Jump to content
Guest

General VW Questions - Things to be of concern ?

Recommended Posts

Guest

I am a fairly young user of VW. Being onto VW case for 6 months before I bought this package and running the trial into it - 8 months now. I like it and it is a wonderfull program. I like the Landmark, Arch and Mech capabilities as an all in one. That is what we need. Still need a real thoroughbred structural side though.

As with all CAD's there is always stuff that anybody and everybody complain about and to what developers at this stage must be quite used to. Some complains are written in the heat of the moment, others well thought over, bottom line not one single CAD is perfect.

But if I can take a few examples of capabilities / functions that should be "perfected" / included / attended too here under it is not to smear NNA in the mud but general concerns. It is a question of whether more licences will be bought and the user base be broadened. And if the user will be accomodated for now and in the future or not. Sometimes you get the impression that the "engineers" feel they have done enough and their role in creating a capability or function is completed and to hell with the rest. Difficult situation.

A few concerning examples;

1. Simple capabilities that had to be built into VW long time ago, - Multiple Move/Copy, Copy Point to Point, Move Point to Point, Extend Line / Lines, 2D Reshape tool shortcomings, Transparency incapabilities in 2D/3D etc etc that is basic tools for fast CAD works and also essential but left to 3rd Parties to complete the job and at many instances at cost - DEFINATELY NOT A GOOD CV TOWARDS NNA AND NOT PROMOTIONAL.

2.Half completed functions like as per example the roof framing tool - it is more of a good to look at tool for presentations. Why not doiing it correct the first time and finish the job with truss capabilites and adjustable purline capabilities? PIO objects that have missing lines / objects, PIO not perfectly representing the sizes etc.

Why not get these already developed / half finished jobs finished instead of hunting down the next version with more half finished / useless functions and capabilities? In the end when the user base gets smaller and smaller nobody ussually understand what were the reason and where things started to go wrong. Rather now than too late.

Marketing can just can go so-far, there after the users definately reads and knows the truth and go down hunting another CAD to suit their needs. Today there is enough opportunities for users to get into something new and more trend like with a solid well developed accurate functions and capabilities with less built in problems.

It is an attracting pitfall for developers with a large user base to have this attitude.

Certainly one that per example TurboCad had when they had better sales than ACAD at one stage. Precisely similar attitudes left them currently stone dead and lagging ages behind.

This leaves you with the question again - go back to ACAD, pay the price, work with it and learn to like it and live with it or go to indivudual CAD packages that does what it is supposed to do and where the developer's attitude is totally open and accepting towards their user base as they know their survival and growth is totally dependent on their customers requests and gratitude. Or have NNA outgrown the user base with their too big current international affiliated company profile ?

We have the trend that customers is starting to go back to smaller individual firms that care more about the individual these days - look into your own personal life for example - the smaller type of supermarket, smaller type of insurance firm etc etc - personal, warm and friendly and most of all,- caring about the individual needs and meeting with the required responsibility level, the reasonable demands and requests.

3. Does NNA really listen to their user's input or is it there for the sunshine and beauty ? Why not giving a hint into which direction they goiing ? And are they going down the lane the user's want it to be. By the end of the day is it the user's that keep NNA alive and well.

4.For me personally and in the position of running multi discipline engineering Arch, Mech and Struc/Civil the VW package is excellent. I like the Mechanical package but it is an understated feature in a market that there is need in. VW have some of the brightest features. Personally I would like to see the ALGOR FEA, parts explosions / Assembling incorporated. These capabilities just enhance the product and is also in the today as per standard, a trend of doiing things.

Hopefully NNA will further extend this undervalued Mechanical package and do some more aggressive marketing. While on the topic - why can the I, H Beams and channels etc not be converted straight away to 3D objects - again an example of not finishing the job ?!

If I may use per example the Alibre Mechanical package, - they have basicly the same features as VW with some brilliant tools extra as mentioned and from a null and void company (if I remember correct - only 2 years back) start campaigning and look where they are today ! And VW do not have to hide in the back cupboard to them - it is a good package, just need a bit of extra work and some good marketing.

5. I further understand a firm like NNA concerns about the BIM and IFC issues. They in the end must also look into the future to keep them on the shelf to have a pretty long shelf life BUT and it is a BIG but NNA must keep looking down too! That down is the users problems and frustrations and requests that must not be left behind in the race to have shelf life. No use you have shelf life and nobody buys. For the users that is issues that have to be fought at this stage by NNA alone till there is a definant course it will be taken by all developers. Current user fuctions / capabilities / shortcomings / half finished programming / improving current user sphere is for the user the most important - thus to say it simple - the short term on the design board production issues that implies time is money and money is time. BIM, IFC is more or less a NNA long term issue but a given important one.

All in all - VW is a really nice program, a bit different, steep learning curve that gets you red in the neck at certain stages but well balanced.For that I say thank you to the NNA team.

A penny in the box.

Regards.

Share this post


Link to post
1. Simple capabilities that had to be built into VW long time ago, - Multiple Move/Copy, Copy Point to Point, Move Point to Point, Extend Line / Lines, 2D Reshape tool shortcomings, Transparency incapabilities in 2D/3D etc etc that is basic tools for fast CAD works and also essential but left to 3rd Parties to complete the job and at many instances at cost - DEFINATELY NOT A GOOD CV TOWARDS NNA AND NOT PROMOTIONAL.

Most of these things are in VW, you'll need to look closer. VW is just another way of working then other CAD programs. Just give it a try and you'll find that in the end it is much more intiutive.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

I speak of the real shortcut methods - look at the 3rd party add-ons where you can download ithttp://www.vectordepot.com/Plugins1.shtml - these type of stuff. Those PttoPt move and copy features, simple and fast and working on a production set-up.

Share this post


Link to post

I use the VW basic tool pallete, and can do anything I want with it. even what you want with pttopt etc... and you can do it very fast with it. You only need to know all the different ways of using these tools. just try all the settings and try to double click on them too. You'll see that there is more in them then you think

Share this post


Link to post

I think that was very well written, clb. I do hope the designers in NA read through these boards, and can remain open to new suggesstions. You have outlined well the process by which things get done, and don't get done, as the case may be.

I, too, like VW in a lot of ways in the year that I have been using it. It has a lot of nice features, and a good feel. I also feel that there are some things that could be changed for the better, like a pt to pt move and copy, more intuitive object dragging vs. object in front, an explode feature in the mech package, 3d associative dimensioning (no, I don't need to know the "imaginary paper" dimension). I hope these things are not left behind because some engineers don't keep an open mind.

I think the wrong reaction to a cirticism of VW is if you can't do something, it is your fault because I can do everything I want and have no problems. There are always going to be improvements that could be made.

The thing I want to see most is my opinion taken into consideration as a typical user by the VW designers. I know some of them must read these boards - I hope they can take the time to enter into some of these discussions. I'm not sure what their time could be better spent doing for 30 min a week. It's their choice whether to listen to the user in the end...

Share this post


Link to post

I think they do read the forum closely, and respond when appropriate. When someone reported an Offset tool bug here on the forum instead of sending it to BugSubmit, and several other people expressed shock and horror, NNA got on it quickly and fixed it.

But that was just a technical glitch that slipped by until one user spotted it. You're talking about software design issues that they've been aware of for a long time. Imagine how many people over the years have called Tech Support and asked, "How come this other thing moves when I try to move this thing?", or "How can I move this thing by clicking on these two points over here?" They don't need the forum to tell them how users feel about those issues. If they could improve them without damaging something else and without taking time away from more urgent design work, I'm sure they would.

And I think it's appropriate, when someone complains about lack of a certain feature, to suggest a way they can do what they want using a feature that's already available, or to point out, as DWorks did, that such solutions exist. No program can do everything. VW can do a lot of good things that no other CAD application can.

Share this post


Link to post

Very sensitive and insightful comments throughout.

One thing to bear in mind is that in our competitive world, NNA cannot always keep everyone abreast of what they are developing. I would say that over a period of years their record speaks for itself - they do take into account user feedback, through this board and other sources, and have incorporated many features and fixed many bugs that have been aired on this board.

I would hazard the guess that many of the "half-baked" features, such as framing member objects, were developed so that other programs would not have sole bragging rights. But, caught up in budgeting realities, they couldn't do the job that we, and most likely NNA as well, would be happier with. I think it is correct to observe that too much of this kind of thing can tip a delicate balance and start turning users off.

One of the things we can do for ourselves in these forums (that NNA would not be able to do for marketing reasons) is identify those new features that don't particularly work well. We can save each other a lot of trial-and-error time that way.

Share this post


Link to post

My approach has always been to do the best with the software that I have. And try to find a workaround for what the software lacks. That way, things get done, and it becomes a creative challenge--which is fun.

Trying to tell NNA how to improve their product is like trying to move a mountain; I'll be sitting there in neutral waiting, while my objective is not achieved.

Chances are that NNA already knows what improvements need to be made and all we can do is encourage them. And occasionally notify them about bugs.

As Dworks suggests, the problem is often lack of familiarity with the software.

Share this post


Link to post

I do concede that there is only so much time in a day, and that VW is getting better and better with each release. I guess my gripe is not about the new features and bragging rights so much as the little things that may get lost along the way. I'm talking about small usability things, like selecting, dimensioning, and moving. I fear that those things have been considered "good", and the thinking is don't mess with a good thing. In actuality I think they should be gone over and re-considered over and over again.

When you're not a part of the decision process in something like this, or in government, or some technical gadget, or software, I notice people tend to assume it's been thought about and carefully considered. However, whenever I've found myself privy to a decision process, I find reality hits, and I find that whatever it is may not have been as carefully considered as one would have thought... In short, I think the "if it ain't broke" mentality may have stagnated some basic usability in VW.

I wouldn't bother writing so much on these boards lately if I didn't think VW is a great program - but it can still be better.

Share this post


Link to post

Every program has his shortcommings, everybody knows that. But David Bertrand says:

"My approach has always been to do the best with the software that I have. And try to find a workaround for what the software lacks. That way, things get done, and it becomes a creative challenge--which is fun."

And he's totaly wright about it.

When you want to know what a program can do, you'll need to try every feature and try different combinations of things. You'll notice that there is more in a program once you do that. Personally, I try every week other tools in different ways. And I still learn new ways and new things to make a drawing. Each with pros and con. You only need to choose the way you want to work with it, because, as others already stated, you can do a thing in many different ways.

And there is another thing in VW that makes it a really good program: VECTORSCRIPT

VS is one of the easiest programming software that exists. It makes VW adaptable to each users needs. You can make own pios,...

I once scripted in AC and I can tell you: It's HELL.

So if VW can do something you want it to do, then try do script it. An maybe you'll never need the script again in a newer version of VW, but while waiting for it, you get what you want.

By this way, you'll also learn more about VW and what's behind it.

Share this post


Link to post

When I have some extra time I will research Vectorscript as it sounds like a useful tool. I was, however, trying to highlight the fact that some basic functionality seems to be lacking for reasons that are becoming clearer to me in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

DWORKS - There is no hard lining feelings towards VW, and I did a 6 months research into VW, thus although I was not at the controls yet, reasonbly "informed" of what I will get to a certain extent.

VW still do what I expected more or less and in many a case more. To be short and sweet - I am impressed for what was delivered to me.

But just today the discussion came up in looking into more and better trend keeping like shaped CAD's that must be satisfying more pressing needs in the Mech department and it went about 3 Packageas and of course cost towards the real usability and the ROI's there off.

Either Alibre, Pro Engineer or SolidWorks and SolidWorks can deliver what is needed and looking at their history, they keep up with market trends - very important factor because it is useless to invest into something that is today in the topline category but in 5 years it drops out. Wasted finance and learning curve cost.So on a point basis thus far SolidWorks are ahead for our needs.

And the demand for high tech Mech packages is outgrowing the number of developers. That is why Alibre grow like as they are making their way up to the top and making money. Pro E & Solidworks ride the wave of shortage of that kinda package with extreme high cost to the customer. It is obvious, you have to be a fool not to see it.

And I suppose the same will happen in the "Landmark", Civil & Arch packages too - the low end back lagging on the sleep and still on a high about yesterday's success developers just get plucked out of market figures.

There is a saying that if you want loyalty, get yourself a dog. Thus that loyalty stuff in todays competitive world is a lot of bull and any developer relying on it make the mistake of a lifetime.

Just referring to 1st and latter post; - But a simple thing like the roof framing tool as per advert is a total crooked way of promoting the program in disguise as the literature and small movies available are usually short to the point version of capabilities - it would have been appreciatted in this example that they stated clearly where that capability stop. Expectations were raised FALSELY and you are dropped like a cold dead turkey. Not so nice way of things done.

All in all - as said - a balanced mid level package. But simple functions as stated that is available in all good available packages as basic drawing tools still stays amiss. That is at this point the truth. And if a 3rd party can make an Add On without influencing the program negative, why was it not there from the start. That little programming will definately not increase the price with a $1000-00.

And the users are generally either CAD draughtsmen, architects and engineers, definately not programmers - If the company had a need for programmers there would have been appointed at an additional budgetted figure. To waste a high cost person's time on VS is a no go area. That is why the CAD package is as basis bought to be a finished product for a specific need. Yes it is true and accepted, there is not a single one CAD that can deliver in all needs, but basics ? Vectorscript must be last resort for a specific out of boundary need.

Bottomline, we will invest in the next release, no doubt.

Edited by clb

Share this post


Link to post

I personally will stop using vectorworks as soon as i am allowed to, (there are some nice bits but generally I really don't like it)

I think one of my key worries and dislikes is what is being hinted at above, the very basics of how a cad program works, move, copy, draw, rotate, snap, flip. just aren't as tight and controlled and stable as they should be. (for example the lack of a ptp copy and rotate copy).

BUT in the meantime there are rows and rows of tools for things few of us ever need, some half baked some irritating to use. I don't need NNA to draw my cupboards, fireplace or decorative architectural column (round using the well known classical order of round mushroom capital since you ask) for me. I want them to provide me with a tight, accurate efficient way to draw.

Share this post


Link to post

It sounds as though you just wnt to draw (as opposed to modeling).

In what way are the Drawing tools and the Edit tools not as they should be?

You are aware of the Drag a Copy option aren't you? Select the object and then with the Alt key held down drag a copy away (Option key on a Mac). Repeated Duplicates using the keyboard shortcut will place repeated copies the same distance and direction away.

Point to point is easily covered by the various third party tools available:

- Vectormove from Vectorbits: http://www.vectorbits.com/

- Move/Duplicate by Vector (Gerard Jonker): http://www.vectordepot.com/Plugins1.shtml

- Move and Duplicate/Multiple (Katerina Panagiotakis): http://www.vectordepot.com/Plugins1.shtml

- Pt2Pt Move and Pt2Pt Copy (Peter Vandewalle): http://www.vectordepot.com/Plugins1.shtml

As far as I know there isn't a third party tools for Rotate a Copy. There is however a Circular Array option within Duplicate Array.

Share this post


Link to post

Mike, sounds more like someone trained in AutoCAD who is resisting getting used to the VectorWorks system.

Not that I disagree that ACAD has at least two superior methods - move and copy by vector (you click on any two points on the screen to define the movement) and UCS, which allows the user to set up an alternative coordinate system (i.e., allows rotation of the plan to the screen and to all orthogonally defined commands).

Mike, do you know if the plug-ins you recommend work in version 12.5?

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, Mike, I for one would like to be able to draw as well as model.

Also, a better question might be how can the Edit tools be more intuitive and easier to use, and expanded upon - for that, believe me, there is room.

Retondo, if by resisting the vectorworks system, you mean forgetting about simple, easy to use tools proven in other major CAD sytems, then yes, I am resisting.

Why have people chosen not to open their minds? How has loyalty manifested into stagnation?

Share this post


Link to post

J, I'm responding to your rejection of the whole VW platform based on a couple of minor complaints, well-justified though they may be. Also, I'm puzzled by your complaint about the flip commands among others, which has always been stable and flawless for me. I appreciated the tenor of the original post that started this thread. It acknowledges the state of affairs with balance and awareness, and points out the shortcomings without rejecting what is an overall success.

By contrast, your point of view is that the program should satisfy your every desire, otherwise no dice. I don't mean to come down on you like a ton of bricks here - what I'm saying is that an open mind is a two-way street, and advising (based on my 15 years with VW and 5 years with ACAD) that maybe you should give VW a fair shot.

If you read my post in its entirety, and if you were familiar with my participation in general on this board, I don't think you could characterize my loyalty to VW as in any way blind. Same goes for Mike. From NNA's point of view, they probably think that at times we've been savage.

By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if NNA were working on some of these long-standing issues. It's public knowledge that the ability to rotate plans, a la ACAD's UCS capability, is being worked on by their engineers.

Share this post


Link to post

I never rejected VW as a whole. In fact I like VW over ACAD (and regularly use both). I also use the mirror (flip) tool all the time and have found nothing wrong with it! Very simple and very powerful.

I was simply pointing out that you may have dismissed valid criticism when you claim one has the wrong (ACAD) mindset.

I do appreciate that you agree VW needs a vector displacement move.

...Now I see the post you are confusing me with...

Edited by Jhaceun

Share this post


Link to post

I don't get it, VW is so easy and powerfull to use. I can create very fast what I want. I create things faster in VW then in ACAD.

Even the 3D capabilitys are superior to me.

Although every program can be better and sometimes I even encounter problems with some tools that are annoying. But I'm sure NNA is working on them.

But there is one thing I don't understand: vector displacement. As far as I know (the way I understand vector displacement) this is in VW. I can move something ..x and ..y (being x,y the vector). I also can move with length and distance.

So can someone explain to me what more is that vector thing?

Share this post


Link to post

Are you all talking about somethig to replace 'click-drag-release' for the pt 2pt move.. ??? cuz i move via vectors x,y, like DWorks just said ... i maybe dont understand pt2pt..

Share this post


Link to post

It's remote vector or remote displacement that everybody's talking about. The idea is that the points that define the move vector don't have to be on the object being moved.

So if you have something on an elevation that's x,y above the left corner of a door, and you want to put it in the same position relative to another door, you can click on the corners of the two doors. The object gets displaced by the angle and distance between the two doors.

Other CAD programs' move commands can do that, because they can only move with a separate Move command. VW's system of moving with the Select tool is better, but, as always, we want the VW stuff plus the other stuff.

Share this post


Link to post

Once you have it you won't want to be without :)

Moving objects is easy in VW, you simply click the object and drag it. In contrast, a move by displacement (as ACAD would describe it) would allow you to move an object by two clicks anywhere on the drawing. In that way you can choose a relationship in any part of the drawing to be your move "displacement" for any other object.

Similarily there is a copy by base point which I would love to see. In this case you can choose an object to copy as well as what point you will use to "paste-click" it into your drawing, again this base point can be anywhere on the drawing.

Share this post


Link to post

We do have something like Autocad's multiple copy by base point -- the Symbol Insertion tool. After all, if you're going to have a bunch of copies of something, shouldn't it be a symbol?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

This is a great discussion!

On behalf of everyone at NNA, we truly do appreciate feedback with respect to the software and services. NNA is one of the few companies in the industry who encourages feedback from the users to improve and further develop the software. Without this critical feedback, VectorWorks wouldn't be as strong as it is today.

I want to reiterate Nemetschek's dedication to gathering the feedback and putting it to use in future versions. If you look back at past releases, both .0 and .5 releases, the new features introduced are all suggestions given to us by people like you - our users.

VectorWorks has some amazing plans in the works for future versions, and I'm sure you won't be disappointed. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the suggestions posted throughout the forums aren't included in a future version of VectorWorks.

Please keep the ideas coming -- you are all encouraged to post Wish List items in the Wish List section and/or sending an email with the request to bugsubmit@nemetschek.net with "[WISH]" as the first part of the subject.

Share this post


Link to post

because they can only move with a separate Move command.

Yeah, "m + space bar" is really tough.

Katie, I'd like to be able to draw lines accurately and easily, relative to other lines.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


 

7150 Riverwood Drive, Columbia, Maryland 21046, USA   |   Contact Us:   410-290-5114

 

© 2018 Vectorworks, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Vectorworks, Inc. is part of the Nemetschek Group.

×
×
  • Create New...