Art V

Maybe I have missed a setting, if not there will be another wish list request. When I insert a symbol with attached record(s) it does not automatically show a dialog to enter the data for records. Is there a setting to make this happen on insert? e.g. in AutoCAD and the likes when you create a symbol with attributes you can specify whether the attribute values have to be entered upon inserting the symbol or not. I'd like to have something similar in Vectorworks. I'd also like to see a data entry dialog option when double-clicking on a symbol instead of having to go through the Object Info Palette every time (will make a wish list request for that one)

Kevin, I agree with you regarding visibility setting per render mode instead of just a choice between wireframe-only or all modes. Jim thanks for the explanation of why the locus is as it is, let's hope the transition to the new graphics system will be completed soon (i.e. no later than VW2018) as based on this and other topics it could potentially solve multiple issues.

Not sure if it would be available in the UK... perhaps you could go back to one license and rent an additional license for a limited time e.g. when you have something join you for a project. That should cut your VSS costs in approx. half, but it would probably cost you giving up a license or force you to sell one to go back to a single license. In how far this will actually be cheaper than VSS for two licenses as you currently have, that is something only you can calculate based on expected rental time at the given costs. Very few people use all functionality of most software so there will always be complaints about things being not needed that could be dropped. E.g. I'm hardly if at all using the plant tool but it doesn't bother me to pay for it as there are other things in VW that I use but others may not, so the burden is probably shared more or less equally in the long run. Regarding VSS being worth the costs for small users, I think it is in the long run as for now there have always been enough improvements no matter how small or big that were usable for me, some years more than others. However, the latter does not mean I've nothing left to wish for.

Well... in my case this type of use of reference loci for which I would like to control visibility vs the common loci is only for really critical points that should be marked and visible at all times as these server as reference for setting out things. So a solution that could avoid adding at least two more classes to the mix would be nice. The current visibility option for 3D loci (only wireframe or not) is too coarse for practical purposes.

When I set the viewport to B/W only it gives exactly that, no grayscale to be seen. Nor is there an option in the PDF publish settings to publish in grayscale. At least not in the viewport, and I'd think the viewport should give a reasonably good impression of how things will look when using publish.

Normally I create the folders when importing symbols or creating them so I never thought of drag and drop and assumed it was possible. So I tried, thinking I might have misunderstood what was meant.... surprise!! So +1 from me too on this request.

A workaround could be to use viewport overrides, where you create 1 viewport for colour use and one for B/W where you set all colours to black except the fills etc. you want to be greyscale. Another option could be to use a PDF printer and use that printer's options to print to greyscale. But a greyscale option in the publish command would probably be a welcome option. So +1 from me on this requrest.

These two discussions contain solutions/tips for this. "Terrain Model Precision" "Contours are very choppy" It's a very annoying issue and I've come across things that look even worse than your case, it's something that should definitely be fixed by Vectorworks.

At the time mid 1990's I already had a few years of AutoCAD experience when I got Minicad 5. The whole thing of papersize, scale etc. felt clumsy to me at the time, now I really like it and would rather drop AutoCAD than VW. Even today (based on a discussion on another forum) this concept is not always easy to understand for AutoCAD users or basically anyone new to VW because it is quite different from even software like Illustrator etc. Given Autodesk's subscription and cloud strategy and the rumours of potential changes in fall when the activist investors may start axing things (possibly incl. the so-called maintenance subscription which is approx. 40% of the desktop subscription) I think there may be a good opportunity in the near future to attract (former) AutoCAD users. Provided some things are taken care of (esp. import/export of text and dimensions styles in DWG (yes, I can't stop mentioning this ad nauseam as it can be a real showstopper for general drafting in a dwg centric work environment)). Even getting just a few percent of that group would be a substantial increase in VW users I'd guess.

If you've ever done process (engineering) flow schemes/diagrams you'll understand why snap to grid is useful :grin:

Good to hear you put this grid aficionado back in the doghouse More seriously now, if there is going to be a combined 2D/3D locus I hope it will be possible to have an option to always show some loci and hide the rest in non-wireframe view. Currently we have the option to not show 3D loci in anything other than wireframe. But in case of critical reference loci I can use the 2D locus to keep visible in non-wireframe mode as well whereas 3D loci can be hidden in non-wireframe view. (yes I could use two classes for this but would rather avoid that)

Maybe Vectorworks could also develop a "Vectorworks for AutoCAD users" manual for those working with Vectorworks and Autocad (e.g. when settling on a workflow between the two programs) or those switching to Vectorworks from AutoCAD. This could make it for those considering purchasing VW in addition to AutoCAD or switching to VW a bit easier to make the purchase or switch. It wouldn't be the first time when an AutoCAD user takes a glance at VW and then dismisses it because of not understanding some of the basic philosophy/concepts of VW.

+1 on the zoom display (though I took that for granted, but it doesn't hurt to explicitly mention it)

I beg to differ on this. A few years ago a client purchased Vectorworks and I went on a 3-day Vectorworks training with that client's staff (lots of info left out here for brevity), some of them already had experience with AutoCAD. The one comment that the trainer made when we were discussing how they were doing was that these people were different from most users he was training. They did not think in action steps to be taken but in solutions. e.g. he didn't have to tell them that they had to draw a rectangle first, then extrude it, then draw a circle, extrude and subtract from the extruded rectangle to create a hole. Because in AutoCAD the way of doing this is basically the same, so they knew already they could do it similarly in Vectorworks. Yes, there are some differences that require getting used to, some things work differently or require workarounds but with good tutorials that should not be a huge problem. Yes, it would be nice if there would be more people with formal training in Vectorworks, but a good (Auto)CAD user should be able to pick up Vectorworks fairly quickly once he/she understands some of the fundamental differences (classes/layers, use of page/scale) and some tools being a bit different. The big key is having some good tutorials that are easily available/to find. That is where Vectorworks has definitely to work on. The help file has improved over the past few years, but there is still too much information missing (i.e. what is there sometimes leaves out some of the finer details which can make users still run into issues that puts them to a grinding halt that could easily be prevented with some more info being present)

Good question, when I set a working plane it does seem to use the internal origin (= my user origin as well) as the base for coordinates. Usually it is not a big issue for me as I use dimensions and work relative to a point, but once in a rare while I'm working fully coordinate based and then it would be good to know for sure.

I also agree on the comments from Barkest and Wouter (Hippocode) regarding educational licenses. They should preferably be full versions of the respective commercial counterparts, but watermarking should not be a problem and should also make clear that work created is not meant for commercial purposes. I can understand the reluctance to provide educational versions with full capabilities for fear of abuse for commercial projects, but those who want to already can if they look for hacked/cracked versions on the internet. That being said, it would also be good if Vectorworks would pay some extra attention to the import/export side compatibility (dwg, GIS, 3D formats) because if that leaves things to be desired people may get the impression that compatibility with 3rd party software is not good enough and may in the end decide to go with a competitor product. (yes this is a bit of a "pet peeve" as I keep running into this in the reality of multi-format files work and it would improve usability of Vectorworks in such work environments)

If Command 5 is the same as 5 on the numerical keypad in Windows then is is top view (3D) and not top/plan view (2D). That would be 0 on the numpad (probably cmd-0 on Mac). Top view always renders if it is not set to wireframe, Top/Plan (2D wireframe by default) does not render. Based on your comment on setting to wireframe I think you may have been switching to top view instead of top/plan.

Yay, this is indeed good news So I can keep bugging you for those little details with big consequences regarding dwg and GIS compatibility? Oh and good news (or not depending on how you want too look at it), one of your competitors that is trying to get foothold in the BIM market is considering Vectorworks as one of their top-3 competitors to tackle (next to Revit and Archicad).

Jim, try doing steps 1-4 then 9-12 before using the create surface from curves (steps 5-8) because the issue is with the NURBS curves direction (clockwise vs counter-clockwise) that seems to generate trouble with using the numpad. i.e. if you do this (1-4 and then 9-12) first and then want to create the surfaces through the 3D power pack (5-9) then there is a problem with the numpad. Doing it the way you did does not create a problem with the numpad on my end either. btw, the rectangles can be used to create surfaces directly and it will result in the rectangles becaoming NURBS curves. Doing it that way does not generate a problem with the direction of the curve and numpad. That being said, even if you draw a NURBS curve and change the direction to counter-clockwise (and do not move the curve in the process) it "blocks" the numpad for some reason, until either the direction is set to clockwise or the NURBS curve is moved a little, then the numpad use works again.

you are right, it doesn't work, maybe I did slightly move the mirrored objects before using the numpad and didn't notice at the time

It would be nice if there could be an option to control the display of a locus in both 2D and 3D. AutoCAD and the dwg based likes have an option to control the display of a locus, e.g. as a point, a cross, a cross-hair with circle or rectangle etc. Something similar would be useful in VW as well.

+1 Preferably user configurable like the points display settings in AutoCAD and the likes where you can have it shown as a dot, X or cross-hair with circle etc. etc. so that we can separate the visual display from 2D/3D loci That being said, user configurable display of loci might be nice to have as well (will make a separate request for that)

Also check if "render grey classes transparent" (this may not be the exact wording) is active or not. If you want to keep your grey classes set to grey then unchecking this option may solve the issue as well instead of setting a class override to visible instead of grey

Did you leave the originals in or did you delete those prior to using to using the numpad? When left it, it worked for me, but given the issue I can imagine that if they were deleted before using the numpad then the issue may still persist.

Some questions, as a few details are missing: - how is the symbol constructed (NURBS, polygons, solids etc)? - 2D/plan view or 3D view? - what render settings for 3D? - if 3D are the render settings identical for design and sheet layer viewport? - are there viewport overrides for the class settings in which the sofa symbol is residing (colour, transparency etc), assuming all attributes of the sofa are by class? - did you set up light objects?