CharlesD Posted October 8, 2025 Share Posted October 8, 2025 Hello- I think I may be misunderstanding something basic about how Equipment items interact with their Symbol as I've run into a few sharp edges I wasn't expecting. In this case, I have an openGear module frame. I've created a Rack Frame in my Layout. I've created an OG card as a Device with physical dimensions, but set to Modular, 2-Slots. What I see is that when I insert this device into the rack frame it correctly shows update dimensions in the OIP from the rack frame... however I see that the 3d representation continues to use the 3d Symbol with random dimensions when I first created the device. Am I missing part of this workflow? How can I make sure that the 3d representation uses the OIP dims and not the symbol dims? Quote Link to comment
Vectorworks, Inc Employee Nikolay Zhelyazkov Posted October 9, 2025 Vectorworks, Inc Employee Share Posted October 9, 2025 Hello @CharlesD, 12 hours ago, CharlesD said: What I see is that when I insert this device into the rack frame it correctly shows update dimensions in the OIP from the rack frame... however I see that the 3d representation continues to use the 3d Symbol with random dimensions when I first created the device. - This is a bug that will be fixed in the future updates. The dimensions of an equipment item should not change as they should always match the symbols dimensions, as these are the actual equipment item dimensions. If you want to have your equipment item sized to fit the slot you have 2 options: 1) Use Equipment Item without a symbol selected. Then it will automatically fit the dimensions of the slots as before 2) Edit the symbol graphics and make them the size that you want and expect Best Regards, Nikolay Zhelyazkov Quote Link to comment
CharlesD Posted October 9, 2025 Author Share Posted October 9, 2025 (edited) Thanks @Nikolay Zhelyazkov! Is it possible to remove a symbol assigned to an Equipment? I don't think I've ever gone back to null. Edited October 9, 2025 by CharlesD Quote Link to comment
Vectorworks, Inc Employee Nikolay Zhelyazkov Posted October 9, 2025 Vectorworks, Inc Employee Share Posted October 9, 2025 16 minutes ago, CharlesD said: Thanks @Nikolay Zhelyazkov! Is it possible to remove a symbol assigned to an Equipment? I don't think I've every gone back to null. In the OIP, the symbol selector has a None choice on the top. Keep in mind that this will delete the symbol from the equipment item graphics and add graphics to the equipment item based on its dimensions. You will not see any difference unless your symbol had something more than the graphics. 1 Quote Link to comment
Vectorworks, Inc Employee Conrad Preen Posted October 9, 2025 Vectorworks, Inc Employee Share Posted October 9, 2025 @CharlesD Hey Charles, please file the bug so it adds to your stats! Conrad Quote Link to comment
CharlesD Posted October 9, 2025 Author Share Posted October 9, 2025 The new system is a little difficult with half rack items. If I wanted to create a half rack width item it would make a 3d symbol for me with the half rack left justified. If I customized this symbol with graphics (like a picture for the face panel) then I would have to maintain two instances of this symbol in my library, one for left and one for right. Is there a cleaner way to do this than I'm thinking of? Quote Link to comment
Vectorworks, Inc Employee Conrad Preen Posted October 10, 2025 Vectorworks, Inc Employee Share Posted October 10, 2025 For half-rack items we can't use our new symbol paradigm because the mounting 'ears' need to be drawn dynamically. Cleanest solution I think is to define half-rack items as though they were none-rack, and put them in a 2-slot rack frame in rack-tray mode. That way they'll snap nicely and you only need one symbol. In terms of reporting the tray is almost like a side-by-side mounting kit which is something manufacturers love to charge for anyway. My 2c worth Conrad 1 Quote Link to comment
CharlesD Posted October 11, 2025 Author Share Posted October 11, 2025 This seems like a fair compromise. I could see a world with a more elegant solution... but it's probaby not worth the development cycles if no one else is itching for a solution.This seems like a fair compromise. I could see a world with a more elegant solution... but it's probaby not worth the development cycles if no one else is itching for a solution. 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.