Jump to content

C. Andrew Dunning

  • Posts

  • Joined

Posts posted by C. Andrew Dunning

  1. On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 10:17 PM, Drew L said:

    Back up your old Projector Models file!!!!!!!!

    Copy the attached file into your C:\Program Files\Vectorworks 2017\Libraries\Defaults\Video Screen\Projector Models or equivalent on a mac.


    While backing up your "Projector Models" file is definitely a good idea, it is not necessary - IF you remember that you don't have to over-write that file.  The tools will recognize any projector Symbols in any current-version VW files contained in that folder.  Call your new file something like "My Custom Projectors.vwx" and you'll be good-to-go!


    • Like 1
  2. Larry -


    Assuming your PIO is Event-Enabled, use vsoWidgetPopupClear(Parameter Index) to clear the list, vsoWidgetPopupAdd(Parameter Index,Item ID, Item Text) to add items to the list, and vsoWidgetPopupSet(Parameter Index,Item Index,Item ID, Item Text) to make a given item selected.  Using vsoWidgetPopupAdd(Parameter Index,'-','-') will insert a horizontal divider line.


    I hope this gets you headed in the right direction.


  3. Frederick -


    This isn't a bug or a problem.  It is a matter of how your chosen projector models are created/formatted.  So, there are 2 answers to your question:


    1)  You can easily create your own projector model(s).  The Web page in my signature includes a link to the manual for the Landru Design versions of the tools.  Toward the end of the manual there is a section giving some general information on creating custom projectors, stands, and TVs.  You can also watch this YouTube movie: 

    It is a few years old and some of the details have changed but the general convention remains true.


    2)  For users holding a license to the Landru Design version of the tools, we included a couple of ultra-short-throw projectors in the latest release.  While there are only 2 (for now), we included them for the very reason you cite - that they APPEAR to work quite differently than other projector models - and users might need examples of how to make things work.


  4. Scott -


    4 hours ago, Scott Hill said:

    Nice to know you can throw something like that together so quickly


    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.


    4 hours ago, Scott Hill said:

    additions of geometry options would bloat things up pretty quickly, and I imagine you probably have to put the brakes on that kind of thing quite a bit.


    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."


    4 hours ago, Scott Hill said:

    I will say I created a (very) crude model of the MVW55 and MVW46 wall mounts, because we use them on almost every one of our videowall projects.


    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...

  5. 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...



  6. On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 4:53 PM, Scott Hill said:

     It would be nice to have the stand actually be 72" or 84" as in real life, and then move the monitor up and down relative to the poles.  This would show the poles sticking up like they do in real life..


    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?


  7. On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 4:36 PM, Andy Broomell said:

    This is similar to the Straight Truss tool's "highlight" feature for irregular pieces of truss, but that tool has a checkbox to turn it off.


    Adding a "Highlight Non-Standard Slider(s)"  toggle is now on The List.  Thanks...



    21 hours ago, kevn said:

    1) Can we hang a projector on a prolyte like with Wysiwyg, because I have to use the HEIGHT to stick it to the prolyte?


    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.




  9. On ‎10‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 8:58 AM, scottmoore said:

    As mentioned, I have no idea why a lighting object is required to rotate a viewport. That seems quite random to me and I would love it if someone would chime in on that.


    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??


  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. 8 hours ago, Rob Books said:

    The Insert By class can be overwritten thanks to tools we put in place for spotlight users, so even though I set the symbol up to insert in the Lighting-LED, say; you can override that and have it placed in the active class that you want.



    - 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.


    8 hours ago, Rob Books said:

    By having the 3D in the None class, and only special classes used in the 2D (Lighting-Types, Movement Radius)  you could place in any class you wanted rather than now where no matter what class you place it in, the geometry is classed to our classing and you would need to control both to get the appearance you want.


    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...


    • Like 2
  12. 21 minutes ago, Rob Books said:


    The symbols would still insert by class, I am looking at changing up the 3D geometry to match our other content and be on the None Class.  and this would only be the 3D geometry, and probably only the Lighting instruments and Audio Speakers.  I think Truss should stay on the Rigging-Truss-Truss class.


    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...

    • Like 1
  • Create New...