3D Modelling - Other than Architecture?

[Kevin McAllister]

I am curious to hear how others are using Vectorworks for 3D modelling in non-architectural applications. I have been following the various threads here about Vectorworks vs. Revit, the quality of Vectorworks as a freeform modeller, BIM and Vectorworks etc. for a while now and have some concerns about the perceived future of Vectorworks.

I have been using Vectorworks since Minicad 5. At the time, I chose it for various reasons, not the least of which was its design intuitiveness. I would say its design based approach has gotten lost in the complexity (clutter) of the last few versions, though Vectorworks 2010 does get marks for pushing back in that direction.

I work in the Entertainment Industry where every project is unique and different. The things I design live within architecture but are not architecture. I have experimented with most of the tools in Vectorworks (I am running Designer w/Renderworks) and more recently completed a project where I pushed the limits of the 3D modelling in terms of tools and shapes. I would say there are a few key things that I would like the future of Vectorworks to hold:

Interoperability - On my most recent project, I interacted daily with a technical department using Autocad, visualization being done with 3D Studio Max. Photoshop and Maya, and projection and lighting departments using various versions of Vectorworks. I interacted with Rhino for some more difficult modelling challenges that Vectorworks couldn't handle. Many of our subcontractor were using other products including Solidworks and Cinema 4D.

Object Consistency - Treat all objects equally. Unified view is a step in the right direction, but it needs to be seamless, not just another layer of record keeping. All objects (lines, shapes, images, dimensions, text, gradients, hatches) need to be either screen plane or 3D.

Powerful modelling - look at the likes of other 3D modellers that are appearing. The Parasolid core needs to be fully implemented and leveraged, even at the demise of legacy tools. I have been experimenting with Cinema 4D. Imagine Vectorworks with Cinema 4D quality freeform modelling tools while keeping its own 2D drafting/detailing toolset and graphic presentation capabilities.

Unified interface - No more tools or menu commands. So many things are duplicated. Design the interface for efficiency. Combine tools and functions so they are accessed with Control/Option/Command/Shift modifiers, not new tools. Other packages have boiled down to the basics - Move, Scale, Rotate - and the many variations there of. Work on the core first as it will benefit all of the Industry series.

I suspect this may be a unique view of the Vectorworks future because non-architectural users are the minority, but I thought I would at least start the discussion.

Kevin

[islandmon]

Reasonable ... inspired ... cogent ... provocative ... prescient ...

[Richard Perrine]

I would love to hear more about this as well. I am using (for about 5-years) Cinema 4D and am certain that I create whatever VW or SW is capable of creating w/o the precision, of course.

But, would love to use VW WITH the precision capabilities. I am trying to decide if VW is the best architecture and "basic" engineering software for a new arch/engineering program that we will be introducing in the fall.

The thing that is funny is that I know that the airliner in James Bond: Casino Royale was created using VW, but no one seems to be doig this stuff outside "that" studio??? Or people are just unwilling to share what great stuff they are creating using VW unlike other 3D communities (including Cinema 4D) that have people generously sharing their modeling in the form of FREE videos/tutorials.

Thanks.

[GWS]

a note on the Bond theme:

While the art department may well use VW I know that the Special Effects side, the guy's that design and build the mechanical rigs, use Solidworks and VW just isn't up to the job of mechanical design.

I also use VW in the entertainment industry but the options offered in the mechanical area are not sufficient (PIO's in the form of bearings, nuts & bolts and other hardware do not make the jump required). After using VW for a long time too I, sadly, am having to look elsewhere for the necessary design tools to keep up with my industry.

[grant_PD]

Over here in LA, entertainment design for Television runs the gamut of Sketchup, Vectorworks, Autocad, and the higher end 3d modeling programs. I would say that Sketchup is prevalent in the commercial world because it is fast and that's a fast industry, with a lot of "oh by the way" notes coming with that sketchup. I can draw by hand, and am very fast at VW. So no use for sketchup for me.

The 3D modeling programs are great and render better than VW, but they have some drawbacks. One drawback is that they are so great, you really spend more time tweaking with the model and lighting and all that than you need. They also don't produce drawings in the way that VW can. I use Cinema4D when a client wants a really high end render or better yet, an animation.

VW serves it's function very well, producing adequate models with a good drawing layout functionality. And yes, most likely serves the art department better than the engineering department (Just make it pretty! that's our job!). Could the 3D kernel be stronger and make building complex shapes in 3D easier? Yes! Please! Could the renders be better? Sure, but until it's as good as Cinema4d (and 64 bit) I'll cast my hat in for continuing to improve the file translation.

If anything, I find it a little frustrating to be the red headed stepchild of the design world, without a single plug in object made for my profession. Lighting designers got a whole CD full of lights and gobos and worksheets and all that. I have to build a drape by hand if I want it to have a swag! I've put so much time into developing a 3d underlit deck that I feel like I should have a patent on it.

[VincentCuclair]

Even as an architect I can say your observations and reasoning apply and are essential.

[JeffPPI]

I agree.

I work in Custom fabricatiopn in the entertainment industry, while I don't use all that VW has to offer, improvements could be made in the machining department.

I find that I need to custom build, using every 3D modifying tool in VW, well over half of the things i draw, since I just can't get it any other way.

I agree also that the hardware lists could be better. Also, there's no corner block option in the straight truss tool for putting in a corner block without downloading something from a manufacturer.

there's my $.02.

Have a nice day.

[Benson Shaw]

I use VW in public art for integration, modeling and shop drawings, some presentaton, and CAM setup (mostly for waterjet shop).

I am able to interact with the ACAD world of Architects, Engineers and Landscape Architects. But just barely. I spend lots of time rescaling and repositioning imported DWGs and wondering what was supposed to be displayed in those exhibit pages when they are not filled. The reverse process usually works better, because I can export a small area or detail which "they" integrate into the larger project drawing set.

The modeling set works fairly well. Some tools seem to have no improvement or correction over several versions, even with the parasolid engined - Lofts don't always work, Extrude along a path often fails, I depend on VW for getting measurements and details to the fab shop, for materials estimates (esp volumes of quirky shapes for castings). I'm just a low level hack with this, but I can almost always manage what I need to do.

An observation: It seems to me that post content in this forum has changed over the past 5 years from lots of questions about how to use the tools, how to draw stuff and how to control crashes and freezes, to lots of questions/complaints about PIO operations and record keeping capabilities of VW. If true, it shows, I think, that

VW has improved greatly over several versions in that users can more often find ways to draw what is desired without turning to the forums). But it also shows that VW development emphasis is on users who desire a PIO process. Not a bad thing, just not as supportive to general modeling as to the various industry modules.

-B

[JBC]

I work out at the local Community College here in Santa Fe, New Mexico. I teach intro level courses in Revit, AutoCAD, ArchiCAD, and just this year, VectorWorks. After a student sees something like Revit, Autodesk Inventor(think SolidWorks from Autodesk) or ArchiCAD in action they often ask me why they are taking AutoCAD if these other applications seem to be more efficient at what they do. My answer to them, besides AutoCAD being such a widely used CAD package, is that AutoCAD can do things that both Inventor and Revit can do, but at a cost. My analogy is the Swiss Army Knife. It has a knife, scissors, spoon, saw, etc, but these tools are not as good as a separately bought knife or scissors. The cost of having many tools in a single package is that it is very difficult to be all things to all people. I believe that VectorWorks is in a similar paradigm. This Swiss Army Knife affect is both VectorWorks strength and weakness. If tool in Vectorworks comes up short you can usually model and patch your way through, but at a loss of productivity. In another thread it has been recently discussed that there is indeed a situation where current tools need to be improved while others desire improvements in workflow and modeling, and that there appears to be a dichotomy between fixing what we have and advancing forward. We need both in order to compete/survive. I enjoy the fact that this program can do many things. I do not think that even if VectorWorks should try and be a specialist in one area, and spent all its resource there, that it would be a successful outcome. It's strength to me is that it can do many things. I've often thought that if I were stuck out on the middle of nowhere for years, with a choice only one CAD application, what would it be? VectorWorks is often at or near the top of the list. A couple of years ago I thought there was the beginning of the writing on wall for VectorWorks. I am exposed to a lot of different software where I work and I knew there was tidal shift towards a model centric information systems within CAD. VectorWorks seemed to be going along only slightly nudged by all this, but then, as if on cue, they announced the integration with the Parasolid modeling kernel. My hopes were renewed. I agree with Kevin in regards to his suggestions. I would add that reliable, straight forward, driven constraints and dimensions are critical for moving forward. Changing tool options towards a more context sensitive environment, while not being limiting, is also important. And yes, fixing current tools is equally important. Richard's point regarding free learning materials and other resources is not lost on me as an educator. We need more, and VectorWorks should consider doing as others have done and make this application free to educational facilities. In my opinion it is better to build a user base in the educational environment. These students will then become paying professionals rather than the schools having to make the choice getting free software or buying VectorWorks. I do though appreciate that VectorWorks is available free to individual students. I am in the middle of many of the threads on this forum. I have to decide how much of the class will be concentrated on 3d and more accurate workflows moving things in the direction I think things are headed, or do I teach more 2d traditional work closer to the way business in the local area are aligned and actually operate now. All this is very interesting. No matter what software you use it is within our interest that these applications be competitive. As stated before I think that VectorWorks strength is that it can do many things. The modeling of architectural and non-architectural become more and blurred the further into integrated systems we get. It is analogous to doctors and biomedical engineers. The fields are converging and overlapping. It is physics and medicine. I agree with Benson also. The better VectorWorks interacts with others the stronger more viable the product is. My apologies for being so long. I appreciate the members of this board, and for keeping the recommendations positive. I hope that Nemetschek is listening and responds in the directions stated.-Brendan

[Cadplan Architecture]

I've been using Vectorworks since Minicad, being in exhibitions it was first used purely for floor plans and elevations which it was (still is) brilliantly simple for.

We then moved along, with the introduction and development of Vectorworks into simple 3D and visuals using Renderworks. This was very labour intensive and we then moved on the FormZ for far easier 3D modelling and superior rendering. The disadvantage like so many top end modelling software is that its 2D function is more or less non existent.

I know that VW has become far more developed now but I still think it's essentially an excellent 2D programme. The 3d side still seems quite clunky.

If only it could be as easy to use as the 2D function it would be perfect. I would like to use it fr simple architectural modelling but I think the process is so laborious that it's not economic on most projects.

Personally I don't want to have to abandon VW now and start learning a new programme all over again unless it is, a) Mac compatible, & b) will have this dual function combined with the ease of use of Vectorworks.

Having said that there seem to be numerous free or inexpensive 3D modelling packages out there now from Rhino, Modo, Sketch up, Blend etc. I keep meaning to test them as that might be the answer to easy 3D outside of Vectorworks, particularly if the will import VW files.

I just hope that NNA will rise to the challenge and soon!

AJ