Anyone using 2024?

[michaelk]

Yep.  Still there.

[KWiley]

@michaelk 

First pic is from update2, I went back to update 1.1 and all good. Guess its a bug.

Edited November 30, 2023 by KWiley

[Mark Aceto]

On 11/30/2023 at 6:33 AM, KWiley said:

@Mark Aceto I did refresh Libraries, no change.

 

The reason I asked was because someone smarter than me once pointed out your Favorites folder gets indexed every time the resource manager is opened,
where as the user and workgroup folders only get indexed when you run the 'refresh libraries' command. So that might have explained the slow startup time (depending on how expensive those Favorites files are).

[Mark Aceto]

On 11/30/2023 at 1:48 PM, KWiley said:

@michaelk 

First pic is from update2, I went back to update 1.1 and all good. Guess its a bug.

 

Wondering if this is yet another one of those Whac A Mole scenarios where tab of the file you want to attach the record to is not active because you're in another tab... or some other version of that which would contextually change the... context click.

[KWiley]

Anybody else experiencing problem after problem with 24? The attach record missing in RM has been reported as a bug. Glazing turns to a solid panel when Segment or Round Top is selected on doors and no control over the mid style. All of my custom columns from 2023 won't let me change the height now, it will try then just go back to default.  

[Pat Stanford]

Have you updated to Update 2 that was released just before Thanksgiving. I think at least some of the issues you mentioned were fixed there.

[KWiley]

14 minutes ago, Pat Stanford said:

Have you updated to Update 2 that was released just before Thanksgiving. I think at least some of the issues you mentioned were fixed there.

Yes, I updated as soon as it came out. I was right in the middle of customizing my door file when the first problem with the attach record happened, I reverted back to update 1.1 to finish what I was working on. After running into the door glazing issue and the column issue this morning I went back to update2 and all 3 problems are still there. I submitted bug reports on all 3, the attach record bug has been confirmed. The other 2 I just submitted this morning. I'm currently downloading 2023 again so I can actually get some work done. 

[Henrique Lauer]

my first experiences using the vw2024

•  if you add slabs modifies the slabs does not shows the correct plan view - if you add many slabs modiffies the view plan could be bizarre! Bellow you could see with one simple modifier! 

bellow with one simple modiffier 

bellow without modifiers

• general low performance! my setup : rtx 4090 / Ryzen 9 5950x16 core (32threads) 64gb + ssds and nvme 
• doors and windows low performance

[Christopher Graye]

On 12/8/2023 at 2:32 PM, KWiley said:

Yes, I updated as soon as it came out. I was right in the middle of customizing my door file when the first problem with the attach record happened, I reverted back to update 1.1 to finish what I was working on. After running into the door glazing issue and the column issue this morning I went back to update2 and all 3 problems are still there. I submitted bug reports on all 3, the attach record bug has been confirmed. The other 2 I just submitted this morning. I'm currently downloading 2023 again so I can actually get some work done. 

 

The Attach Record context menu command is still there for symbols.  It was deliberately removed in Update 2 for plug-in object styles, because it was never supposed to be there in the first place.  This was brought to our attention when we got a bug report about about records attached to structural member styles not being placed on new instances.  We had no idea this command was even in the context menu for plug-in object styles.  It turned out that it got there because symbols and plug-in object styles share some implementation under the hood, and the code that builds that context menu was not properly distinguishing between the two.

 

Since the records were not getting attached to the instances anyway, we just removed the command and thought that was the end of it.  But apparently there is more to the story, because the records in fact were getting propagated to doors and windows from their styles, as mentioned in this thread.  So we looked into it more, and some plug-in styles, depending on some technical specifics of how their corresponding tools are implemented, actually do the records, and some do not.  There is no way for users to tell for which kinds of objects this will work.  But at least some users have been using this for doors and windows.

 

How exactly are you using this for doors and windows?  The accidental exposure of this functionality only worked half way for objects for which is worked at all, so I'm surprised it was useful.  For one thing, unlike symbols, when you attached a record to an object style, it would not be placed on existing instances.  Also, when you edited the record fields on a style, it would not update the instances with the changes, so there was no way to make any meaningful changes after the fact.  Basically, we have to decide what to do about this now, and I am trying to get an idea for how this was used in your workflows.

[KWiley]

@Christopher Graye This is surprising to hear, I'm not sure if I understand completely if I'm doing something right or wrong because I learned how to attach a record to a door or window from a VW video. I did notice that attaching a record wouldn't change existing instances. Everything I've done I've done for both doors and windows but while I'm explaining I'll just use doors for example.

 

I started off by making a Record with a list of every possible variation of door and how we want it to be described on the schedule, I made each description a drop down so that it can be chosen from the OIP after the fact in case something like material needs to be changed on a single instance. After making all of my different door Plug-Ins, I right clicked each door in the Resource Manager, selected attach record, added my record to the door, then selected the default description for the door to come into the file with. I then added my Record to my Door Schedule, then added my Schedule to the appropriate Sheet Layer in my Template file.  

 

I thought this was the right way of going about this to customize our schedules to read the way that we want them to. I've spent almost 1 yr now setting up Vectorworks for our office so that its completely streamlined and customized to our office standards and style. As it is now, you place all your doors and windows while you're drawing, add your data tags and the schedules are already sitting on the sheet layer completed ready to print. It took a little time to set up but it's a HUGE time saver and one of our favorite things about the software. 

 

Now that "Attach Record" has been removed, our doors and windows and everything we've set up so far is still working as it's suppose to but now if we build any new door or window Plug-Ins there is no way for us to attach our record so we will have to manually type the description in the Schedules. 

[KWiley]

@Christopher Graye

Not sure if these guys are actually affiliated with Vectorworks but this is the video, around 42 min. 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by KWiley

[Christopher Graye]

@KWiley, interesting.  One possibility is for us to do the work necessary to make this work for all PIO Styles, including propagating the record to existing instances - in other words, make it work the same way as it does for symbols.  But that still seems pretty limited.  Isn't it a huge problem that you cannot make edits to the door style record after the fact and have the changes propagate to the instances?  The same could be asked of symbols, too, but it seems much more limiting for PIO Styles.

[KWiley]

@Christopher Graye Well we realized early on that making changes wouldn't change existing instances. This shaped how we set up our doors and windows and what we allowed to be changed by instance on each PIO so that it coincided with our different selections in our record. This way any PIO you choose you can only make changes that will match a description in the record which you can change via drop down in the OIP to an existing PIO. We had to make a list of every possible door and window that we typically use, we compared it to the description's and what could easily be changed by instance in the drawing and that's how we came up with our description's in the record and what doors and windows we actually needed to make. We ended up with about 40 doors altogether minus 1/2 & 3/4 Glass Arch & Round Tops because the glazing disappears and turns to a solid when changing the Top Shape (I submitted this as a bug but haven't gotten a response). 

 

I can see being limited to changes not being made to existing instances on larger scale projects. We haven't had any issues so far with this workflow but it did take some time to set up so that we don't run into those issues. Everything we've built so far is to be as streamlined as possible, we wanted to be able to just grab and go as we're drawing without having to stop and make a lot of changes and so far it's worked out great. It really surprises me that this wasn't set up to be this way. We really hope that VW decides to add the records to PIO's, at least just for doors and windows because we really do love being able to customize our own descriptions with records.   

[Christopher Graye]

@KWiley, I think you can use the Data Manager to do the exact thing you are describing.  Do you ever use the Data Manager in your workflows?

[KWiley]

@Christopher Graye No I haven't. Looks like I'm going to spend some time learning how to use it tomorrow though. I'll let you know how it turns out. 

[Tom W.]

12 hours ago, Christopher Graye said:

I think you can use the Data Manager to do the exact thing you are describing. 

 

The only way I know to do this is using Class Based Objects which requires you to create a dedicated class for each Door Style. If there's another way I'd be interested to know.

[KWiley]

@Christopher Graye So I've spent some time this morning looking into the Data Manager. I'm far from an expert and only just found out about it yesterday but I do see how to attach my existing records to the PIO's. The difference I see, and I may be missing something, is before when I could attach the record to a PIO in the resource manager, I was able to choose a description from my Record as the default for each individual PIO. That way when that PIO is used, the default description is already set for that specific object and I only have to change it in instances where needed. Attaching a record through the Data Manager gives me my Record drop down in the OIP but it adds steps where I have to choose the description for every PIO Instance, every time, instead of just being able to grab and drop, saving time. 

Edited December 28, 2023 by KWiley

[Tom W.]

51 minutes ago, KWiley said:

@Christopher Graye So I've spent some time this morning looking into the Data Manager. I'm far from an expert and only just found out about it yesterday but I do see how to attach my existing records to the PIO's. The difference I see, and I may be missing something, is before when I could attach the record to a PIO in the resource manager, I was able to choose a description from my Record as the default for each individual PIO. That way when that PIO is used, the default description is already set for that specific object and I only have to change it in instances where needed. Attaching a record through the Data Manager gives me my Record drop down in the OIP but it adds steps where I have to choose the description for every PIO Instance, every time, instead of just being able to grab and drop, saving time. 

 

If you set up the data mapping so that the Record is attached to objects by class, you can define the mapping for the Record fields on a class by class basis. This requires you to create different classes for each of your Door styles + assign the Doors to those classes in the PIO Style Options. When you insert a Door in the drawing it will automatically have the Record attached to it with the fields filled in as determined by the data mapping for that class.

 

It would be great instead if you could define the mapping on a style by style basis but I'm not aware that you can do this.

[Christopher Graye]

7 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

 

If you set up the data mapping so that the Record is attached to objects by class, you can define the mapping for the Record fields on a class by class basis. This requires you to create different classes for each of your Door styles + assign the Doors to those classes in the PIO Style Options. When you insert a Door in the drawing it will automatically have the Record attached to it with the fields filled in as determined by the data mapping for that class.

 

It would be great instead if you could define the mapping on a style by style basis but I'm not aware that you can do this.

 

It should be possible to do this, though I am far from an expert on the Data Manager either, so I'll have to play around with it and try to figure it out.

 

In the meantime, I am also checking into what would be involved with adding the context menu command back in such a way that it works reliably for all plug-in objects.

[KWiley]

@Christopher Graye I think the way @Tom W. suggested would give us the same results and able to use the same workflow. It seems like going around the world to achieve the same result though. It was very simple being able to attach a record from the RM. As of now, I cant even remove the record that I attached this way since the context menu command is no longer there. I think I would have to revert back to a version before Update2 so that I could use the command to remove the records, or start from scratch and spend another week rebuilding our entire door and window files. I'm going to hold off for the moment and just hope that you get the command back.

[Christopher Graye]

@KWiley, in any case, it would be very simple to write a script to do all of this as well.  I am still looking into it, but things are moving slowly because we are all off until after the new year.

[JuanCarlos]

@KWiley Happy New Year!

In the attached file you can find a simple small sample of a Record attached through the Data Manager and a formula applied to one of the record fields to automate an output. Reading through the thread I understand this was a manual process for you with the exception of the attached Record to the Style Object, the same can be accomplished with the Data Manager, further more and the beauty of it, is that the process can be automated through formulas (same as in worksheets) making the process faster and less prone to errors

Hint, use worksheets to check your formulas

HTH 

Record to styles.vwx

[Tom W.]

12 hours ago, JuanCarlos said:

@KWiley Happy New Year!

In the attached file you can find a simple small sample of a Record attached through the Data Manager and a formula applied to one of the record fields to automate an output. Reading through the thread I understand this was a manual process for you with the exception of the attached Record to the Style Object, the same can be accomplished with the Data Manager, further more and the beauty of it, is that the process can be automated through formulas (same as in worksheets) making the process faster and less prone to errors

Hint, use worksheets to check your formulas

HTH 

Record to styles.vwx

 

@JuanCarlos this is so helpful thank you so much for posting 👍

[Tom W.]

The advantage of the Class-based Objects method is that it allows you to specify exactly which styles you want to have the Record + which not. @JuanCarlos's example using Plug-in Objects (Built-in) is great as long as you are happy for all the Walls in the file to have that Record attached. It would be great to be able to attach records on a style-by-style basis. In my kitchens I use Slabs for the worktops + I want those Slabs only to have the 'Worktop' Record attached to them. At the moment I achieve this using Class-based Objects but it would be far easier to right-click on the Style in the RM + attach the Record there + specify the defaults in each case.

[Christopher Graye]

Can't you set some criteria based on the style, @JuanCarlos?