Top/PlanView & Layers "containers" needs to go

[digitalcarbon]

ok, i'm not really suggesting good buy to layers, but...

example 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrPbTkcsuyw

example 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQo7dWS4GV4

i am aware that i can model everything on one layer now, but it would be very difficult to work on the model. that is why a "detail cube" system would work better than chopping the model up and putting it on layers.

the model should NOT be chopped up!

Edited November 18, 2010 by digitalmechanics

[bc]

I am inclined to agree yet I am still not sure of the ramifications.

You have expressed the problem well in video. Not sure I grasp the solution.

If everything is modeled as stated why not just request live sections (along with the detail cube) and then model your project and Cut 3D Sections (which would be live). Leave layers to those who like them. Is this the type of solution you envision?

[grant_PD]

I think you're on to something, but I'm not sure that "it's gotta go." Here's what's great:

floor and wall tool. Why? Because they are flexible hybrid tools, generating 2d and 3d at the same time. They make me not want to create anything from scratch.

Here's what works in my perfect world:

Every 3d object has a 2d counterpart that I don't have to create. It can have a fill, lineweight, dash style, etc.

When I'm in a viewport such as your plan view there in example 1, I can use something akin to the eyedropper/paintbucket tool to perform an attribute override on objects. PLUS when I create a plan view, there is a dialog box that asks for cutting plane height and how I would like to treat objects above the cutting plane. So it would work like this:

-From the model layer, I create a plan viewport

-A dialog box pops up and asks the usual sheet layer stuff, plus asks me to define the cutting plane height from the model layer.

-The viewport then appears on the sheet layer, and all objects below the cutting plane have the 2d attributes I've assigned them. Things at the cutting plane will have cutting plane attributes. Things above the cutting plane will have a default setting (some sort of dash line).

-Then, to get really artsy, I can select from my palette of line styles and eyedropper/bucket them onto each object that needs more attention.

[digitalcarbon]

ok, i see what your are saying. but it seems like all the view ports should work the same. plan view is just a section cut

[grant_PD]

Absolutely! All viewports should be the same and all objects should be the same. If I make an extrude it should have all the properties of a wall/floor object. I should be able to assign it a 2d fill/lineweight. Then, when I'm in the viewport, I need to be able to do a 2d attribute override to clean it all up.

[Assembly]

Have you tried:

Make a viewport of the model on a design layer.

Change the view to an elevation view.

Then use the section VP to cut a horizontal section.

(or looked at revit?)

Edited November 18, 2010 by Assembly

[digitalcarbon]

yes i have done it.

file gets really big

Edited November 19, 2010 by digitalmechanics

[Jershaun]

1. digitalmechanics, these are valid points that all vectorworks users suffer from. (BTW, I found it hilarious when you said the Push/Pull tool started it all. )

2.

When I'm in a viewport such as your plan view there in example 1, I can use something akin to the eyedropper/paintbucket tool to perform an attribute override on objects. PLUS when I create a plan view, there is a dialog box that asks for cutting plane height and how I would like to treat objects above the cutting plane. So it would work like this:

-From the model layer, I create a plan viewport

-A dialog box pops up and asks the usual sheet layer stuff, plus asks me to define the cutting plane height from the model layer.

-The viewport then appears on the sheet layer, and all objects below the cutting plane have the 2d attributes I've assigned them. Things at the cutting plane will have cutting plane attributes. Things above the cutting plane will have a default setting (some sort of dash line).

-Then, to get really artsy, I can select from my palette of line styles and eyedropper/bucket them onto each object that needs more attention.

If everything is modeled as stated why not just request live sections (along with the detail cube) and then model your project and Cut 3D Sections (which would be live). Leave layers to those who like them.

These are good solutions/ideas and I 'm sure there are many others but the main thing is, would NemV take any of them on board?

Here's what's great:

floor and wall tool. Why? Because they are flexible hybrid tools, generating 2d and 3d at the same time.

They make me not want to create anything from scratch.

Here's what works in my perfect world:

Every 3d object has a 2d counterpart that I don't have to create. It can have a fill, lineweight, dash style, etc.

The main problem I think VW has, is the 2D/3D environment. Although the 2D environment acts well with the 3D environment in vw2011, it now needs to be tightly intergrated. In other words, there shouldn't be a distinction between environments but one comman environment would be better. Faces of 3D objects should have automatic 2D attributes.

Imagine a cube in vw2011, if you rotate around it, it isn't solid but if you want to see it solid, you have to either render it or place 6 rectangles on it's 6 sides, then the cube is solid. With the "6 rectangle" option, it can have any attribute applied to it. Now what I'm saying for the future is get rid of wireframe and the need for drawing 6 rectangles, instead the cube should inherently have it's faces represented with 2D attributes which is "3D ready". Now when the cube is viewed from any angle (including plan) it will have the proper representation with correct attributes applied, irrespective of how the cube is rotated and on what plane it sits on.

By doing this, the user gets true 3D hatching, symbols with truely intergrated 2D and 3D representations, representation of objects are consistant, etc., etc.

Along with "Top/Plan View", "Hybrid", "2D symbol representation", "3D symbol representation", "2D reshape tool", "3D reshape tool" and anything else that defferentiates 2D and 3D SHOULD GO. Drawing in VW should be modeling and 2D should take care of itself.

3.

Make a viewport of the model on a design layer.

Change the view to an elevation view.

Then use the section VP to cut a horizontal section.

This isn't a good solution because it doesn't represent cylinders or anything circular 100%. It also means everytime the model changes, plans need to be updated. For me, this isn't an option. I tried it out a couple of times and it was messy and it involved lots of maintenance.

4. The whole point of BIM is to let the model work for you. It should NOT be that you should have to put extra work to make your plans suit/comply with the model.

[AndiACD]

Yeah, this is where taking a leaf out of others "ideas book" would be a real step in the right direction.

Sorry to bring them up again, but, in Solidworks you just draw your 3D model and SW does the 2D bit. Simple! If VW were to take on this Excellent use of the Parasolids core, Bingo!

No complicated "faffing" around placing ridiculous rectangles/planes to make use of 2D, just give VW the style of projection you want it to use in 2D and up pops the finished working drawing in 2D correctly placed drawn from the 3D model.

Nothing stops you working on the 2D drawing if you want to, modify IT and the 3D model is updated.

As "PIO Incorporated" surely, this would a better way to reach the end result??