VW US Windows (unequal bi-part tilt/turn configuration)

[zoomer]

6 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

I may not have understood what you're doing

 

Yes, terrible to read .....

 

 

8 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

Much like @Matt Panzer does in this video (30:00 onwards):

 

https://university.vectorworks.net/mod/overview/view.php?id=3027

 

 

Will look at it.

For now I think it is not possible to set 2 different Closure Settings (?)

for a single side of an opening - in this case, Door+Window = L-shaped opening.

 

Where I currently, for the parapet part of the Wall under the Window, use

Door to have no Closure at touching side but Window have Closure at touching

side.

 

But I'll see.

 

[Tom W.]

Again may not be what you're trying to achieve but there is a setting in the OIP that allows you to exclude certain geometry from the wall closure settings. Plus there is a specific wall closure component within symbols that provides additional control over how the symbol interacts with the wall...

[zoomer]

Sounds great.

Will look at it later ....

[Matt Panzer]

2 hours ago, Tom W. said:

3 hours ago, zoomer said:

My full height Window touching standard height Window combination's

magically working Wall closure, at the attic Wall between the Windows .....

does not really work or not reliable.

It works for one combination but not for a neighbored Combination.

 

I may not have understood what you're doing but have you tried saving the multi-window assembly as a single symbol + inserting that in the Wall + applying the Wall Closures to it? Much like @Matt Panzer does in this video (30:00 onwards):

 

https://university.vectorworks.net/mod/overview/view.php?id=3027

 

Yeah.  Butting doors and windows up against each other has always been problematic and is not recommended.  Using symbols should give you more reliable results.  That said, we are looking at better ways to handle this.

 

I agree that the UI has room for improvement.

[mike m oz]

Matt,

One way around the problem would be to have user defined shim gaps for each edge.

A better way would be for butting shim gaps to automatically set themselves to zero when units are butted up again each other.

[Matt Panzer]

13 minutes ago, mike m oz said:

Matt,

One way around the problem would be to have user defined shim gaps for each edge.

A better way would be for butting shim gaps to automatically set themselves to zero when units are butted up again each other.

 

Hi Mike,

Thanks for mentioning these.  We are looking to address these issues and these are some of the ideas being looked at.

[zoomer]

6 hours ago, zoomer said:

Wall closures,

especially when used with different settings for sides, top and bottom,

seem to often (?) easily (?) do unwanted subtractions to my Wall Core.

 

 

I am not 100% sure if that is always a bad setting issue.

(Have to check that more in detail)

But at least it is very likely to happen.

 

 

For me so far it looks a bit like,

when you have broader side closures than top closure,

(side depth 5 cm, top 1.5 cm here)

that the side closures top end also extends these 5 cm, not only the 1,5 cm top closure thickness.

Which penetrates my masonry core component.

(at least when I have a custom Offset on the sides ?)

 

Just an not helpful assumption.

I had indeed some wrong settings for the top closure and could make the penetration

from top closure go away. But still had the side closures extending the wall opening top.

 

But have to look deeper in to it when I find the time.

 

 

 

[mike m oz]

7 hours ago, Matt Panzer said:

Thanks for mentioning these.  We are looking to address these issues and these are some of the ideas being looked at.

 

Possible that some users will want shims between butting units to replicate the real life scenario of adjusting units so they are vertical.  Likely that would be the same width as the jamb to wall shims.  Thus maybe separate shim thickness are needed for wall jambs and butting jambs.

[zoomer]

Another thing I noticed.

 

Over the years I experienced a very comfortable feature of VW.

Usually you could do a selection of multiple same type of nearly

any object type (including PIOs !) and edit them at once in OIP.

Where OIP shows same used values and marks input fields that

which different numbers for each of the objects.

 

But even these "multiple values" fields could be edited to force

all objects using the same value - which is absolutely great !

(other Apps often fail in this case)

 

I think this feature got lost or limited in more and more cases in

latest VW versions, e.g. when using complex additions like

Wall closures.

 

I can still select multiple interior Doors, open Wall Closure Settings

in OIP and e.g. deactivate Wall Closures for these Doors.

But AFAIR, changes only applied to the first selected Door, the 

rest of the selection set ignores it and it needs to edit each Door

individually.

[Matt Panzer]

On 5/10/2023 at 5:34 AM, zoomer said:

I can still select multiple interior Doors, open Wall Closure Settings

in OIP and e.g. deactivate Wall Closures for these Doors.

But AFAIR, changes only applied to the first selected Door, the 

rest of the selection set ignores it and it needs to edit each Door

individually.

 

You can edit the closure settings of multiple wall inserts as long as they're in walls of the same style.  If they're in walls of different styles, the "Edit Closure" button in the Object Info palette disables because different wall styles typically have different component structures and we can only show one in the dialogs.

[zoomer]

Need to try that again.

As AFAIR should have been the same Wall Style (but maybe different Door widths).

At least the Wall Closure button in OIP was not locked or disabled ...

Edited May 11, 2023 by zoomer