Is there a future for VWs?

[VincentCuclair]

Is it just me or is there a very large percentage of threads concerned with features lacking in usability and/or not functioning as they should at the moment!? Makes you wonder, if they don't want to assign more resources to RandD, will they perhaps just stop developing VWs once they notice they can't keep up with the competition and concentrate on their other products?

Edited April 20, 2012 by Vincent C

[Kevin McAllister]

You may be right, but perhaps only for the architectural market.

I use the architectural tools in Vectorworks but I don't do architecture. I own a copy of Vectorworks Designer because it gives me flexibility. Frankly I could care a less about BIM but it doesn't mean I don't need good import/export (Autocad, Cinema 4D, Lightwright, 3D printers). I need a flexible tool to do complex 3d modelling and an easy way to create drawing sets from that model. Note I said design drawings, not construction drawings. I suspect there are a lot of individual users like me, though probably not many companies with multiple seats. Revit or Archicad are not in my future as they are not at all suited to my work.

Vectorworks is being pulled in many directions, you only have to look at the various modules and read the forum posts to see that. The architectural segment may be the largest market for the moment, but I suspect that market is stagnating as people wait to see where BIM is going. The entertainment segment is still relatively small, but growing much faster.

My two cents.

Kevin

[Jershaun]

NemV's approach to BIM is extremely convoluted with unnecessary creation of layers and no link to elevation benchmarks as an example.

Their transition from another modeling engine (don't know it's name) to parasolid has no affect. I recently tried to model a screw thread with a sweep and the object slowed the drawing down to a crawl, just to select the element took minimum 2 minutes. Doing a solid operation took even longer. Modeling the same thing and performing Boolean functions in C4D (which doesn't have a fancy modeling engine) was instantaneous. Maybe NemV should change from Parasolid to C4D's modeling engine?

The only thing keeping me with vw is the C4D compatibility but that is becoming a stretch now as well. At the moment I'm between Revit and Vw however if there is ever a plug-in for Revit and C4D, I'll be 100% with Revit.

[Jershaun]

Something else is that NemV has to come up with a replacement for PIO's if it want's to compete with Revit. Vw's PIO's have been around a long time (since 1998 if I'm not mistaken) and if it was such a great technology it would have taken on the world by now but instead Revit, a baby compared to vw in terms of software, has surpassed vw and it's PIO technology. So anything short of binning PIO, I don't see a future for vw.

[Kizza]

I think that people are fed up with their wish list requests not being actioned.

It's a concern, definitely for a new user like me.

[Guest]

I would have to disagree....but theyll have to change focus "noodle style renderings" are a thing of the past...LOL,it now takes real (engineering) data to put deals together.My money is still on the Parasolid engine keep and eye on Bentley and their aquisitions.

[Chris D]

This year's release may give us a good idea about the rate of progress towards real BIM. It will have to be pretty good to stop us downloading the Revit trial though.

[GWS]

I think that people are fed up with their wish list requests not being actioned.

Agreed.

[Bob Holtzmann]

Something else is that NemV has to come up with a replacement for PIO's if it want's to compete with Revit.

That's funny - Revit's starting to have 3rd party plug-ins, so you may want to re-think your game plan.

[cad@sggsa]

Vince, we are all having to bear witness to the struggles of a Diverse brand with multiple unique aspects competing against all the other brands on the market.

So like a company that will have a small amount of people able to do many different tasks to a certain level and a company that does only one thing really well.

I agree with Kevin and sit in the same boat with him. BIM and Revit would not come into play with what we do.

There is a way to use AutoCad and 3DMax to achieve the same and in some cases better results. For me it is more about how I get to the result and VW+RW+SL gives me that, even though there is rarely a good day with VW that nothing goes wrong or does not want to work.

I would like to see how VW Arch and Designer will handle what we do as I think it will make working with VW a bit more bearable, but is it worth paying for 3 programs just to use 20% of each?

[Christiaan]

Is it just me or is there a very large percentage of threads concerned with features lacking in usability and/or not functioning as they should at the moment!?

If this is the case it's almost certainly because more firms are actually making?or attempting to make?the transition to a single 3D-model workflow. So it could be argued as progress of sorts, although it seems very strange to be talking about "transitioning to 3D" when the likes of ArchiCAD has been around since I was about 10 years old.

Speaking for myself I've recently managed to model two projects in 3D with BIM principles in mind. One is my own small house refurb and the other is a 4-building 6-storey residential/student scheme.

They've worked so far for a number of reasons:

1. I'm the only one working on them.

2. The house refurb was small and I could take my time.

3. The 4-building scheme is (unusually for us) quite straight forward in that it consists mainly of flat roofs, no weird boundary conditions, no unusual roofs, flat site, etc.

4. The 4-building scheme is only at planning design stage.

5. I've hardly scratched the surface of scheduling and data, and haven't gone anywhere near IFC yet.

The main problem (at least at the stage we're at: planning design) is a lack of intelligent tools for things like parapets, roof guttering and rainwater pipes, soil vent pipes, railings, cladding, etc. The Window/Door/WindowWall tools are still woefully lacking (we had to use WinDoor). The pitched roof tools are woefully lacking (the amount of time I've spent mucking about with roof lights, etc.!) And other little things like not being able to automatically show brick coursing on line-drawing elevations for instance.

Then there's workgroup referencing. I hate it with a passion. Everything it touches turns to custard. Files get corrupted. Things don't work as you expect. I wish they'd had the strategic balls to move to a single file model years ago.

All of these things add up to an expensive modelling process. We were competitive in 2D but we're not competitive with the likes of ArchiCAD/Revit users at the moment. Experience will mitigate this but we need v2013 to be at a different level.

Makes you wonder, if they don't want to assign more resources to RandD, will they perhaps just stop developing VWs once they notice they can't keep up with the competition and concentrate on their other products?

I've always hoped VW would somehow become this premier BIM solution. Cheap, fast, lean, powerful, only a small group of developers needed to develop it. But it still feels more like it might be a train wreck in slow motion. A cheap one at least. Too many managerial strategic mistakes over the years in my opinion. Some great engineering but not enough UX design.

If NAG do concentrate on other products they need to let us know as soon as possible and give us a roadmap for getting off. At least then I wouldn't have to take the responsibility for pushing our office to a different solution.

[VincentCuclair]

You may be right, but perhaps only for the architectural market.

I use the architectural tools in Vectorworks but I don't do architecture. I own a copy of Vectorworks Designer because it gives me flexibility. Frankly I could care a less about BIM but it doesn't mean I don't need good import/export (Autocad, Cinema 4D, Lightwright, 3D printers).

Yup quite right Kevin, my bad, I reason from an architects point of view which is of course slightly warped when it comes to VWs.

From a more objective perspective I guess it is easier to see why things are as they are.

Better a half-assed stair tool than none at all......

Edited April 23, 2012 by Vincent C

[VincentCuclair]

...once again, I think it would be smart if 'they' keep Fundamentals at the same price level and increase Designer modules in price to keep up with the competition, I certainly would pay 50-100% more for the Architecture module if it was at the same level or better than ArchiCAD or Revit. As it is now I am beginning to loose money because of added drafting time by using VWs instead of ArchiCAD or Revit for BIM.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Vincent C

[Christiaan]

...once again, I think it would be smart if 'they' keep Fundamentals at the same price level and increase Designer modules in price to keep up with the competition

That is a very good point. Fundamentals/Spotlight/Landmark can remain cheap. It's Vectorworks Architect and Designer that need a price correction in line with BIM development requirements.

[IanH]

...once again, I think it would be smart if 'they' keep Fundamentals at the same price level and increase Designer modules in price to keep up with the competition

That is a very good point. Fundamentals/Spotlight/Landscape can remain cheap. It's Vectorworks Architect and Designer that need a price correction in line with BIM development requirements.

Unfortunately at VW's price point, it appeals to many of us one man bands who cannot afford, nor need anything more substantial.

Just because you don't personally put your hands in your own pockets, it doesn't mean that there are not many others that do and would prefer that you don't make moves that make VW more expensive than it already is.

If you don't like what is already offered, go tell your bosses to buy something more expensive and suited better to your needs rather than tailoring a perfectly reasonable and functional application into something that it isn't.

[Bryan G.]

Price and functionality, the big battle. I would have to agree with Vincent C to a point. If I could see measurable advances in the software I would be willing to pay more. But just how much is the question. If it were $100 or $200 more, and I came with massive improvements OK. But I would not pay double for the same reason as IanH stated. I would believe that of the 400,000 users VW claims and if only 1/4 of those upgraded annually with $100 increase in price, that is $10 million for R&D. That is a lot to build on. but what to build. The above thread mentions Architect, but Landmark could also use some improvements. Again an increase in price is warranted in my book if the improvements help my workflow. If I can save 10 minuets a day due to improvements this adds to $3465.80 per year savings (by payroll). In other words a no brainer.

Guess we'll have to wait for 2013 to see if they have done it.

[VincentCuclair]

........ it appeals to many of us one man bands who cannot afford, nor need anything more substantial.

.........buy something more expensive and suited better to your needs rather than tailoring a perfectly reasonable and functional application into something that it isn't.

I'm sorry Ian, i am a one man show. Firstly I don't find a 1000 dollar yearly upgrade specifically expensive if you see how much time you save to get the job done Secondly compared to Revit and ArchiCad the time lost is starting to become unjustifyable. Thirdly I don't consider VWs functional, whats the use of having 3D tools if they don't allow a complete 3D workflow? (I also consider these inadequacies to be a result of inadequet RandD funding as opposed to a lack of technical innovation, the solutions are already there, they are just not usable for non programmers.

[Guest]

PAY MORE FOR DESIGNER LO, I already pay for and donate to the Designer Benevolent Fund.Lets see Im donating for landscape. for garden sprinklers, I dont use..Hey wheres the Terraining/footing tools? And dont forget Spotlight.. I dont think Ive ever opened spotlight. And now for machine a program thats useful but will never be further developed. Your designer module is dysfunctional and the butt of jokes in the aEc industry.Whats happening is that their (VWs users) Architects/Landscapers/Artists are being relegated to 2nd class Bim Consultants. What is NAG going to do about their programs, and they need to put more funds in because users shouldnt have to, and stop ripping off single users they have the least available funds.

[Guest]

Speaking for myself I've recently managed to model two projects in 3D with BIM principles in mind. One is my own small house refurb and the other is a 4-building 6-storey residential/student scheme.

To think you have the most postings and BIM critiques and your first BIM project was modeling your house refurbishment? Thats ironic... lets hope they (NAG) dont follow your example.

[bc]

"To think you have the most postings and BIM critiques and your first BIM project was modeling your house refurbishment? Thats ironic... lets hope they (NAG) dont follow your example."

Point exactly mate. Users would be doing lots more BIM and IFC if the program would better provide for it.

Edited April 24, 2012 by bc

[IanH]

........ it appeals to many of us one man bands who cannot afford, nor need anything more substantial.

.........buy something more expensive and suited better to your needs rather than tailoring a perfectly reasonable and functional application into something that it isn't.

I'm sorry Ian, i am a one man show. Firstly I don't find a 1000 dollar yearly upgrade specifically expensive...

But we are not all Architects needing the functions that you crave. Remember that Designer is also for landscaping, machine design, spotlight etc where we are not so flushed with money that we could absorb a doubling of software spend. VW is priced at the lower end and I know a lot of people even at current price point that cannot afford/justify the cost even now where pen and pencil works just as well for many and CAD would probably be 20% of ones workflow.

Unfortunately individual VW design series products don't totally support all of our needs so Designer is necessary for many, not just the functionally crippled Fundamentals. I use bits from architect and spotlight and by the time functionality from a second design series product is needed, then Designer is needed. I'm sure not wanting to pay for all the extras of Architect that you want to add.

How about a Vectorworks BIM Series at twice the price and leave current Design Series at current price point. I don't see it happening, as it would put Vectorworks right in the mix of many other products. I think people need to appreciate that a budget range product is not going to offer what the premier range products do. VW is a sheep, and dressing it up in wolfs clothing still wont make it anything other than a sheep.

[VincentCuclair]

How about a Vectorworks BIM Series at twice the price and leave current Design Series at current price point. I don't see it happening, as it would put Vectorworks right in the mix of many other products.

Well I don't really care about what they do....if they run their company like most companies at the moment, short sighted fast winnings is what they are about. I'm sure Nemetschek is getting their money in any case and in that case just leave the prices as they are and make sure the tools that are present are working properly. Forget the shareholders for at least one year to get back on track!!

Losing customers because of short sightedness is quite stupid because the product is basically very good and certainly considering the price.

One thing they just need to get into their skulls is that in a 3D(BIM) workflow it's all or nothing and at the moment there are still a couple of hurdles that make this very cumbersome and therefore frustrating.

Workarounds in 2D are oversee-able but workarounds in BIM are just too time consuming and costly.

[Guest]

Twice the price?...Ha..Theyve already got the Archicad (BIM price point) and guess where all the archicad (which has twice the Archiectural features of VW) users are going ->Revit/Autocad (go figure out why Hint.."IFC isnt BIM")

[Chris D]

Speaking for myself I've recently managed to model two projects in 3D with BIM principles in mind. One is my own small house refurb and the other is a 4-building 6-storey residential/student scheme.

To think you have the most postings and BIM critiques and your first BIM project was modeling your house refurbishment? Thats ironic... lets hope they (NAG) dont follow your example.

You mean a practice should jump in head first and do BIM on their most complex projects? That would be reckless. We're also looking at BIM on a marginal basis because frankly VW isn't ready for primetime.

[Guest]

What do you think Archicad users have been doing for the last 25 years? Whats reckless is exporting your model (IFC) and not checking the data.. and most of all, "SAME FILE FORMATS ARE REQUIRED FOR CHECKING DATA (RECIEVING END)...HTH