mr. iagea

I'm in need of RenderWorks 2008, as I have Architect 2008. Now NNA has released 2009 and so the previous version is not available anymore. Anyone upgraded to 2009 and would like to sell their copy of 2008? I don't even know if it works that way. I just need 2008, as i"m not going to upgrade to 2009 anytime soon. Any help/advice on this greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Thanks for all the comments so far, and the helpful info from Pat. I actually knew about the Flip button in the OIP, and use it often for doors. I just didn't realize that the window had been placed in the wall backwards. It's easy to tell with doors, simply because of the door swing symbol. Less so with the window, and I was unaware that wall direction has an effect on which side is considered "Outside". It seems to me to be intuitive that when placing a window in a wall, it would by default be placed with exterior facing out and the interior facing in, especially when the wall is styled as an exterior wall. Call me crazy... The trouble that I seem to run into a lot with Vectorworks is that clear explanations of how and why tools work are missing from the manuals. IMHO, that's what manuals are for; to explain how the software works, especially the more esoteric functions that are employed commonly by users regardless of their discipline. Yes, perhaps it is a training issue, to a degree. There are few DECENT training manuals available (Jonathon, please resist here the urge to plug yourself! ;-). You do fine work.). I've been using complex software for a long time (Photoshop since Digital Darkroom days), and I have been teaching drawing classes (Freehand and Illustrator) at a local university for 10 years now, so I'm not a newcomer to software or the learning process. I get software very easily, if it is made well (as in, the interface is intuitive). I have never had as much difficulty gaining fluidity with an application as I have with Vectorworks. I see the same issues in these forums a lot?users being flummoxed by interpretive difficulty with this software. In my educated opinion, that is NOT user error, nor should it be the onus of users to reformat their learning processes to accommodate an idiosyncratic application. Pioneering interface designers that helped put Apple Computer on the map have long-ago proved that theory. The bugs I can deal with. All software has bugs. It the counter-intuitiveness that makes this software more difficult to get comfortable with, and that is what drives my eyeballs to fuming spirals when I just want to get my work done, and I find myself wasting time tracking down some solution to a problem that from an intuitive software standpoint, training aside, should never have happened at all. So, pardon my early rant, but I do rather feel in good enough company in these forums. The problem is solved now. Thanks again, Pat for your explanation of wall direction. That is the kind of useful information for which I participate in these forums.

yes, it is interesting, isn't it? do you have any helpful comments about the window OIP and trim irregularities?

Say, this is neat: I decided to try out adding trim on a window using the "Interior Trim" and "Exterior Trim" in the OIP. I wanted to see how the exterior trim was going to come up against a very close wall in a remodel drawing I'm doing. So, with my window selected in a normal wall, I click the "Exterior Trim". In the selection highlight, I see something get added, but it doesn't show up where I expect it (around the outside of the window, like exterior trim is supposed to). After fiddling around for a bit, which included clicking the "Interior Trim" checkbox, I discovered that clicking the "Interior Trim" makes the exterior trim appear on the selected window. And clicking the "Exterior Trim" checkbox makes the interior trim appear. Incredulous that such a simple malfunction (that ended up costing me about 30 minutes of my time) was actually programmed into the software , I decided to see if it was my file (because of course, whenever there's a problem with the software, it's all my fault, according to the support feedback). Sure enough, in a fresh new file, after restarting my machine, and all that, I was able to duplicate the problem. Repeatedly. So, in Vectorspeak, "Interior" means "Exterior" and "Exterior" means "Interior". c POST UPDATED: I stand corrected. Apparently, the window in question was placed in the wall backwards (how that happened is beyond me, as there was no indication that that happened, and no way that I could see to fix it). My bad. I fixed it. Still, it was a frustrating problem that seems to occur often in this software. Mini-GRRR!

I have had some frustrating problems with the Model Setup command. Such as, once you run it, you can't undo it, or change slab layers, or remove Roof and Foundation. Grrr! I have resorted to just creating my own layers and viewports. It seems to be more editable in the long run. Yes, this takes a bit more time, and it was easier with the Model Setup command, but the command has wasted too much of my time already trying to edit the commands' "doings" and spending more time reading the manuals and trying to find answers than actually doing my work (at least today). Grrr X2! Does anyone else use the Model Setup command, and if so, have you had similar troubles? Is there any reason why I should use it, considering it's frustrating un-editability? Anyone want to weigh on on the pros and cons of the command? I'd like some feedback. Thanks! Charlie

Even more helpful. Thanks a lot! I'm just getting used to the resource browser. I can see how it will ultimately improve workflow.

Hi. Thanks for the information. That's helpful. Thanks also for the "going postal" and "reality check" insults. Those are ESPECIALLY helpful to a newcomer to the software.

Yes, let me clarify. The door tool does now work according to "stickyness", and now that I have found that information (a day and some hours of frustrating work later), I understand how it works and have remedied the situation. My point was that NOWHERE in the documentation is it indicated that tools would possess this stickiness, nor how to edit that preference (or create a good default to begin with). THAT'S my frustration. I see that this software is powerful and, once mastered, can be made to produce some quality work, and I am learning it. However, I stand by my previous comment: Complex software should be made to be intuitive, and in the inevitable situations where confusing, complex or ostensibly difficult operations and procedures are in place or will be encountered, clear and complete instructions should be offered in the accompanying documentation. I find VW and NNA to be severely lacking in this critical aspect of software development.

okay, this is driving me batty! Is there a way to turn off the previous view memory of the tools? It seems as though if I am using either the selection tool or the hand tool, and I switch to 3D (anything but Top/Plan), and then look around and then go back to top/plan, when I switch back to either of the two tools, I'm back in 3D view again. I have to toggle back and forth between the tools, and switch back manually to top/plan IN EACH TOOL just to be able to get back to a plan view. If this is the default, then it's the most frustrating tool default I've ever seen (se my post about software usage). I fail to see the point of having timeline-based interactivity married to a selection tool. Or is this a bug in the ostensibly improved SP3. I cannot recall this happening in SP2. I just want to be able to switch temporarily to an elevation view (in my Mod-XXX layers) so I can see how things are fitting together, and then go back to my plan and continue drawing. This seems like a totally RUDIMENTARY function. Any ideas? how do I turn this off? Thanks! charlie

As a relative newcomer to VW, let me say that I have had a fair amount of frustration with this software. Not only is it unintuitive, but there are software practices that are simply ignored (I have been teaching Adobe and Macromedia products for 12 years, so I understand software and the learning process). What things suck? The stair PIO. Doors and windows could be implemented better. The necessity to save views and actions, like a web browser. I have been caught numerous times switching (back) to a tool only to discover that the last time I used it, I was in Isometric view, and that's not what I want. That's simply idiotic, IMHO. It's a drawing tool, not a web browser or an animation tool. I fail to see the need for timeline-based interactivity with the drawing/selection/usability tools in a BIM-like software. Emphasis on "I fail to see". If anyone can prove to me the value of marrying a screen view to a tool as basic as the hand tool or the selection tool, I'm all ears. It drives me nuts. I'm very much in favor of saving views, but I don't think they should be "attached" to a tool (so that when you switch to a certain tool, you go back to a 3D or 2D view, depending on what you were doing the last time you used the tool. This is the way my VW is working...if there's a workaround, somebody please help!). And these are the little things that can sour the favor of a piece of software. More than anything, I think NNA has dropped the ball on proper instruction and good manuals. I get frustrated when I'm in the throes of trying to get a drawing done, and come up on something that I don't understand or isn't working the way I think it should or could, and then absolutely no reference ANYWHERE in the documentation explaining what it is and why/how I use it. I'm teachable, but the info has to be there, and it's not. Want a rounded wall? Good luck finding info in the documentation about how to properly use that feature. An example: recently I was placing simple doors in a building. I did not want to yet go through the process of defining doors because I was merely sketching. Somehow the Door Tool was, by default, placing doors with sidelights. I just wanted simple swing doors, nothing fancy. Placeholders, really. But, with every door I placed, I had to go in and individually edit the door to remove the sidelights. I don't think it's too much to expect that the Door Tool, with its little blue door icon (sans sidelights, mind you) would place a basic swing door. So, naturally I searched the documentation to find where I could edit the default preferences for doors using the Door Tool. Couldn't find it. Placed more doors, got frustrated, wasted probably about an hour and a half screwing around with the doors before I posted to this board and got an answer (sort of) the following day. That cost me time, broke my flow of drawing and design, and it is so basic that it should be in the documentation. I left the session that afternoon feeling as though the software had failed me. I was uneasy about my design and the work I had done. Granted, that's my problem, and I'll work it out on the couch later with my analyst, but the point is, it's the little things that make or break one's impression about software. Software should become somewhat invisible in the design process. Good software is intuitive from the moment the new user launches it. Tools should work in the way that we expect them to work, and I'm talking about basic expectations, not unrealistic ones. Good software makes us feel as though it "knows" what we want to do next after a certain operation, and the tools are available and function in that way. A simple interaction like this can make us say "Cool" and opens up the mind. Frustrating software makes us say "#%*!...WTF?!!" and we feel stymied and our productivity suffers. Look at Photoshop, for example. I've seen total Luddites in my classes launch that software and be working away creating great stuff in a very short time with very little instruction or guidance. Sure, it may not be as complex as BIM software, but that's not the point. The more complex a piece of software is, the more emphasis should be placed upon its interaction and ease of use. One cannot dream and draw and design when one is in a state of frustration because the software has just cost an hour of time searching for an answer that should be addressed in the documentation. Now, it's easy to rant on frustrations, but I have found that the software does do stuff pretty well, albeit in a totally non-designer/architect manner. Clearly these guys never sat down to draw, or if they did, all that was tossed out the window. But, I am getting it slowly. It takes a long time, and because of the already-discovered problems, I approach my drawing in this software with trepidation. I'm afraid of developing a workflow only to discover much later that I get tripped up by yet another oversight in the software. This software needs a redesign and a rethinking, from an architectural point of view, not a programmer's point of view, and that opinion has been voiced by many in these forums. It would be valuable to see exactly what things users really like, and what things are useless, frustrating or counter-productive. It would be valuable to have that in one place, and then have that info provided to the developers, or better yet; to us users as a primer on how to navigate the more frustrating canyons (anyone want to tackle that?). It would also be fascinating to see pigs fly. But I'm not counting on it. charlie

Jeff: Good info. Thanks. Okay, so slab layer is a layer to contain floor objects. Good enough. So, how is a floor object defined (goes back to my original question)? I'm interested in dimensional characteristics (I sort of already assumed that slab layer referred to floor objects). Say I run the Model Setup Command. I want a building with two floors and a simple foundation and roof. I get 6 layers after running the command. Foundation, Roof, Floor 1, Floor 2, Slab 1 and Slab 2. What then am I drawing on the slab layers? Floor framing? OK, I can see that. No problem. Back to my original still-unanswered question: where is the slab layer measured from and to? Is it bottom of joist to TOFF (in the first floor)? In the case of the second floor, is it then bottom of drywall on the ceiling of Floor 1 to TOFF on Floor 2? Clearly there are differences, since most of us don't drywall the crawlspace "ceiling". Are those differences edited using the Z and Delta? It might seem pedantic, but I want to know what VW includes dimensionally in the slab layer. This seems like a very rudimentary concept and I have not found the answer in ANY of the VW literature I have (which includes all the training CD's). I think the answer to this will directly address Markus' question, or at least help get closer to a clear solution. I'm interested in that info, as well. Also, something to consider: Using the Alexandria Lofts file as a model, the stairs are placed on the Slab Layers. This is confusing. How can a full flight of stairs be place on a layer that is supposed to contain only floor objects? Clearly there isn't enough room, and this was verified by my attempt to placed a 9' case of stairs on a slab layer and I got the text response: "Not enough space between floors to place stairs". Thanks! charlie

both of those suggestions are great. thanks!

OK...DUH. Can someone please tell me how to set the defaults for newly placed doors? Currently, my doors always come in with sidelights, and I don't want that. I just want a normal swing door to be set when I select the door tool. if I want sidelights, I'll go add them later. thanks! charlie

I'm not sure if I'm understanding your question, but you can edit and move the space name by first selecting the space, then edit the name in the object info panel. also, to move the actual name, use the selection tool and click on the name itself, assuring that it becomes active (the blue square is available). you can then move the name wherever you want in the space. be sure to select just the blue dot on the space name to move it, otherwise you'll move the entire space. hope it helps. charlie

re-opening the issue. i STILL do not have an answer to this important question. anyone know? what, exactly, is the VW definition of "slab" and "slab layer". to what is the dimension? floor to floor? ceiling to ceiling? ceiling to floor above? thanks! charlie

excellent. thanks. good info. i still feel it is unintuitive to not have the object update its dimensions when they're updated in the OIP. to me, an object inspector palette should be able to be used for updating...um...object attributes. every other piece of software uses that paradigm. anyway, thanks for the help.

Hi all. So...Space Tool: When I create a space that is not exactly the size I want, I find that when I deselect "Calc Dims" in the OIP (so that I can edit the width and height), and then do so, the size of the drawn space does not update in the drawing window, even though the OIP says that the space is the new size. What's up with that? Seems highly irregular. Is there some other thing I'm supposed to be doing to alter the size of my spaces after the fact. How do I update the size of the spaces I've created if not by editing the dimensions in the OIP? Thanks! charlie

wow. okay, i got it to work using your method. thanks. for the record, i had to change the length of the marker to get the arrow marker to be smaller overall. i dunno...that was, hands down, a most unintuitive experience! there is nothing in any manual that explains that process, and i wanted to do that almost immediately upon using the angular dimensioning tool. ugh. anyway, thanks for your help. it's greatly appreciated. charlie

okay, let's try this again: i'm trying to edit the markers for ANGULAR DIMENSIONS ONLY. try it yourself and see of you can. i can't. make a simple rectangle. then, use the angular dimension tool to make an angular dimension in one corner. it doesn't matter which one. you'll get a 90 degree dimension. now, try any and all of the methods described in these posts in an attempt to alter the marker size. the text is NOT the issue...that is alterable using the text menu. it's the marker size and types that don't seem to be editable, even though every other marker type in every other dimensioning tool IS editable. try it and then get back to me. i'm totally baffled by what should be a very simple procedure using the methods you both have described. am i missing something?

for me, the stair object preview works (the process for altering the stair direction is highly unintuitive, btw). the door preview works, and the window preview works, yes.

i've been able to re-create this problem, however, i have discovered why it is happening. it's not a bug, but rather the way in which the polys are snapping together. i've fixed it on my end.

hi pat. thanks, but none of those suggestions work for altering the marker size for angular dimensioning, which is what i'm trying to do... hmmm...

I have been having all sorts of trouble with VW 2008 since upgrading to Leopard. I am curious if the forum could use this particular thread to simply post what problems they are having (be as specific as possible). For the record, I have plenty of RAM and plenty of VRAM in a good video card. In fact, I bought a new computer just to run VW. Here are my troubles (with a clean install of Leopard and a clean install of VW2008): 1. Sketch Options Preview is totally nonfunctional, regardless of workspace (this problem existed in 10.4.11, also). 2. Wall Style attributes do not change when selected in Wall Style edit dialog. The new wall style just takes on whatever style was last selected (not the wall, just the style info). 3. Creating walls from polys (by first creating spaces from polys then creating walls from spaces in the AEC menu) results in random walls, zigzagged walls (seem to attach to the space titles), etc. Anything else? Anyone having these troubles? I think NNA needs to know of these. Or if there are solutions that anyone has come up with for these, please help. Thanks, charlie

the feature does still exists, although i have had some substantial difficulty with it in leopard. if i have more than five or six polys that i want to create spaces and walls from, the walls that are created are incorrect, zigzag all over the spaces, and i even have little 6" walls just floating out in the drawing board. not very effective. this in on a fresh new build of leopard and a fresh install of VW.

billtheia, If you've ever used other drawing software like Illustrator or Freehand, or even MS Word, for that matter, VW classes are similar to styles. They're basically a set of attributes that can be applied to objects. Classes automate the attribute application and universalize the appearance and functionality of objects. Selecting the "Use At Creation" box will automatically set any new objects with that class' attributes, if that class is active when the objects are created. Leaving that box unchecked will require you to manually set that particular class to an object when you create it. The downside is that it's tedious. It would seem that the default action should be that new objects take on the attributes of the currently active class. However, because VW's classes also control visibility, it would be frustrating to have a class active that happens to be invisible at the moment. You then create an object and it immediately disappears. so, perhaps that's why that box is there. Can anyone else add to why that box is actually useful? charlie Page 99 of the Fundamentals manual says: "Applies the attributes displayed in this dialog ox when creating an objet assigned to this class. If 'Use at Creation' is not selected, these attributes can be applied to the object later by assigning the 'Class Style' from the Attributes palette. See "Setting Class Attributes" on page 100 [of the fundamentals manual] for more information."