Art V

VW can only import DWF at the moment. You can get ODA Drawings Explorer from the ODA website, it can open DWFx files and then save them to DWG or export then into another format e.g. DWF or whatever other supported format you prefer. It can open and save/export other file formats as well (e.g.to convert DGN to DWG) (save and export are two different options in the file menu with different support of file formats) The ODA Drawings Explorer can be found at the following link for the ODA website https://www.opendesign.com/guestfiles/oda_drawings_explorer ODA Viewer and ODA converter can be nice to have as well, ODA converter to e.g. batch convert DWG files from one version to another version of the DWG format. It's available for Windows and Mac and Drawing Explorer also for Linux. And it's free too.

I mostly use Rhino to VW import for bringing geometry into VW so classifications are not really an issue most of the time. But if it works through DWG export from Rhino and then import into VW then it should be possible to make it work for 3DM import as well.

Simlab Composer from Simlabsoft, a 3D rendering program that I used in the past to create 3D PDF files, might be able to extract the views and geometry as well now that I think of it. It can import U3D files, and also PRC files if I remember correctly, and then create the 3D PDF. The U3d and PRC files contain the geometry and it may be possible to export that into another editable format like dwg or OBJ etc. But you would need the U3D or PRC files if the obtaining the originating CAD files (in original or intermediate file format) is not possible. Trial versions can be downloaded from their website. https://simlab-soft.com/

3D PDF files are usually created from U3D or PRC intermediate files. If you manage to get those files then it might be possible to extract geometry with some tools. Apparently it may be possible to get the geometry out of the PDF again when using the full version of Acrobat and some other tools. This forum topic may give you some information to get started https://community.adobe.com/t5/acrobat/possible-to-extract-3d-data-from-a-3d-pdf/td-p/8377056?page=1 Most CAD software, including VW, can only create 3D PDF files, not import them as geometry.

Not directly in a simple straightforward way as it depends on the mesh complexity and quality etc., you could select a mesh and then try the simplify mesh command. If you do have access to Rhino then importing into Rhino first, if necessary fix some things in Rhino, and then import the Rhino file into VW may give you good enough results to continue with as it often reduces mesh/triangulation complexity. It has worked for me several times in the past when importing 3D geometry that were triangulations and meshes from AutoCAD and the DWG-based likes.

Menus and tools would be my first choice for rebuilding. I hope that the contexts have been implemented in such a way that they are based on the object being created or selected for editing and that the possible manipulations for that object have been taken into account. That would provide consistency in the user interface regardless of how someone may have organized his/her workspace so that you get something predictable. One of the things/issues with e.g. the "intelligent" MS Office ribbon in its earlier days and to some extent even today was that you could never really predict what would show up where until you have used it often enough over a longer time and then hope they didn't change their mind and reorganize things for obscure reasons. VW should really try to avoid getting into a similar messy UI system. Despite all the shortcomings of the VW UI, at least you know what to expect UI-wise 99% of the time.

Sparking joy?... be careful what you wish for because we might end up singing Beethoven's Ode to Joy (from the unfinished 9th symphony) when that does happen. 🙂 Seriously now, I do hope they finally will do some housekeeping, streamlining and fixing broken things on a large(r) scale for the next revision than just a few bits and pieces here and there in each new revision.

Ok that does indeed clarify it 🙂 I got the impression it was about putting all things into a single menu to get rid of having to switch workspaces, but that isn't the case. In that case I fully agree with the whole thing.

I had something similar with Landmark with regard to georeferencing, it took a few years but things wished for got fixed and use of the EPSG catalog got implemented. Also because there was a practical use benefit for every user using georeferencing. With the door/window tool my guess is that it is more intended as a "prop" to indicate a generic door/window style and its dimensions and not an actual door as it is going to be installed. It would be difficult to make a use case for the latter as it probably could be done better by the door/window manufacturers. That doesn't mean the odd things that don't make sense shouldn't be fixed but it does mean it will always be a generic tool because otherwise there are way too many variables. So I'd for now rather see it updated by fixing the odd things that are clearly wrong/don't make sense so that it at least looks right and then have access to the local door/window tools that adhere to local standards at a reasonable cost for the more detailed views. As some user on this forum used to call it, you don't want to design McMansions after all (i.e. thirteen in a dozen designs) Why VW is so reluctant to let us know what the issue is is a mystery to me as well.

I assume you that you mean the revision number change after making a change in the drawing only happens after saving a changed drawing, closing it and then re-opening to make a change would only then increase the change number. I.e. as long as the drawing file remains open any further modifications do not change the number after saving until it gets closed and re-opened. Otherwise a 2 digit number will not be sufficient, a 3- or 4-digit number might then be more appropriate. What I normally do is create a copy in a new folder everytime a new update revision to the main drawing is being made and whenever major changes are being made to the main or sub-drawings so that I will always have the previous version to go back to. Though this also comes from having to deal with lots of changes from day to day or sometimes even during the day and then after a bunch of changes it gets decided to revert back to some previous intermediate version and then start anew with updating based on that version. Let's say it can get messy revision wise 🙂 and an autonumbering system will have trouble with this unless you can manually change the sub revision number to keep a continuous numbering for the revision changes albeit with the consequence that visual/progress linearity will be broken. It could work nicely once you are past the conceptual development stage when most of the issues/things have been fleshed out. So yes it would be useful to have, not just for BIM.

As more or less indicated above, the same applies to separate symbols for indicating elevation etc. as with the stake tool, unless you put the field reading the elevation into the object itself and have it displayed. 3D constraints that could be used to link the stake tool/symbol to its associated object are unfortunately not available. 2D constraint is something you could try to see if it would work. While writing this, maybe you could try grouping the floor and the stake tool object to see what happens if you move the group and if it doesn't interfere too much with other functionality you may need. E.g. volume calculation could be affected if you group a floor or slab with the stake tool because a floor/slab that is part of a group with a different object might get omitted. I never grouped such objects with stake tool so don't know for sure if and/or how it will affect things like this

There could be a solution for that depending on what the stake tool is supposed to give the elevation of, e.g. ground or a slab. In the latter case you could tie the stake tool to the slab object with a 3D constraint (not sure a 2D constraint would work, as I never tried that). The problem is that VW does not (yet?) support 3D constraints. The alternative is to use a symbol for the objects that has a field holding the 3D data, then it would would automatically update the elevation. Otherwise you will need to move the stake object along with the part that you are changing the elevation of, i.e. move the slab and associated stake tool simultaneously if possible. With e.g. indicating a ground level with the stake tool you can't do this and will have to move the stake tool to the proper position/elevation after adjusting the ground level.

This is one of the things that annoys me a bit with PIO's that have their own internal classes. It would be better if the internal classes would be visible by default, unless the user specifies otherwise, and have the visibility of the object be controlled by the class that the object is inserted into. I.e. if that insertion class is not visible, then the object shouldn't be visible either simply because it resides in that class.

The irony, if you want to call it that, is that the simple stair tool sometimes allowed for things that the stair tool struggles with, at least it did in the past it may have improved since the last time I had to create extensive multilevel stairs. Old doesn't necessarily mean obsolete in such cases. Cleanup of the old tools is needed, but I'd first check which useful functionality of old/legacy tools is not in the new tools and implement that functionality into the new/current tool first.

I agree with all of the suggestions except this one, as some have already mentioned menus have their limitations too and i would then like to have multiple menus which equals to workspaces. Some people work across multiple disciplines with (sometimes vastly) different needs regarding workspaces so they do have a place. Having to cram everything into a single menu may eventually turn out to be counterproductive. The single menu as proposed could be a starting working space, i.e.all tools etc. that are added to VW from third parties, extra VW modules etc. should end up there and from there you could then remove the "clutter" to quickly create a new custom workspace. Or you can still start from scratch combined with the other suggestions mentioned earlier in your post.

This same stake tool is also useful for showing boundary coordinates of areas if you have too, e.g. at corner points of fences. It is just too bad that it can't show coordinates and elevation at the same time. For that you would still need to create a symbol with records that show all three bits of information. If you have a lot of points and relatively large numbers to show in a small area then the symbol route is the way to go and then use the worksheet to list the coordinates and/or elevation and put that as a table on your sheet layer. Do make sure that you give the symbol an (automatic) ID number for reference which can be displayed.

It's one of those small things that you get used to after a while but it still takes a short moment to adjust if you automatically click in the same spot in the other panel. However over time it does add up with all these small (and not so small) inconsistencies. One factor in a good workflow/UI is being able to do things without knowing you're doing them, i.e. you don't have to pay attention to it because it is an automatism that just works. I used to have that with AutoCAD, someone once asked me what I just exactly did to get something done and I couldn't tell because it was all automatism. With VW I have this to a (sometimes much) lesser extent, which is imho too bad because it indicates a non-optimal UI.

It is indeed annoying that you have to keep buying standards documents because of all those referrals to other standards within standards. However there may be solution, if it still exists, ISO used to publish a ISO Standards Handbook on Technical drawings. It contains the most important standards for technical drawings, i.e. symbols, proper use of scales, annotations and to some extent hatches as well as a bunch of other things. Though this particular title was more focused towards the mechanical engineering drawings and not so much about architecture. There may be a similar title about architecture or landscaping. If I recall correctly they may also have standards bundles which may be more cost effective than buying each standard separately, but that only works if it has (most of) the standards you need. Or you could visit the (technical) university library to borrow a copy of a book about/containing relevant standards. Most likely the cheaper option as well. 🙂

As @Pat Stanford mentioned the file contains a lot of geometry which may bog down your computer. I've opened the Solidworks file in BricsCAD and resaved it as a simplified STEP file, which is less than half the size of the IGES file you provided. The Solidworks file was also opened in Rhino 7 WIP and then resaved as a Rhindo 3DM file. Both imported into VW take a bit of time to load but once loaded VW is responsive without lag etc., at least on my system. Given your hardware specs it should work ok on your machine as well. Attached are the STEP and Rhino files as well as the VW2021 file in which the STEP file has been imported so that you can try it out on your computer. If you have an earlier version please let me know and I'll resave the VW file (or maybe someone else can do this for you in the meantime). @DaveBB One more question, the TDP of you Intel processor is relatively low and has a 2.8 GHz core speed which is common for a laptop CPU as a desktop CPU is more likely to have a higher core speed, is your computer perhaps a laptop? If yes you may want to check if it is set to use the nVidia GPU or not. If not then that is most likely the major cause of the slowness and not necessarily the 3D model. Container-20-Assem simplified (VW2021).zip Container-20-Assem simplified (STEP).zip Container-20-Assem from Rhino 3DM file.zip

How large are these files? What software were they generated with? E.g. AutoCAD tends to triangulate exports which can lead to very polygon heavy files with possibly lots of vertices. This will definitely slow VW down a lot when it is a large(er) file.

Hoist Origin definitely seems an odd one to be there. The other ones I can imagine possibly being useful to avoid having to switch back and forth between workspaces but yes, some housekeeping to remove unneeded items in workspaces would be welcome. It's a bit like the stair tool in Landmark, it does contain stuff for stairs inside a building which you would likely not use in landscapes, but when used for civil structures in a landscape then it is nice to have them. Over here it was at some point hinted that Architect and Landscape could at some point be merged because of (increasing) overlap in functionality but I guess that never gained much ground. Spotlight is an entirely different field, but I could see the benefit of merging Architect and Landscape if we get the best tools of each included. After all there actually is an increasing overlap between these two and it would simplify things quite a bit on the development side I'd think which could be beneficial for the VW users as well.

So basically turning the Organization window into a palette instead of a dialog box, which would be quite nice to have. Though I get the impression that VW is trying to have the Navigation palette to become that equivalent over time, whether that is the better option or not remains to be seen.

That is a bit of a surprise, because over here ArchiCAD is clearly more expensive than Vectorworks to the best of my knowledge. At least that was the case last time I looked at how much ArchiCAD would cost. It is still cheaper than e.g Revit though when it could still be purchased.

To some extent the living standards are a factor, the sales price has to be such that people can afford to buy your product. So it may be that pricing in Argentina could be lower in USD than in the US, combined with exhange rate (and tax if applicable) differences this could cause a substantial percentual difference in pricing expressed in USD. With software that is distributed digitally through downloads the "fortunate" thing is that once it has been written you barely have additional costs other than servers for downloads and some software infrastructure to make it possible and a bit of administrative costs for invoicing etc., this unlike distributing physical products. Th is allows for easier "redistributing" the costs across different regions, so part of the higher price in other "richer" areas could be used to somewhat subsidize the costs in "poorer" areas. Which to some extent is ok with me, it's part of doing business, the more customers a company has the better for all their customers in general as it increases their viabilty in the longer run.

With VW the added value of local distributors with localized versions is obvious, no disagreement from me on that nor the additional cost that comes with that. But for e.g. Autodesk this is hardly the case, and hardly has been the case over the past 20+ years, yet you do pay more for the same thing. My reply was more about pricing differences in general and not specific to VW.