Worksheets & Reports & custom features

[Piotr Karczewski]

Hi I have found some of worksheets with database (row) line hidden, sometimes, but not always, they appear when I change their height but after all they hide.
I'm wondering how to obtain this result in my own worksheet? Using 0 height make it is easy to reveal the line.

[Tom W.]

Do you mean you want to hide row 2? If so, in the View menu uncheck 'Database Headers'.

[Piotr Karczewski]

Thanks @Tom W., this is what I was looking for! I didn't know that it works per worksheet instance.

[Piotr Karczewski]

I'm also looking for a way to present  hatch image of the hardscape (1st/top component hatch like in 2D view)  in worksheets.
=IMAGE with Type: Miniature shows the shape of the hardscape.

When I use Type: 2d attributes it goes for hardscape attribute which is NOT TOP component attribute.

It should look like this:

This is the result of using Type: Miniature + 1:20 scale (You can still see shape of the hardscape ex. 3.4)

What is that I'm looking for is a 1st component hatch preview in rectangle shape for ex. 120x40pts in worksheet.

Thanx for any advice!

[Pat Stanford]

I don't think the Image functions in worksheets are sophisticated enough to do what you are attempting.

 

I am not certain but you may have better results using a Graphical Legend instead of a worksheet.

[Tom W.]

Definitely try Graphic Legends this is exactly what they’re designed for.

[Piotr Karczewski]

I'm making a report and function, described below, does not work correctly

Functions:

=ROUNDUP(number; digits) - 

Rounds the specified number up to a specified number of decimal digits.

 

for me it should be H3.1 = 375,84 and J3.1 = 87

How to fix it? or is there another way to ROUND the number UP to the nearest WHOLE NUMBER

[Pat Stanford]

It seems to work correctly and give the answer you want for me in VW2025.

 

But I put in a fixed value in Column I.  Could it be that you actually have more decimal points in Hardscape.Record so the value you are using is not exactly 4.32?  Do you need a Round to 2 decimal places there?

 

Also, I don't see a Record field in the VW2025 Hardscape Parameter Record. And what is the :' at the end of the Value statement doing?

[Pat Stanford]

This just came back up. This is not a RoundUp problem, but rather a database limitation.

 

In a summarized database row, the calculation is run on each subrow and then the total is summed. Since there a multiple summarized subrows, the RoundUp converts many of those to an integer of 1 and then all those 1s are summed giving the value that is much too high.

 

The only work around I know is to not use a database and to use the spreadsheet version of the =AREA(criteria) function to get the total for each object type and then run the roundup on that result.

[Piotr Karczewski]

On 12/26/2024 at 7:27 PM, Pat Stanford said:

This just came back up. This is not a RoundUp problem, but rather a database limitation.

 

In a summarized database row, the calculation is run on each subrow and then the total is summed. Since there a multiple summarized subrows, the RoundUp converts many of those to an integer of 1 and then all those 1s are summed giving the value that is much too high.

 

The only work around I know is to not use a database and to use the spreadsheet version of the =AREA(criteria) function to get the total for each object type and then run the roundup on that result.

Thank You so much @Pat Stanford I really appreciate Your help!

Maybe @Tony Kostreski could forward this case to sb to improve this feature to work as it should - ROUNDUP the sum of subrows insted of ROUNDUP each subrow and then summarise it.
I suppose it should be quite easy but significant improvement in reports/sheets. For now it limits its functionality a lot!

[Pat Stanford]

Unfortunately, I think this would be a very difficult improvement to worksheets and would require an almost complete rework of how database rows are calculated.

 

But I am the eternal optimist and remain hopeful that it will happen.  🙂

 

[Piotr Karczewski]

22 hours ago, Pat Stanford said:

(...) would require an almost complete rework of how database rows are calculated.

(...)

Maybe it's time to do it if Vectorworks wants to be the BIM leader!

Worksheet improvements will affect all industries that uses Vectorworks.

[Pat Stanford]

I agree. But I am also not going to hold my breath.  🥶

[Piotr Karczewski]

You don't have to U're worksheet magician!

[TimRoutledge]

Im having a strange issue in 2024 - large worksheet disapears in my viewport when recalculating. The data is all there if i got into the worksheet but the viewport cannot display it.

[Pat Stanford]

Can you post or DM the file so we can take a look. Not something I have heard of before.

 

Also, what version of VW and what operating system?

[Piotr Karczewski]

On 2/3/2025 at 10:25 PM, TimRoutledge said:

Im having a strange issue in 2024 - large worksheet disapears in my viewport when recalculating. The data is all there if i got into the worksheet but the viewport cannot display it.

it also happend to me once, while tutoring ..... 😞

[EASA25]

In creating a worksheet summarising counts and volumes of building materials in a project, if the objects are grouped Vectorworks 2025 seems to return an amplified count and volume. Why is this?

[Jonathan Pickup]

are there design layer viewports to other parts of the file? 

 

[Pat Stanford]

Can you post a file that is showing this? It is very hard to know what is going on without seeing what you are seeing.

[EASA25]

Jonathan - there were sheet view ports which I deleted but had no impact on the result.

 

Pat - not at my work computer. It was a student assignment so I probably cannot share it. But all the elements were grouped - joists grouped together, rafters grouped together, etc. What I found was that by ungrouping these elements I was given a different, smaller quantity and volume, which appears [more or less] correct. So I am assuming the Vectorworks counts the individual items in a group, then counts the group. A bit annoying.

 

I also found that Vectorworks counts an extrusion correctly for volume, but that a solid subtraction [created by reducing the length of the original extrusion] seems to count both the solid subtraction and the original extrusion, which messes up the quantity count - and maybe the volume [still checking that].

[Tom W.]

1 hour ago, EASA25 said:

So I am assuming the Vectorworks counts the individual items in a group, then counts the group. 

 

Whether objects are Grouped or not should have no bearing on how they are counted in a Worksheet. Are you getting the same thing in a new file with a couple of objects in it?

[EASA25]

Tom - yes. Not a new file. But I grouped a small set of rafters, ran an inventory, then ugrouped them and ran it again. And there was a difference. I could try it in a clean file I suppose, which, if it made no difference, might suggest there is something wrong in the first file.

[Pat Stanford]

It actually sounds like you are not using the proper criteria to specify the objects.

 

1. I have not seen groups make a difference in counts (and as far as I know except for specifying Group as the object Type, they don't make any difference).

 

2. Viewports can definitely make a difference. You best bet there is to add Layer criteria to ensure you are only counting objects on the layer(s) that you need to.

 

3. For the Solid Subtraction, it is likely that the criteria you are using is CGS Solid and both the original extrusion and the shortened version are both CGS Solids. Try making a more specific criteria. Either give the final subtraction a different Class and specify objects in that class or specify the layer. The final Subtraction will be on the layer. The original unmodified version will not be on the layer (it is "hidden" inside the subtraction).

 

Very difficult for us to help with problems like this based just on words. 

If you can't share the file, perhaps some screen shots of the criteria you are using would help.

[Tom W.]

1 hour ago, EASA25 said:

I could try it in a clean file I suppose, which, if it made no difference, might suggest there is something wrong in the first file.

 

Yes you need to do this. Then you can look for what is different in the first file to be causing the problem.