VW 2023 - Window PIO Issue - Insertion Points / Offset in Wall Depth

[zoomer]

In the past I was always able to control the position of my Windows precisely

with respect to my Wall Components.

There was an Offset Value in general top tab of Windows PIO settings.

 

At some point (VW 2020 or 2022 ?) there was a small change to Windows,

(Probably in preparation for coming changes for Walls and Wall Closures)

which eliminated that Offset and insertion depth control.

 

 

I thought I should retry with Wall Closures iteration 2. in VW 2023.

 

1.

I tried all kind of "Insertion" markers and settings in both Wall Styl or overwriting

in Window Style.

While it all looks perfect in Wall Closures Preview, my Windows Jamb insertion

depth in 3D geometry or 2D representation does not seem to move to where I want

or to move at all ?

 

Is someone able to bring my Window insertion position aligned ?

(outer face of Jamb = outer face of Concrete Core Component)

 

 

 

 

 

2.

I try to model my existing Sill situation.

Basically it should be simplified to have one Board of 2 cm Aluminium

on the outer side from the Jamb. Extending Wall Opening 2 cm on sides

and outer Wall Face by 4 cm at the front.

And on the inner side a 2 cm Board of Marble, extending sides and front

by 2 cm.

 

 

 

 

I think I already tried all 3 Sill Options and through all of their Settings.

So far it looks like I should just switch off Sill option in PIO and model

everything Silly manually.

 

But maybe someone is able to tweak PIOs parametric Sill Settings to

get the desired Geometry ?

 

BIM_ISSUE-WINDOW.vwx

[line-weight]

Today is the day I chose to start grappling with wall closures, which I've so far not started using. Taken me at least 4 hours to get to a point of understanding basically what determines what happens where. I came up against nearly all of the exact same issues that are described in this thread by @Tom W., @zoomer and others. Hence ending up finding more useful info in this thread than in the official help. I presume everyone goes through some version of this.

 

I often end up doing a "write-your-own documentation" exercise when I'm figuring out a new VW feauture, partly because it helps me get my head around it but also because there are often gaps in the official documentation. I've posted below what I have written in case it's of use to anyone else. There may well be errors/incompleteness in there. This is for VW2023; I'm aware some things have changed in VW2024.

 

 

[line-weight]

On 1/30/2023 at 2:11 PM, Matt Panzer said:

 

In the dialog coming from a Wall instance or an insert, there is a "Use wall style settings" / "Use wall settings" checkbox at the top that tells you what the wall is using.  The only place I think we can improve the preview is for dialogs coming from the instance because that's the only case we know what the instances insert location is.  We do plan to tweak this for a future version.

 

On 1/31/2023 at 5:46 AM, Christopher Graye said:

As Matt also mentioned, the one place this preview could actually be more realistic is in the Wall Closure dialog for a specific insert that is actually in a wall in the document.  Since we have an actual wall and an actual insert, we could try to show the situation exactly as it really is in the document.  I have experimented with this, and practically speaking it actually has some unexpected difficulties and works less well than you might expect in a lot of cases.  But one thing we could do is try to set the the insert depth and insert origin preview options to automatically reflect the real insert as well as possible.  In fact, we should already be doing this, I just haven't gotten it to work properly yet.

 

Having had a brief look in VW2024, this is still the same there - is that right?

 

This is really a major source of confusion because if I decide that the wall closure settings for a certain window are going to be determined by that window, not by the wall's "suggestions", and untick the "use wall settings" box in the window's OIP, if I start interacting with settings offered to me for that window instance it seems reasonable to assume that any adjustments I make in those settings will apply to that window instance.

 

Let's say I have also gone into the "plug-in object options" for that individual window instance, and chosen an insert location for it, and said that this will be determined by the "wall - insert location" plus an offset. This places the window into my wall like this - which is what I want (the offset is from the interface of the brown/yellow components)

 

 

But if I now go to the wall closure options for that window instance (which are being controlled by the window, not the wall) I get presented with this:

 

 

 

There are three issues:

 

1. It lets me edit the "insert location" and "offset" columns in those wrapping settings, and it adjusts the preview accordingly:

 

 

And yet, these changes to the settings have no effect whatsoever on the actual window. It's not just that it lets me edit them (when they should be greyed out, because I've chosen to determine the insert location by other means) but it even shows them taking effect in preview, just like the wrapping settings (correctly) show in preview. So it gives me this twofold feedback that firstly I can edit, and secondly here are the results of that edit. And yet it's all in fact entirely futile.

 

2. The preview does not automatically show the (real and effective) window offset that I've already applied in the other settings. This is yet further reassurance that it's the offset I'm editing in the adjacent table that's the effective one.

 

3. Ok, so maybe there is some technical reason that the real offset can not be shown in that preview. Anyone who's already been fiddling with this feature will probably have realised that this is a kind of semi-faked preview because you have to manually enter the depth of your "insert" and its origin location, but it doesn't let me manually enter its offset within the opening, so it's not actually possible for me to generate a representative preview even manually.

 

(I think the fact that this preview is not a true automatic one needs to be signposted more clearly in general in the interface by the way, this caused me confusion in itself for some time. Additionally the terminology "insert depth" and "insert origin" is inconsistent and misleading but I haven't the energy to type out why.)

 

Ok, so that's my moan about this bit of the interface, which frankly I think is awful.

 

However so as not just to be negative about everything, I think this ability to do wall closures, once you work it out, is a really big step forward and well done for getting it implemented. I can only imagine how complex it all is, behind the scenes.

 

[Tom W.]

What's confusing is that there are three different places you can set the insert location + this is controlled in the PIO Options:

 

Unless you come here you have no idea which settings your PIO is using. It would be helpful if in the Wall Closure or Wall settings it had a little note to say that the insert location settings you make here will only be applied if activated in the PIO options setting.

 

This relates to the ongoing discussion about the importance of the PIO Options settings + how they should be more accessible/prominent.

[line-weight]

8 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

What's confusing is that there are three different places you can set the insert location + this is controlled in the PIO Options:

 

Unless you come here you have no idea which settings your PIO is using. It would be helpful if in the Wall Closure or Wall settings it had a little note to say that the insert location settings you make here will only be applied if activated in the PIO options setting.

 

This relates to the ongoing discussion about the importance of the PIO Options settings + how they should be more accessible/prominent.

 

It's actually even slightly more confusing than that because while the insert location is either/or, the offset can be cumulative (if you choose the insert location to be determined by wall closure settings then the offset in the PIO options is added to the offset in the wall closure settings).

 

And the cumulative effect is not reflected in the semi-fake preview.

[Tom W.]

2 minutes ago, line-weight said:

 

It's actually even slightly more confusing than that because while the insert location is either/or, the offset can be cumulative (if you choose the insert location to be determined by wall closure settings then the offset in the PIO options is added to the offset in the wall closure settings).

 

And the cumulative effect is not reflected in the semi-fake preview.

 

Wow really? Well done for finding all this out!

[line-weight]

7 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

 

Wow really? Well done for finding all this out!

Then of course on top of this, there is the choice of where the window's "insertion point" is, relative to the window geometry.

 

(That'll be the "insertion point" that gets called the "insert origin" in the preview image, just to add a little more uncertainty about whether it's referring to the same thing. And of course the "insertion point"/"insert origin" gets placed at the "insert location", not the "insertion location".)

[Tom W.]

3 minutes ago, line-weight said:

And of course the "insertion point"/"insert origin" gets placed at the "insert location", not the "insertion location"

 

Not sure what you mean...?

 

Am I right to say that the Insert Depth + Insert Origin in the Preview are just indicative + there for you to set yourself in order to achieve a representative preview image, they don't have any bearing on what the actual PIO settings are?

[line-weight]

34 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

 

Not sure what you mean...?

 

Am I right to say that the Insert Depth + Insert Origin in the Preview are just indicative + there for you to set yourself in order to achieve a representative preview image, they don't have any bearing on what the actual PIO settings are?

 

I'm largely just quibbling about confusing/inconsistent terminology that is one of my bugbears, throughout the VW UI.

 

But yes, in the preview (as far as I can make out)

Insert Depth = overall depth of the window object (or other symbol) you are inserting, and you have to set this yourself

Insert Origin = where, within the window object, not within the wall the insertion point for that window is, and you have to set this yourself

 

As far as the insert location (the location within the thickness of the wall, where the window gets inserted) is concerned, settings you make within the wall closures dialogue are reflected in the preview but may or may not reflect reality, and settings you make in the plug-in object options dialogue aren't reflected in the preview and you can't manually add them to the preview yourself.

 

 

Edited November 6, 2023 by line-weight

[Christopher Graye]

21 hours ago, line-weight said:

Having had a brief look in VW2024, this is still the same there - is that right?

 

This is really a major source of confusion because if I decide that the wall closure settings for a certain window are going to be determined by that window, not by the wall's "suggestions", and untick the "use wall settings" box in the window's OIP, if I start interacting with settings offered to me for that window instance it seems reasonable to assume that any adjustments I make in those settings will apply to that window instance.

 

Basically, yes.  It is something I would still like to improve if we have time, but that got less important with the new Vectorworks 2024 ability to define multiple wall closures for each wall/wall style.  The reason is that that ability makes it far less likely that you will need to override wall closure settings for an individual insert.  The intended workflow is that you will define all the closures you will need for a given wall style in the style itself.  Of course there are always exceptions and one-offs, so we did not remove the ability to override the closure settings at the insert level, but you will notice we did remove the ability to override the wall style closure settings at the wall object level, because there is no real need for it, and having those multiple levels of overrides along with multiple wall closures would be incredibly confusing.

 

[line-weight]

11 minutes ago, Christopher Graye said:

 

Basically, yes.  It is something I would still like to improve if we have time, but that got less important with the new Vectorworks 2024 ability to define multiple wall closures for each wall/wall style.  The reason is that that ability makes it far less likely that you will need to override wall closure settings for an individual insert.  The intended workflow is that you will define all the closures you will need for a given wall style in the style itself.  Of course there are always exceptions and one-offs, so we did not remove the ability to override the closure settings at the insert level, but you will notice we did remove the ability to override the wall style closure settings at the wall object level, because there is no real need for it, and having those multiple levels of overrides along with multiple wall closures would be incredibly confusing.

 

 

Ok - thanks for the reply.

 

I guess I will revisit this whenever I get around to migrating to VW2024, and understand the changes that have been made to how closures are defined.

[Christopher Graye]

20 hours ago, line-weight said:

 

I'm largely just quibbling about confusing/inconsistent terminology that is one of my bugbears, throughout the VW UI.

 

But yes, in the preview (as far as I can make out)

Insert Depth = overall depth of the window object (or other symbol) you are inserting, and you have to set this yourself

Insert Origin = where, within the window object, not within the wall the insertion point for that window is, and you have to set this yourself

 

As far as the insert location (the location within the thickness of the wall, where the window gets inserted) is concerned, settings you make within the wall closures dialogue are reflected in the preview but may or may not reflect reality, and settings you make in the plug-in object options dialogue aren't reflected in the preview and you can't manually add them to the preview yourself.

 

 

 

This was an incredibly difficult part of the feature to design, because it has to be sufficiently general to work with not only our doors and windows, but also with every other door and window plug-in that exists, in countries where the settings are broken down completely differently and use entirely different terminology.  This was the compromise that left everyone with something usable but was not ideal for anyone.

[line-weight]

51 minutes ago, Christopher Graye said:

 

This was an incredibly difficult part of the feature to design, because it has to be sufficiently general to work with not only our doors and windows, but also with every other door and window plug-in that exists, in countries where the settings are broken down completely differently and use entirely different terminology.  This was the compromise that left everyone with something usable but was not ideal for anyone.

 

Yes, I am sure there are all sorts of horrible complexities that I am unaware of.

 

Where terminology can't be made clearer there is always the opportunity for visual hints.

 

 

When I first met this interface there were two things that confused me. One was the fact that the preview requires some manual input of data and that changing settings here doesn't change anything in the drawing. But there's not much to signal that to the user. That's not something that really occurs elsewhere in VW (that I can think of) so I think there could be something that makes it more immediately clear what is happening. Some cursor prompts do appear in small text when you hover over the settings, but could that text not be written immediately above the input fields?

 

The other thing is the "grey zone" that appears in the preview image. This represents the region where the "insert" will sit, but I spent some time thinking it represented a depth zone between the outside face of the wall, and the outside face of the inserted object.

 

That's partly because "insert depth" (where I'm invited to type a number) could be read to mean the depth of an inserted object or the depth at which an object is inserted. In fact I have to confess it's quite hard to think of an alternative name for this field that is unambiguous. Hence I'd wonder if better graphical hints could help.

 

I appreciate that in some cases it won't be a window going in here but could be some kind of custom symbol. So perhaps that's why it's just shown as a "grey zone" rather than something that looks like a window. However - in the diagram immediately adjacent to it, in the "profile offsets" panel, someone has made the decision that this diagram will show a simplified typical window shape. So why the inconsistency between these two illustrations, that appear next to each other in the same interface? If the "preview" image showed a simplified window-type shape, just like the other one does, I think that would go a long way towards making it more immediately apparent what's being shown.

 

 

[line-weight]

By the way I just had a look in VW help to see what it says about this section.

 

 

I don't quite understand what the green text means.

 

In my example I have opened the dialogue for an "insert" (a standard window). So is a representation of that particular insert supposed to display?

[Tom W.]

4 minutes ago, line-weight said:

By the way I just had a look in VW help to see what it says about this section.

 

 

I don't quite understand what the green text means.

 

In my example I have opened the dialogue for an "insert" (a standard window). So is a representation of that particular insert supposed to display?

 

Isn't this what I was saying earlier: that for the wall settings the preview just shows an indicative insert + you have to enter the thickness + insert origin yourself if you want it to be representative. Whereas in the settings for the insert itself the preview is dynamic + takes its settings from the object. Is that not happening in your case?

[line-weight]

27 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

 

Isn't this what I was saying earlier: that for the wall settings the preview just shows an indicative insert + you have to enter the thickness + insert origin yourself if you want it to be representative. Whereas in the settings for the insert itself the preview is dynamic + takes its settings from the object. Is that not happening in your case?

No - I just get that grey rectangular zone, and have to put the thickness/insert origin in myself.

 

[Tom W.]

4 minutes ago, line-weight said:

No - I just get that grey rectangular zone, and have to put the thickness/insert origin in myself.

 

 

You're absolutely right sorry. In all cases the insert depth + insert origin in the preview is generic + bears no relation to the actual insert until you enter the values yourself. The Help text suggests that when you open the Wall Closure dialog for the insert the insert in the preview will match the actual insert in question which it doesn't.

[Christopher Graye]

19 minutes ago, line-weight said:

When I first met this interface there were two things that confused me. One was the fact that the preview requires some manual input of data and that changing settings here doesn't change anything in the drawing. But there's not much to signal that to the user. That's not something that really occurs elsewhere in VW (that I can think of) so I think there could be something that makes it more immediately clear what is happening. Some cursor prompts do appear in small text when you hover over the settings, but could that text not be written immediately above the input fields?

 

These preview controls were actually not even in the initial version of the feature.  They were added later (I think in a service pack).  I remember having the same thoughts as you regarding the text above the input fields, but for some reason I did not win that debate.  I think it was deemed sufficient that the controls were inside the Preview group box, and that users would understand that those were just controls for the preview.  But I don't remember exactly.

 

19 minutes ago, line-weight said:

 

The other thing is the "grey zone" that appears in the preview image. This represents the region where the "insert" will sit, but I spent some time thinking it represented a depth zone between the outside face of the wall, and the outside face of the inserted object.

 

That's partly because "insert depth" (where I'm invited to type a number) could be read to mean the depth of an inserted object or the depth at which an object is inserted. In fact I have to confess it's quite hard to think of an alternative name for this field that is unambiguous. Hence I'd wonder if better graphical hints could help.

 

I appreciate that in some cases it won't be a window going in here but could be some kind of custom symbol. So perhaps that's why it's just shown as a "grey zone" rather than something that looks like a window. However - in the diagram immediately adjacent to it, in the "profile offsets" panel, someone has made the decision that this diagram will show a simplified typical window shape. So why the inconsistency between these two illustrations, that appear next to each other in the same interface? If the "preview" image showed a simplified window-type shape, just like the other one does, I think that would go a long way towards making it more immediately apparent what's being shown.

 

You're right - it's because wall closures can apply to not only doors and windows but also symbols and theoretically any plug-in object that wants to opt into the system.  So we needed to keep the preview vague (at least at the wall style level - as I said, it would be much better to show something closer to the actual insert at the insert level if possible).  But there was actually another reason for this - performance.  These settings are far too complex to try to fake up a preview that accurately represents what will happen when you apply them to a real object in a real wall, so we make the preview by actually creating a real object in a real wall and showing what the system really spits out.  This entails some complex geometric operations with solids and sectioning solids, and it can easily get very slow if the preview object is too complex.  We considered it essential to be able to update the preview without the user perceiving any delay, because having to wait for the preview to regenerate after each keystroke in the dialog would be extremely annoying.  So keeping the preview object this simple also allows us to keep the dialog fast and usable.

[line-weight]

16 hours ago, Christopher Graye said:

But there was actually another reason for this - performance.  These settings are far too complex to try to fake up a preview that accurately represents what will happen when you apply them to a real object in a real wall, so we make the preview by actually creating a real object in a real wall and showing what the system really spits out.  This entails some complex geometric operations with solids and sectioning solids, and it can easily get very slow if the preview object is too complex. 

 

I'm assuming that the preview creates a basic cuboid type object, because there are in the end only 6 planes (exterior/interior, 4 sides) that can interact differently with the wall, and its those 6 interactions that the preview tries to show? And the complexity of the insert object itself doesn't change any of that, or does it?

 

Reason I ask is, would it not be possible to draw a basic 2d shape, that resembled a window, in place of the grey square, in what is shown to the user.

[Tom W.]

2 minutes ago, line-weight said:

Reason I ask is, would it not be possible to draw a basic 2d shape, that resembled a window, in place of the grey square, in what is shown to the user.

 

Do you mean in the Wall Closure dialog for a Window? And a basic door representation when the insert is a Door? What about when the insert is your own symbol? Use the generic grey rectangle in those cases?

 

What I am still confused about is this:

 

 

@Christopher Graye this suggests (as @line-weight said) that in the case of the Wall Closure dialog for an insert, the preview shows not a generic insert but one that has the depth + origin of the insert in question. This isn't what happens so are we misinterpreting what it's saying? Or is the info incorrect? 

 

13 minutes ago, line-weight said:

And the complexity of the insert object itself doesn't change any of that, or does it?

 

I think for a symbol you can define exactly how you want the wall to interact with the symbol by adding geometry to the Wall Closure component of the symbol (have never tried it).

 

https://app-help.vectorworks.net/2024/eng/VW2024_Guide/Symbols/Adding_a_wall_closure_component_to_a_symbol_definition.htm

[line-weight]

Veering slightly off topic... I did a little test to see what happens when you use a non rectilinear symbol as a "window" (that is, using the "use symbol geometry" within a standard VW window object).

 

It looks like it cuts a hole perpendicularly through the wall based on the object's outermost extents, and then it decides the closure arrangement for each side of the resulting polygon based on how close it is to being vertical or horizontal. In this case I have it set so that components "wrap" at left and right sides but not top and bottom.

 

 

[Tom W.]

Presumably the symbol needs a Wall Hole Component and probably a Wall Closure component too

[line-weight]

16 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

 

Do you mean in the Wall Closure dialog for a Window? And a basic door representation when the insert is a Door? What about when the insert is your own symbol? Use the generic grey rectangle in those cases?

 

I think it would be ok if it was just a basic window representation regardless of whether you're inserting a window, door or custom symbol. That's what you get (as far as I can see) in the two other locations within the closure dialogue, regardless of what you're inserting:

 

 

I do get that it is difficult to make a decision on what's the least confusing approach though.

 

The way I see it, once people are using custom symbols, they are probably deep enough into things that they can easily understand that the representation is just diagrammatic. My aim would be to make things as legible as possible for someone meeting the interface for the first time, and at that point they are likely just to be wanting to insert a standard window or door.

 

Anyway, yes I do agree with you that the green text in the Help page is a bit confusing/unclear.

[line-weight]

1 minute ago, Tom W. said:

Presumably the symbol needs a Wall Hole Component and probably a Wall Closure component too

I assume these are automatically generated when you do it within a window object.

 

I wonder what happens to wall closures if you make a custom symbol of your own, and define your own wall hole and make it non perpendicular to the wall.

 

I had better get on with some real work now though.

[Tom W.]

30 minutes ago, line-weight said:

I wonder what happens to wall closures if you make a custom symbol of your own, and define your own wall hole and make it non perpendicular to the wall.

 

Doesn't work well in quick test...

 

32 minutes ago, line-weight said:

I think it would be ok if it was just a basic window representation regardless of whether you're inserting a window, door or custom symbol. That's what you get (as far as I can see) in the two other locations within the closure dialogue, regardless of what you're inserting:

 

Aha I see good point.

[Christopher Graye]

4 hours ago, line-weight said:

 

I'm assuming that the preview creates a basic cuboid type object, because there are in the end only 6 planes (exterior/interior, 4 sides) that can interact differently with the wall, and its those 6 interactions that the preview tries to show? And the complexity of the insert object itself doesn't change any of that, or does it?

 

Reason I ask is, would it not be possible to draw a basic 2d shape, that resembled a window, in place of the grey square, in what is shown to the user.

 

Maybe, but if you are not actually putting a window in there that will be misleading.  I think I actually wanted nothing in there all, because, first of all, I didn't want any detail at all to obscure the actual closure geometry the user is editing; and secondly so everyone understood that they were editing the closure, not the inserted object.  This was a major point of confusion at first, because everyone was used to controlling component wrapping by editing the inserted object itself.  But here what you are editing is the wall or wall style or, at the insert-level, the connection between the wall and the inserted object.  So by de-emphasizing the graphics of the insert, I had hoped to make this clear.  Matt, I think, thought we needed something in there so that the options about wrapping to the insert, etc. would be more clearly understood.  This dashed gray rectangle is the compromise we came up with.  And it has gone through some changes, too - I think it was initially much darker.