not printers doesn't make the source problem disappear. 3. Have adequate RAM for the files you are working on. I mean a lot. I think a minimum of 4GB is required for VW to work relatively smoothly. More is better. 4. Keep your activities to a minimum while working on complex files. Vectorworks is complex software. Shut down apps you're not using. If you have a monster building file in VW, and are running iTunes, a web browser, Photoshop, Acrobat and Illustrator all at the same time, then you're asking your RAM resources to do a lot of bit-shuffling. Eventually, a byte or two is going to get mis-directed with all that going on. 5. Consider your hard drive. Is it near full? Keep in mind that each software app carves out a virtual memory (VM, or swap) file from your hard drive to store recently used functions. This usually doesn't show up on the drive's Get Info palette (you can determine how much is being used by simultaneously running Activity Monitor, which lives in [your hard drive] > Applications > Utilities). If you have limited RAM, the situation becomes compounded, as the drive is working constantly to move data in and out of the swap files not just for normal use, but also because the system is carving out another swap chunk just to keep its own resources going. If your drive is close to full, then you WILL have crashes that do not have an immediately obvious reason. Crashes in this scenario are not an "if", they are a "when". Is the drive fast enough? If it's a 5400 RPM drive, consider looking at a faster drive (7200-10Krpm). 6. Backup. Save your work. Backup. Backup. Did I mention saving and backing up? I save my file after every operation that I feel is critical, and before any operation I feel might be risky. At this point, it's habit, and it's served me way better than some other habits I have. I use backup software religiously. The first time I lost data to a dead hard drive, I was horrified. I lost some good work, some photos and other important data, both professional and sentimental. Years later, another drive died, but I had a backup of the whole thing, and lost only about an hour of work on the most recent file. I have never since considered not using a daily (or hourly) backup scheme. Thank you, Apple, for finally including Time Machine in the OS. I have not had a single crash using VW2009. Not one. Bugs and weird tool "features" notwithstanding, it does what I need it to do, and quite well for the price, I have determined. I back up my work. I save my file a lot. I use the "save multiple backups" feature in the preferences. I implement religiously all the methods I just outlined, and I'm happy to say that I have fewer problems with my machine(s) than many people about which I hear. I can only attribute it to my methodology, because I'm no better or worse than anyone else. In short, I try to work smartly, remembering that I'm using a computer and computers crash. But, if I take the time to learn WHY computers crash, I can minimize those experiences and protect my valuable work (and time). Hope This Helps.

Good question. I've always thought BIM was an inevitability. Not to pretend I have second sight or something, but it always seemed to me, a couple decades or so ago when I started in this business, that what we now call BIM is and should be what/how we design anyway. Or at the very least, it was the way that I looked at buildings as I was creating them (I came to architecture from the construction side, as a carpenter in my younger days). Buildings are systems, I've always thought. Not unlike the amalgam of chemicals that is a human body. Everything depends upon everything else to function correctly. It's never just four walls, a roof and some strong feet. Because of this inexorable systemic nature of buildings, why shouldn't we be thinking that way in our drawing? Always three dimensional and always as a system, a collection of parts not only as discrete and individual objects but as they work with each other, serving and benefiting the very existence of the structure. I think the direction we're going is exciting. Not only has BIM software increased my capability as an architect, it has broadened my understanding of how buildings are shaped and can be constructed. I've always thought that an interesting add-in to BIM software would be some way of actualising loads?being able to assign actual load values to the objects we are creating. Something measurable. Maybe I'm being fantastical here, but perhaps even having beam objects respond visually (deflect, shear, etc) when loads are placed upon them. Ultimately I question whether the concept of BIM is getting spread throughout the industry enough. While the "movers" of the technology can certainly think up systems and workflows that make sense, and further, come up with interesting new ways of thinking about information architecture as a component of BIM, implementing them in the field is always the challenge. That is certainly an area that I am watching with interest. I work closely with the build team of my company and often get my lead carpenters to participate in the drawing process. This has helped them all immensely in understanding the projects we are working on. With the BIM software "ice" broken, the possibilities seems endless to me. And that's very exciting.

ah, that works. I wasn't L-joining the exterior wall first, because it was already joined...in that, it was already a continuous wall. thanks for your help, Chad!

If you are using a Mac and have OS 10.5.x, it is possible to mount the laptop's DVD drive (with the Vectorworks install DVD in it, of course) as an external drive on your desktop machine.

Whenever I bring an interior wall to a wall that is styled as an exterior wall, and this join needs to happen on a corner, I cannot join the walls properly. Wall joins don't work. Fix wall breaks doesn't work. Anyone have this issue? Fix? (see attached images) Thanks!

Excellent comments, both. You both concur with what I (we?) learned in school way back. I particularly like Edward's point on roofs?they certainly do seem to be an afterthought in so many stock designs we see getting built these days, and it's a shame, IMHO. Anyone else? Keep in mind I'm not looking for a design lesson here, just an interesting topic to discuss.

Okay, so this may seem rudimentary and possibly not even the right place to pose it (apologies in advance), but it seems to gather great heated debates amongst my colleagues from conferences to tabletalk. Roof down or foundation up? Structurally, one might argue that foundation up is best. Aesthetically, another might argue that elevations and floor plans are critical first, thereby determining rooflines, hence roof down (which ultimately decides load paths and future foundation design decisions). I won't posit my opinion now more than to say that I personally feel that each project is unique and deserves a separate approach. Of course, we all design based on the needs of the structure, the desires of our clients and our own aesthetic, but after all the bubble diagrams and talk of where things should be, how do we start to build our designs, and how are we all the same or different? How do you design and why?

that project definitely looks interesting. ps: windows-dominated geekfest. LOL!

Perfect explanation, Pat. Thanks!

Ha ha! Instructions on McMansions are pretty useless even here! IMHO, of course. Permanent? Oh, alright, I freely admit that all questions I have ever had and will ever have are, more than likely, total apparitions. I will, upon future gossamer VW roadblocks, log in to the forums, place my forehead against the screen, breathe and recite the Panchakshara in Base-16 meter until the answer emanates 108 times somewhere in the studio. ...and the problem fixes itself.