Art V

Maybe if you would add a record to the areas that declares the type of space (e.g. living space, storage space, etc.) you could create an IF function that selects the ones where that record says it is a living space and then calculate the total of those areas (or any other area type depending on selection criteria)

When in the publish dialog, click on the sheet layers you want to be rasterized and then click on options behind PDF below the list of sheets to be exported. You will then get the following dialog At the top there is an option to rasterize the PDF you want to publish, select it and you should get a rasterized sheet. If you do this for all PDF sheets you should have a fully rasterized PDF file.

It depends a bit on the kind of Dropbox account, i.e. private/SMB or the business account, the latter may have options that iCloud may not have. Regarding 3rd party integrations you could think of CRM systems, Bluebeam integration (in case one is using Bluebeam, though with their move to a cloud based solution this may become of less use), project management software etc. Or if you would be using Adobe software for further editing 3D rendered images the integration with Adobe CC might be of some use. It's mostly about solving the hassle of manually copying files into/from Dropbox it seems so that you have easer access. Just to give an idea below is a link to a subset of integrations that might be used by some VW users. Though I think most would use it just for filesharing. https://www.dropbox.com/app-integrations#business-user/construction&business-user/project-management&business-user/workflow&business-user/productivity I'm mostly using it for file sharing because I'm usually the one sending out the review/final documents, or to collect files from multiple people in one place if needed by setting up an upload folder for a project so most integrations are of limited or no use to me. Though Bluebeam integration would be nice if I would still be using Bluebeam.

It could be that Dropbox has better/more integration options with 3rd parties than iCloud. I'm using Google Drive, Dropbox (back to free version now), Box (free with 50GB storage as that came with a higher end mobile a few years ago), OneDrive and switched from the paid Dropbox to pCloud for better GDPR compliance than Dropbox. Dropbox and Box have far more integration options with 3rd party services/products than any of the others I am using. Google Drive being a decent 2nd to them. All have their advantages and disadvantages compared to the others so there is not really a best cloud storage provider, though some are generally better than a lot of alternatives out there. Depending on who I have to collaborate with I choose one the above, though pCloud is my default cloud storage now. As usual ymmv with things like this.

If I were you I would first select the option that offers 4GB graphics memory as that will make VW operate nicer because an increasing number of graphics related things are getting processed by the GPU, so more graphics memory is generally better. I would choose more memory over a faster GPU with less memory, if having multiple 4GB options then you could also look at the higher up GPU model as that will make the Mac last a bit longer if the price is not that much higher. 4 or 6 cores is not going to make much of a difference when it comes to working with VW as it is mostly single core except for Renderworks which can use multiple cores. If rendering speed is not the highest priority then 4 cores will do as well as 6 cores most of the time though rendering will take some more time with 4 cores than with 6 cores. Given the close range of 3-3.4 GHz there is roughly a 10% difference in speed between the lowest and highest CPU speed, which in most cases will not be important for infrequent use. If you would be working on it 8 hours a day every (working) day then it will make a difference over the period of a year to get the highest CPU speed. Another option could be looking at a M1 Mac mini if it wouldn't be that much more than the options you are looking at right now, i.e. if you would have to get the £900 option for a 2 yr old iMac. MacWorld UK is showing pricing from £700 to £900 for the M1 Mac mini https://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/best-mac-mini-deals-3775901/ Which might be something to consider as well as you will get a more modern Mac that may outlast the Intel ones when it comes to future VW upgrades (i.e. Intel Macs might be supported for a limited number of years with newer versions of software).

When installing Dropbox it should create a Dropbox folder on your computer. That is the folder that gets synced with Dropbox. When you open your Dropbox Preferences there should be a Sync tab where you can set/change the folder location. First turn off the smartsync which will put copies of your files on Dropbox only and remove them from your Mac to save disk space. You then have three options... 1. either set your working folder as the Dropbox folder, which I wouldn't do because it will get cluttered with other things in the Dropbox cloud that gets synced into it 2. put your project folder in the Dropbox folder while the project is active or needed accessible, it will then remain on both your computer and be synced with Dropbox when something changes. 3. keep your folders on your master Mac as is and copy your working folders to the Dropbox folder when needed if you only want to be able to access them for viewing from your other Macs. Option 2 is probably the more practical option if you also want to work on/edit the project files on your other Macs, then the updates will get synced to all Macs. Just don't work on the files in the Dropbox cloud, they could get corrupted if there is a glitch with your internet connection when (auto)saving the file or while working on it, plus that it can be very slow to work on if you don't have a very fast up/download with your internet connection.

I guess you will have to include the gap size within your 3D object for now, e.g. add 5mm gap space to the bottom and left of your tile so that it works out and use @Tom W.'s solution for setting the starting point. It seems that the surface array needs some improvement to work in a bit more logical/less confusing way.

I guess I'll have to give it another try. Yes the parameters are confusing, and probably incorrect in come cases given what is expected. E.g. fixed distance is not a fixed distance between the array items (e.g. item of 40x40 and a fixed distance for X and Y of 45 does not give a gap of 5 as you would get with a normal array) From the help: Fixed Distance X’/Y’ If Repetition Mode is set to Fixed Distance, enter the length of each array object along the X or Y axis. The number of array objects is adjusted as necessary to fit the base surface. Fixed distance sets the size of the array object???? Why??? I already created the array object at the desired size, fixed distance should be a distance of e.g. lower left corner point of the array object to the lower left corner point of next array object (or center point instead of corner point). Imho the way fixed distance is implemented is just incorrect and if one does not read the help first then you get something that is counterintuitive to the terminology that is commonly used.(as I just found out)

This will get a bit tedious if you have different sized walls, then you need to calculate it for each and every wall. It would be better if the surface array would have a origin/start point option like e.g. we have for rectangles where we can set from which point the dimensions are set/changes (corner, edge midpoint, center). That would solve the problem. However, changing the values also seem to change the tile size, and using fixed distance does not show a gap anymore so there is something weird going on or I'm doing something wrong. (e.g. maybe the gap should already be within the 3D object to solve this, as I assumed that with fixed distance of tile size plus gap it should give a gap).

I first used a fixed distance of tile plus gap, but that didn't solve the issue, then setting origin X/Y factors to 1 seemed to have it start from the lower left corner using a full tile size seemed to do the trick until I realized that the tile size and surface size happened to match nicely. After changing the surface area to a size that does not match the tiles nicely I still get trimmed tiles at all edges indicating the surface array is built up from the center and centered on the surface array. It looks like it always sets the array from the center. The strange thing is that when I adjust origin x/y factor of the offset x/y factor the fixed distance seems to change even when you set it back to the original value.

There should be a difference in the OIP based on the pasted positions, but there isn't, so it looks like it is a bug somewhere. If I copy the file in a blank drawing without the layer in the original drawing and then copy/paste in place in that one it works as it should. When I go to the layers tab in the organization palette the layer elevation is not showing in the column. When I double click on the layer the properties show that the elevation is "0". I change it to 5, close the layer property and it shows 5 in the elevation column. Reopening the layer properties and setting the elevation back to "0" now shows "0" as elevation in the column and then I close the organization palette. Now the wall items shift to the position of the paste in place as you are getting. When I do another copy and paste in place of the new position it works as intended. My guess would be that it may have to do with the layer elevation not being registered properly somehow.

If you want the new template to be the one that opens when starting Vectorworks, then you should overwrite the Default.sta template with your template file but keep it named Default.sta. Otherwise just give it the name you want and when you select File>new you should get a dialog asking if you want to create a blank document (=Default.sta template) or to use a document template. Select the document template you want to use, the next time you use File>new to start a new drawing it will remember the last used document template as long as it is set to "Use document template". That way you can use that template as your "default template" for new drawings while using File>new until you select another template.

Rhino 8 also takes noticeably more time to import and display the point cloud than BricsCAD, approx. similar to VW. So for now I am assuming your VW/computer combination might be just slower than you were expecting with this file. How does it compare to other point clouds you have been importing?

It does look a bit artistic 🙂 The file opens fine in BricsCAD (above). It also opens in Vectorworks (2021 SP4), see image below) but it takes a bit more time and used RAM memory goes up to 18GB, so if you are memory restricted that might be why it fails. After 97% the import progress bar disappears but VW remains open though a bit slow and only after a while there is a message that the import succeeded en then after some more while the image starts to appear slowly. What are your computer specs? That might give an indication of whether it might be your hardware or something else.

As long as it is not going to be Celine Dion singing My Heart Will Always Go On (from the movie Titanic) we should be ok I guess. 😁

That is common for most road maps, those that do include a version will instead not commit on when that version will be released. A lot of software companies got burned a few times too often by committing to a release date and then having to announce it wouldn't happen after all because of complexity, programmer's having left/become ill/whatever etc. Only if it is fairly certain that a release date will be met they'll commit to that. Just look at the Affinity software roadmap, they say a feature will be ready and implemented when it is ready, no commitment on any release dates. Or Autodesk not solving AutoCAD Civil bugs for more than 10 years. Compared to them Vectorworks isn't that slow after all. 🙂 (Though some long standing bugs could and should have been fixed by now).

Keep it simple, when filing a bug report for things like this just fill out the minimum required information and put in a link to the respective forum thread. That should give them a good idea of the problem and how many others are running into it as well. (And if applicable how frustrated the users sometimes get out the issue). That way you don't have to repeat everything all over again. That being said, my experience is that the more detailed a bug submit is, the more likely it is that it will get tackled. Though the time it takes to solve the issue always remains a guess as it depends on severity, number of users affected, complexity and priorities. (Un)fortunately, depending on point of view 🙂 , I'm one of those people who always runs into issues/bugs and/or shortcomings in documentation so the nice folks at the support department don't have to worry about getting bored.

This is downright ignoring the issue by VW and not a good thing to do. Good documentation is essential, not just for users to succeed but also to keep users wanting to use Vectorworks. If people run into such issues too often they'll think the software is not good enough and will start looking for alternatives which in the end hurts Vectorworks (and in the long run those of us who are happy with VW because it will undermine VW's bottom line if the number of users decline).

One of the things I have noticed in the past is that the file indexing can keep a file shown as "open" or "in use" to the system until the indexing has been completed. Once the file has been "released" it is possible to overwrite the file again. So if you are almost immediately overwriting the file with a new PDF this may fail. This can happen on a local as well. so Jeremy's suggestion to save the new PDF in a different location is a good one as it will tell you whether it is a file access/locking issue or not.

Generally speaking CAD software documentation leaves a lot to be desired, especially for people who are new to specific functionality. Either the documentation is not fully descriptive (missing information, open to multiple interpretations, too short on details, confusing etc.) or non-existing on some things or shown related to one part of the software but not to another part where it applies too so that it is not clear it also applies to some other functionality/item as well. E.g. with BricsCAD some very useful feature was described in the manual/help but only under the BIM section for only one specific object though it also applied to a similar object within the Mechanical functionality but it was nowhere to be found in the Mechanical section. Even if one would find it in the help it wouldn't be clear it also applies to something else as well where you actually would need it. Vectorworks has similar parts in the help files that either have missing information or the description is so brief and general that it is not of much help. Those writing the help files for rather technical (e.g. CAD) software are often the programmers who know all the details on how to use it and often don't realize that adding some additional (not too technical) information would make things much more clear for the end user. Writing good documentation is not just a skill but also a bit of an art, though it seems it is a lost form of art these days with online help systems etc. that are making it too confusing/cumbersome to find the right information.

Oh well... in the past they used to have a lady sitting next to the public toilets at shopping centers to regularly clean the toilets during the day. We used to call them toilet cleaning ladies over here, nowadays, if there are still ones doing this, these people would be called Sanitary Maintenance Supervisor or Hygiene Maintenance Supervisor. This job title hyperinflation has been expanding to software marketing. You have to sound like being the next best thing since sliced bread or whatever else that enables you to have a great impact on the world/future/whatever if you want to be noticed. Fluff has become almost as important as substance. If I would have believed all the AutoCAD claims in the past then I would never have started using Vectorworks, so it is nothing new. It has become "just a bit" more hyperbolic than in the past. When I read such things I just smile (assuming it is entertaining to read) and carry on with whatever I was doing. 🙂

How were the circles made? If they were made with the circle tool then they should export as circles. If they are actually curves (e.g. after some operation or conversion) then they will export as polygons or splines in dwg. If the circles are filled then the fill may show up as a wipeout or hatch and upon selection that may look like a polygon. Normally circles and ellipses do export as such to dwg. So my guess is that something else must have been done with the circles in VW or in the export settings that cause them to show up as polygons.

Maybe, maybe not because it depends. IF your monitor is well calibrated at the factory then there is probably little to be gained by calibrating it yourself. If you notice that in practice the colours etc. are noticeably off from what it should be then it would make sense to calibrate it your self anyway and then probably for sRGB because that is the most likely colour profile that others would be using. So calibration makes sense for as far as it applies to your monitors and only of they are noticeably off colour wise. Yes it can be complex, because e.g. for a simple printer you would still have to create profiles for each combination of ink and paper type, let alone for things like fabric. It also depends on substances in the paper/fabric/whatever that can have additional chemical reactions with the inks used that can complicate things even further and as you mentioned whether the colours fall within the colour space of the printer or not. Most people probably have seen this when trying to print bright green (R=0%, G=100%, B=0%) on an ordinary inkjet printer as that comes out quite a bit darker because of the CMYK colour inks that ordinary printers use. With special ink it is possible to get close but that requires a different kind of printer setup. So my advice would still be, for your purpose, don't worry too much about calibration unless your monitor is noticeably off and stick with sRGB for your monitor profile. If you do want to control the printing output and monitor combination then it is probably better to get a spectrophotometric calibration device as these can be used for both print and monitors and will suffer less from deterioration of colour measurments because they don't use colour filters like colorimetric calibration devices..

I was wondering the same and also think it probably doesn't if OzCAD remains an independent subsidiary of Vectorworks Inc., just like e.g. Vectorworks, Archicad, AllPlan and Cinema4D are all independent subsidiaries of Nemetschek.

this is not easy to answer, but you may want to try searching or asking on this forum for more information: https://www.laserscanningforum.com/