Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Robert Anderson

RAL color palette file **DELETED**

Recommended Posts

Petri, please send me translated versions of RT 15-10645 and RT 15-10660 and I'll do my best to align the door and window features so they can be localized to those standards. No promise as to when, mind you.

Share this post


Link to post

For free? Why would I do that? I have already offered to sell you my door object, but got no reply.

EDIT

I must be a bit thick today. Here we have Mr. Copyright expecting that I translate copyrighted material for him - and I don't even notice!

Anyway, the said standards can be bought from Rakennustietos??ti?.

Edited by Petri

Share this post


Link to post
Goodness, Gerard and Petri, it seems you -do- use features of Architect after all!

Hi Robert,

Yes!! We do, they are great. We DO use the features, but little to nothing of the content. Although I myself never use the DTM feature (ever been to Holland?), I understand others might need it and I don't mind paying for it as I probably use some other tool they don't.

But if we look at the content, the story gets different. They are so American:

None of the Door, Window, Stair, Campanile (?!), Fireplace, Column, Escalator plug-ins are useful to us.

Even the metric Steel profiles cannot be used here. (I scripted those according to the DIN norm used, back in MC 4 and made them into Plug-ins when that became possible).

The Roof tool would be great if we could use it here. But we can't, it is cumbersome in its use and it details wrongly on the ends. I'll give it another look and try to send you some suggestions how to make it work for us.

Most of my clients even refuse to use the Wall Tool, at all, as they can't have it show a zigzag insulation. So they prefer to use my zigzag plug-in and then continue with rectangles or polygons to build the rest of the wall. See also the wish list I sent to Dan Monaghan about a year ago. (For myself, I adjusted the legend and use a cross hatch (stone) for insulation, just to be able to use the walls).

So please, forget about the content of the libraries and focus on the things that are of general interest or on things that are architectural but of global interest.

Make VW Fundamental truly fundamental, instead of Light. One of the things we could argue about are the Walls, they are architectural elements, but since they are so hard to make ourselves and probably most houses world wide would have walls, I'd prefer them in the fundamental package. Besides, I know somebody who uses them for electrical-board planning.

I'll send you that wish-list off list. One of its items has been honored in VW 2008: a user defined backup location. (Yeah, Yeah, I understand, others asked for that, too. Don't spoil my dream: NNA built that according my wish, period.)

Thanks for reading,

Gerard

P.S. I wish local distributors would finally acknowledge the fact that the dollar <> euro.

Share this post


Link to post

Gerard, wouldn't it be still be easier to use the wall tool, leaving the insulation component blank or lightly coloured, and then draw the insulation over the top of it.

If you are only drafting, (which your users must be if they are using polygons etc. for walls) this could be done in either the Design Layers or in the annotation portion of Viewports. If they are modeling this could be done in the annotation portion of Viewports.

There are so many advantages to the Wall tool (even in 2D) that I can't comprehend why anybody would not want to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
wouldn't it be still be easier to use the wall tool, leaving the insulation component blank or lightly coloured, and then draw the insulation over the top of it. ...

Some do that indeed. For me, that defeats the purpose of having a wall. I can't make the symbols go into the walls, they have to float on top, meaning I need a white surface inside the symbol to cover wall and insulation. And, if I accidentally click on the wall with the stymbol insertion tool, the symbol will still be placed in the wall, under the insulation.

Which brings me to another point on my wishlist: How much I would like to have a "Wall Inertia" button for a symbol. Believe me, you never want a toilet, or chair inside a wall. But you may want to move them against a wall.

syminsertoptions.gif

Image was edited in Adobe Photoshop to show the button I'd like to see added to VectorWorks.

A simple extra button in the symbol insertion options dialog and

an extra if statement in the code for the wall, would do the trick (I guess). This would go for Plug-In Objects, too.

Thanks,

Gerard

Share this post


Link to post

Gerard, Archicad uses a 45?cross hatch to represent insulation. Why not do the same with VW? There are so many benefits to walls - finding ways to use them rather than looking for reasons not to is far more sensible.

There is never going to be a perfect solution for everyone. So we adapt what we have to to suit our purposes, and to make us more productive. I don't understand why that is such a big problem for some users. As long as we communicate our intent clearly and unambiguously we have succeeded. Does it really matter if it does not look exactly how we, or some anal retentive bureaucrat, would like it to be.

Edited by mike m oz

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

You guys should start a new topic about this discussion as it falls off topic to the thread subject.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Mike,

I believe I wrote that:

(For myself, I adjusted the legend and use a cross hatch (stone) for insulation, just to be able to use the walls).

But others don't want to give in too much to the incapabilities of the program. Next step might be they can't design tilted walls as the program can't handle that. Oops, the program indeed can't handle tilted walls. Back to polygons again.

http://massengale.typepad.com/venustas/images/2007/09/08/blueish.jpg

Gerard

Share this post


Link to post

I have no idea what you are trying to say, Gerard. You must be deluded.

Mike:

Does it really matter if it does not look exactly how we, or some anal retentive bureaucrat, would like it to be.

It does. Now, eg. in Singapore code compliance is checked using IFC data. While the graphic presentation does not count (Gerard: I still don't give anyone a "credit" for eyeballing blueprints), the data description has to be correct.

(Whoops. VW's IFC can't do it!)

Share this post


Link to post
I have no idea what you are trying to say, Gerard.

That must be because we are so way off topic.

You must be deluded.

Hey, that is my line!

Mike:

Does it really matter if it does not look exactly how we, or some anal retentive bureaucrat, would like it to be.

It does. Now, eg. in Singapore code compliance is checked using IFC data. While the graphic presentation does not count (Gerard: I still don't give anyone a "credit" for eyeballing blueprints), the data description has to be correct.

Absolutely. Fortunately the written description is "stronger" than the drawn description, still you want as little misunderstandings on the building site as possible.

Changing hatches from the standard is dangerous in that respect.

Gerard

Share this post


Link to post

Gerard, are there any CAD programs you are aware of that can draw intelligent 2D/3D walls the way you need them to be? Maybe it is the standard that needs to change to something which 2D/3D CAD programs can deal with. Notwithstanding that you can still use walls in VW and add your zig zag lines in the annotation portion of Viewports.

Petri, when IFC becomes mandated in mainstream markets I'm sure it will be dealt with. Finland and Singapore aren't mainstream markets. In both cases it seems that the decision makers in those countries have been persuaded into thinking that Archicad is 'the solution'. The same thing is happening here in Australia. If NNA are foolish enough to ignore that trend and end up with mass defections to Archicad when the legislation comes into effect so be it.

Share this post


Link to post

Finland may not be a mainstream market, but this is where American researchers on BIM come to do their research... It all happens here, but the leading local researchers do not consider VW a BIM-program. They must have a reason.

Share this post


Link to post

A quite recent publication by the ProIT research project. Allplan, ArchiCAD and Revit are mentioned, VW is not.

Share this post


Link to post

Were VectorWorks and Microstation included in their study, or did they limit themselves to Allplan, Archicad and Revit?

Have you considered the possibility that VectorWorks and Microstation were not mentioned because they don't have a significant market share in Finland?

Did they explicitly state that VectorWorks was not a BIM program or have you jumped to that conclusion because it wasn't mentioned?

Interesting to note that Finland's home grown programs Vertex BD and Tekla Structures are also missing from the list. Does this mean that they are also not BIM, nor IFC compliant?

Edited by mike m oz

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, sorry. I forgot Microstation - yes, that was listed, too, as was ADT. I also only mentioned listed architectural programs, not engineering,

No, they did not explicitly state anything about VW and used "eg." in the list, but so what. The Finnish construction industry does not consider VW as a BIM program capable of product modeling. Period.

Just read the book, Mike! It is called "Tuotemallintaminen arkkitehtisuunnittelussa" ("Product modeling in architectural design"). ISBN-13: 978-851-682-798-1. Published in 2006 by Rakennustieto.

Share this post


Link to post
Gerard, are there any CAD programs you are aware of that can draw intelligent 2D/3D walls the way you need them to be?

If NNA fixes the start point (0,0) for an "In Wall" rotated Hatch to the start point of the wall , I can do the rest myself.

That would only leave the tilted walls, to be wished for.

Maybe it is the standard that needs to change to something which 2D/3D CAD programs can deal with.

That would be fine, too. Mohamed and the mountain.

Then NNA has to tell uys they can't do it and I will start a discussion on the NEN's techboard (Dutch Normalization institute)

Notwithstanding that you can still use walls in VW and add your zig zag lines in the annotation portion of Viewports.

I really hate that solution. It is time consuming and inflexible. It "smells" too much like ArchiCAD that uses bandaids (The tool has a "LeukoPlast" icon!?!?!?) to fix all things they can't handle in the 3D model.

Gerard

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.

Sign in to follow this  

 

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...