Hybrid symbols should be able to rotate in 3D.

[Dieter @ DWorks]

We can't place cars on a slope because of this, so let us rotate our car symbols in 3D.

[maarten.]

And what should happen to the 2D components? When i rotate a car on its side in 3D, the top will still be shown in 2D... I think that's the reason why you can't rotate them.

[Christiaan]

We need something else to replace hybrid symbols.

[AndiACD]

Dieter, Maarten, i had a good old rant about this on several occasions and the best way around it it to edit a copy of the Hybrid and remove all 2D components then you can do what you like with the remaining 3D component.

Christiaan, we've been here before . . . . But look at the way Solidworks deals with it. No Hybrid, auto 2D from the view, magic of 3D.

[Christiaan]

That's what we need, auto 2D from 3D. aka live hidden line render?

[Kevin McAllister]

That's what we need, auto 2D from 3D. aka live hidden line render?

Which ironically Vectorworks is able to produce and remember for a Resource Browser thumbnail but not for actual use in a drawing....

[Guest]

Im OK with the 2D/3D symbols,there are many instances where the 2D plan symbols cant be extrapolated from 3D veiws (eg. Electrical,Mechanical,energy etc)whats needed is improvements (choice) in the PIO, 3D and plane geometry. Degrees of Freedom (min 6 DOF).

Its imposible to rotate just 2D geometry in more than 1 axis..Currently translated x & y rotate around Z,the 3D improvements needs adding.

Solidworks is lousy in dealing with complex plant design VW is much better IMO, and its because of the intergrated 2D components

Currently theres a billion dollar resource boom. plants are designed/commissioned in 2D in Autocad and then 3D in Inventor

in 5-10 years time theyll be decommissioned and reused...HOW VALUABLE WILL THOSE HYBRID SYMBOLS BE...

WHATS NEMETSCHEK WAITING FOR?

HTH

[michaelk]

...and what do you do with text linked to a record format?

Most of the time I'd be willing to let the 2D be an incorrect representation of the 3D elements in exchange for the ability to insert hybrid symbols on a working plane (that isn't parallel to the ground plane).

Interestingly, Spotlight does this extremely well. Lighting devices have a static 2D representation (with a much better data label layout system than is available elsewhere in VW) while the 3D orientation can be adjusted in the OIP in a way that articulates 3 different 3D elements. Accessories are placed in a 2D environment and manage to attach themselves to the correct location and orientation at the end of the articulated lighting device.

Seems like putting a car on a ramp should be possible! : )

mk

[Guest]

Most of the time I'd be willing to let the 2D be an incorrect representation of the 3D elements in exchange for the ability to insert hybrid symbols on a working plane (that isn't parallel to the ground plane).

mk

How About 2D Standards,conventions and Codes with incorrect representation you might be sued?

Give the user a choice with symbols "Horses for courses"

[VincentCuclair]

Why not both, what if we had a choice when creating hybrid symbols to add the 2D part or choose hidden line for the 2D. Or even better a series of choices, create a hybrid symbol with multiple 2D representations incl. Hidden line, we choose what representation to use in the OIP as a default and override with one of the other representations in certain cases ie. VPs.

[Dieter @ DWorks]

And what should happen to the 2D components? When i rotate a car on its side in 3D, the top will still be shown in 2D... I think that's the reason why you can't rotate them.

The car in 2D is just a representation that there is a car. It's the 3D part that counts for all things: Views, both elevation and 3D; sections; scheduling; IFC; .... And this is for all hybrid objects. The 2D part is just for showing that it's there in plan view and to view a text for some info. I don't care if the 2D representation is not exactly what it should be.

[Guest]

And what should happen to the 2D components? When i rotate a car on its side in 3D, the top will still be shown in 2D... I think that's the reason why you can't rotate them.

I don't care if the 2D representation is not exactly what it should be.

Hey whats funny...Mr Client " I know you paid for a larger Class A mercedes on plan but inclined unfortunately it looks like a tata nano" LOL,do I need to draw you a picture.

[Jershaun]

This is why cutting planes (used by Revit) to determine floor plans is a good alternative to the current way of how vw handles floor plans. Vw is becoming too restrictive compared to the competition. You can model in Revit anyhow you like and Revit will sort out the 2D plans, elevations, etc. as it realistically would appear from that view.

[VincentCuclair]

You can model in Revit anyhow you like

Sorry...not true, I tried modeling a flat roof leaning at 2 different angles along the x- resp. y-axes in Revit and Revit doesn't even have the capability to define a working plane by 3 points, there are a certain number of predefined working planes nothing more! You can define a working plane by selecting an existing face on any object but that is fairly useless because that plane already exists...hence the host object.......It took me the greater part of a day (for 4 roofs) to calculate angles and intersection points using good old maths and geometry on which to place the roof axis and thus create the roof in Revit!

ps the rest of that sentence is correct

Edited April 10, 2012 by Vincent C

[bcd]

A simple, optional, automatic 2d scaler/skew could be applied to a 2d graphic finally enabling rotation about either x, y or both axes.

The result will not be a true hidden line version - but for many cases, especially for smaller rotations will be sufficient.