Eva99 Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 Hey, I'm having trouble editing the dimensions from e.g. table. This table is in recourse manager, inside Vectorworks library and is called "Furn Office Knoll Conf Table Boat 216in" When I am in 2D mode(top/plan) I am able to modify the size of the table so it fits the floor plan by selecting the table and shrinking it. But when I go to the 3D view (right isometric) the table is still in the original size and is way too big. Under object info there is no possibility to adjust the size. Quote Link to comment
michaelk Posted March 11, 2023 Share Posted March 11, 2023 Hi @Eva99. Welcome to the forum. How did you shrink it? Did you edit the 2D part of the symbol or did you scale it using the OIP? Quote Link to comment
Eva99 Posted March 11, 2023 Author Share Posted March 11, 2023 By editing in 2D by using blue dots to shrink it down. But it doesn't change in 3D. Quote Link to comment
Tom W. Posted March 11, 2023 Share Posted March 11, 2023 The table is a hybrid symbol containing a Top component + a 3D component. The geometry in each is independent of the other so need editing separately: in your case you've resized the Top component, now you need to resize the 3D component as well. Note: when you do this you are editing the symbol definition meaning that all instances of that symbol in the drawing + all future instances will be the new size. You'd be better to duplicate the symbol then create a second different-sized version, then you'll have the choice of two sizes. Another option as @michaelk alludes to is rescaling the symbol instance in the OIP: choose asymmetric scaling + shorten the length of the table on the X axis + width on the Y axis. This is a quicker + easier option + won't affect the symbol definition, however be aware that it will squash/stretch your geometry so might only be doable in smaller amounts or not at all if you need complete accuracy (that's not to say that the asymmetric scaling of symbols isn't an incredibly useful in other circumstances). 2 Quote Link to comment
bcd Posted March 11, 2023 Share Posted March 11, 2023 Yes, what @Tom W.says - I'd go for option B, scale asymmetrically z'=1 1 Quote Link to comment
shorter Posted March 12, 2023 Share Posted March 12, 2023 Is that not scaling the legs too ? duplicate the symbol and create another table that’s the right size. Quote Link to comment
bcd Posted March 12, 2023 Share Posted March 12, 2023 1 minute ago, shorter said: Is that not scaling the legs too ? Yes, but I don't expect that's important in this use case. Quote Link to comment
shorter Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 I’d like to see the client’s face when that comes back from the supplier! #badpractice Quote Link to comment
bcd Posted March 13, 2023 Share Posted March 13, 2023 I depends on what it's for - if it's for a seating plan, which is my understanding, then it's perfectly fine, flexible, repeatable & fast, while accurately providing overall plan sizes for seat & aisle spacing. If it's needed for furniture manufacture - then of course, it should be accurately modeled. 1 Quote Link to comment
shorter Posted March 14, 2023 Share Posted March 14, 2023 Apologies… I come from a position of having to manage and correct this sort of thing so it hits a nerve! 🙂 1 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.