C. Andrew Dunning

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

39 Great

About C. Andrew Dunning

  • Rank
    500 Club

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    Lighting Designer
  • Homepage
  • Location
    Nashville, TN, USA
  1. Scott - I try to be pretty responsive to users' needs. Sometimes, I'm more successful than others. Your timing was actually quite good. Last shows of the year put to bed last week and things for 2018 haven't gathered much steam, yet. It is really a balancing act. Sometimes, more intricacy is warranted. Other times, it gets in the way of usability. Others, it's just...to use your word..."bloat." As wall mounts are not something the tool creates, if you tend to use them repeatedly with the same monitors you might consider creating TV models that include them. Once you know the formatting, it isn't at all difficult. A bit ago I created a movie demonstrating how to do that: https://youtu.be/ceP2MOpkGMI Have a good one...
  2. Scott - The stands are intended to be a generic/general representation of the several that are available in the "real world." Below is a 50" screen mounted on 108" poles, but placed at 48": I was able to do both a pop-up of stock sizes and "Custom" sizes. Look for this feature in a forth-coming update of the Landru Design version of the tool. BTW, your comment "and then alter as our clients make budget changes is a real time and aggravation saver" is PRECISELY what inspired the initial creation of the tools. Rob - The stand geometry is all created on-the-fly. The only "content," here, are the TV models. So, as things are currently structured, specific stand models couldn't be used if the intent is to keep things dynamic. You COULD add stand geometry to individual TV models if you wanted to (like I did for the different "confidence monitor" versions) but you'd end up with multiple versions for every TV, ballooning the library - and, IMHO, creating far more work than necessary. Just my 2¢US...
  3. Scott, a question for you (and, for anyone else interested): Would you want a simple/single ""Pole Height" parameter? Or, would you want a pop-up selection of stock heights - including a "Custom" option? If the latter, what are your stock heights?
  4. Adding a "Highlight Non-Standard Slider(s)" toggle is now on The List. Thanks...
  5. The tool is actually working as-designed. So, this would be an enhancement, not a bug - the enhancement being to separate stand/pole height and TV Z position. Now, on The List...
  6. While it doesn't "stick," the current Landru Design version of the tool does allow you to define the trim of the truss (or, other structure) and the distance below that you want the projector to hang. As to your video question, 2 answers: 1) VW only recognizes still images. The "Edit Screen Image..." button on the video tools' Object Info Palette will allow you to apply and automatically scale textures found in the current file or in a library folder. 2) The dialog you get when you click that button will also allow you to set up video connections for Vision. HTH...
  7. Check your e-mail...
  8. Other disciplines use DLVPs in situations for which raking/tilting them would be problematic and this limitation is a bit of protection. For example, an architect might use DLVPs to replicate a single hotel room layout many times. Make sense??
  9. So, what's the emoji for having your own words thrown back at you...? ;-)
  10. Wesley - Your request makes perfect sense. At the same time, just shedding some light on why things are the way they are...: Different users use the tool in different ways. Some users create entire walls and see each "Module" as an individual panel. For that application, "Module Weight" could then be used to calculate a total. For other users, each instance represents a single panel (part of a wall) and "Weight," as it is now is the weight for that panel and having to know the weight for each module isn't really practical. For this latter approach, users can then generate reports that can both track data for the individual panels (tool instances) as well as calculate weights. Make sense??
  11. Spotlight or Designer
  12. Yes...but... - Placing a Source 4 still drags in "Lighting-Architectural" and "Lighting-Incandescent." - Placing a PAR 2 still drags in "Lighting-LED," "Lighting-Input-2D," "Lighting-Input-3D," and "Lighting-LED." I can see the point of the "...Input..." Classes (as they are parts) but, the setting seems to be only partially implemented as the "macro" Classes are still dragged in...especially, when the Source 4 drags in 2 that seem (to me) to be in-conflict. But...by partially implementing a Classing scheme - with no flexibility regarding options, power users (like KLA) get frustrated because they need Class-level attribute control both both 2D AND 3D. Frustration that is amplified by inconsistent implementation. Which takes us back to the real need for Class mapping functionality as part of the Resource import process...
  13. Going back to our DS discussion... You're addressing Classing on 2 levels: "macro" and "micro." Inserting by-Class is "macro." Parts' Classing is "micro." Symbols and PIOs (using your examples of Lighting Instruments and Truss) should NOT, by-default, insert by-Class (macro). Suggesting /optional "parts"-level/"micro" Classing is very appropriate, though - with a very intentional emphasis on "suggesting." As to "Rigging-Truss-Truss," no...not a good place for truss to stay as truss is not rigging...
  14. Y'all just need to stop this. Your logic is making WAY too much sense... ;-) +27
  15. Yes, DLVP = "Design Layer ViewPort" Regarding animating this, your best bet might be AnimatiomWorks: http://www.ozcad.com.au/products/animationworks.php.