Jump to content
  • 0

Forget about IFC for second


Christiaan

Question

Nemetschek, you need to put everything down and sort out the sorry state that is the extraction of traditional 2D data from a 3D model.

I've been banging on about this for more than half a decade and I've been lambasted by one of your employees in the past for suggesting it might be a priority over IFC/3D colloboration.

We're now at the coalface and having to deal with this huge deficiency in Vectorworks. We're now modelling major construction-phase projects in 3D and the hoops we need to jump through to create traditional 2D data, particularly elevations, is ridiculous.

Please understand that we're not all going to jump into full-scale BIM over night. The first step is to give us the ability to model efficiently and extract traditional 2D data from that model (aka DWG). Surely your other customers have been telling you this for years too?

Link to comment

Recommended Posts

  • 0

From a business perspective, I see a huge market of users who would benefit from a plug in marketplace. I cannot do my job without LandruDesign's plug ins for entertainment. If NNA doesn't want to provide the functionality, someone could make a nice profit by bridging the gap.

Link to comment
  • 0
From a business perspective, I see a huge market of users who would benefit from a plug in marketplace. I cannot do my job without LandruDesign's plug ins for entertainment. If NNA doesn't want to provide the functionality, someone could make a nice profit by bridging the gap.

The REALLY BIG problem here is that most firms/architects/... doesn't want to pay for such things, even if they are really cheap compared to the work hours they will save with it. That's also the reason why I gave up on some of my tools. I didn't even got my work hours to be paid by the sales. I made a real good legend tool because it was one of the most requested things on the VectorWiki, but where are all the poeple that wanted this?

Link to comment
  • 0

The problem with 3rd party plugins is not the money, it's the process.

It's the inconvenience of having to install and maintain them. It's the perceived risk involved. You have to buy them through random websites and companies that you have little or no relationship with. What's quality control and security like? Is their plugin popular enough that it will make enough money for them and still be around next year? What do we do if we centre our workflow on a plugin and then it stops being developed?

Money is a factor but I would suggest it's the least of people's concerns.

What Vectorworks needs, preferably within the application itself, is a marketplace for third party plugins that let's you browse and search for plugins, rate them, review them and download them. It would manage installation and updates automatically and would offer some sort of quality control and security. Sound familiar?

Alternatively?but likely not to happen for a long time due to a whole bunch of reasons?would be the ability to purchase Vectorworks through the Mac App Store and then to be able to buy "In-App" plugins.

Link to comment
  • 0

I am not against 3rd Party plugins, but we shouldn't need to rely on them for our workflow.

Vectorworks needs to have adequate tools built in, to allow all of us to 'completely' work using BIM and not just those with gifted programming abilities.

Link to comment
  • 0
I am not against 3rd Party plugins, but we shouldn't need to rely on them for our workflow.

Vectorworks needs to have adequate tools built in, to allow all of us to 'completely' work using BIM and not just those with gifted programming abilities.

I'll 2nd that!

We pay for Architect we should get Architect Tools.

We should not have/need to "Model" what should be here in the 1st place.

Guess VW figures "Conceptual" good enough.

It is not in why I do everyday!

Link to comment
  • 0

Just to clarify it was not meant in a derogatory way.

My dictionary describes "gifted" as: "having exceptional talent or natural ability"

There are a number of people on this forum that i believe have great abilities with Vectorworks, and they get the best out of the program.

(Just to add i am very grateful for their posts they have helped me out greatly over the years).

My education as an architect never taught programming as part of my degrees, nor has my working experience of an architect required it.

so i guess what i am emphasising is that they have abilities that the average user in the architectural industry doesn't have. e.g. me.

Edited by Alan H
Link to comment
  • 0
We should not have/need to "Model" what should be here in the 1st place.

Forgive my intrusion, but this really gets me "Fired up"! That IS exactly what CAD is all about.

Otherwise VW should not be allowed to call it's self a CAD app.

What VW needs is for the Modeling Tools to be improved!

The"LEGO brick attitude" is what is killing this product and why many of the once excellent tools are becoming more and more limited or lost.

RJ Mullin(and others) have to sweat over VS to take the far from adequate OIP(for example) to get VW closer to what it should be. As i understand it, this is becoming more difficult for "plugin scripters" as VW proceeds . . . . .

Most quality "PlugIn Providers" have been around for some time and unless they become disillusioned with VW or VS becomes unusable and choose to work with another CAD app due to it's failings, i think you'll find that the passion they've had til now for VW will remain. One clearly can't comment on more recent additions to the ranks . . . .

VW The lesser of many evils!

:)

Link to comment
  • 0

AndiACD,

I agree we need updated Tools.

We should always have the ability to "free form"/design the custom objects/symbols we need.

I am suggesting, that we should not have to "design" the symbols or objects we use on a daily basis.

Yes, we can create & save them but that is not the point.

Having to use workarounds is better than not being able to achieve the task, but that is not conducive to a productive environment.

If this can be resolved by better tools/options I am all for it.

Sometimes I get the feeling that we accept what is given to us without seeking better/alternate ways to improve a product.

Just because we have been doing it this way for 20 years does not mean there is no room for improvement.

While VW has made tremendous improvements/additons over the years, other Tools/ Options have been left behind.

One option would be for the OIP to have Tabs for Options instead of having to scroll down the list.

I for one invite the discussions so we can help improve the product.

Link to comment
  • 0

I agree completely with AndiACD. The modelling tools should be where the improvements start. The next improvements should be with the process of getting good 2D drawings off the 3D model. These things need to be sorted before any more resources go into the mythical BIM.

Over the last few years so many of the improvements have been with specialty tools instead of the basic toolset. I don't object to these improvements but I think the basic toolset has been neglected for far too long.

Though I'm not an architect I often use the architectural tools. I would like these tools to be more universal (the "stair tool", as an example, doesn't even do a basic flat bottom massing stair that I can use for a stage stair, or how about "fit walls to roof" which should actually be a universal "fit this geometry to that geometry" tool instead.)

I do not want to manage a million plug ins given the current plugin architecture. I am paying for Vectorworks Designer for a reason.

Kevin

Link to comment
  • 0
The modelling tools should be where the improvements start. The next improvements should be with the process of getting good 2D drawings off the 3D model. These things need to be sorted before any more resources go into the mythical BIM.

I agree with Kevin. I would like better modelling tools however at present I can get a building modelled fairly well, the problem I have is getting 2D representation of that model.

The main problem I have with vw is the PIO's. I don't use them. I find them limited and useless and anything out of the ordinary is impossible to do with PIO's therefore I end up modelling everything. The problem is I spend twice the time on an object because I have to worry about it's 2D counterpart. PIO's need to go. This is why I also like Revit-there's no programming involved and Revit takes care of all the 2D drawings therefore I can just concentrate on the 3D model.

Link to comment
  • 0
This is why I also like Revit-there's no programming involved...

While this is true, the trade off is that the user needs higher technical knowledge to be able to create their own families.

I personally see the ability to create your own parametric families as an advantage, I have a higher level of control.

Link to comment
  • 0
While this is true, the trade off is that the user needs higher technical knowledge to be able to create their own families.

I personally see the ability to create your own parametric families as an advantage, I have a higher level of control.

I think this is the way it should be. Nowadays, especially in Australia, emphasis is placed on computer software rather than a person's technical knowledge or qualifications.

And you're correct, Revit parametric modelling/families are definitely superior to vw's "coded" window, door, windoor, PIO tools.

Link to comment
  • 0

Revit parametric modelling/families are definitely superior to vw's "coded" window, door, windoor, PIO tools.

I'm not discussing which is better, but wanted to say that these Revit families are also coded objects like VW pio's. It just doesn't seem that way to the user. In the end, every thing is coded, it's just the way that it's represented to the user that's different, and of course the code itself.

Link to comment
  • 0
The problem is I spend twice the time on an object because I have to worry about it's 2D counterpart. PIO's need to go.

This is true, but pio's and hybrid symbols doesn't need to go. I think we should get the option to let VW draw the 2D part or let us to it ourselfs like we do now. Why? Because there is clearly an advantage to being able to draw the 2D part yourself. That way, you can draw a simplified version of the 3D model to show on plan. Take furniture for example. Some things can be so detailed in 3D, that they doesn't show good when you would let VW draw the 2D part from a section. So then we need to be able to say: I will draw it myself. Off course you can use classes to model 2 3D models and have the simpler form on for your 2D plans and the detailed one for 3D view.

Link to comment
  • 0

In a way it really doesn't make a difference what it is, it's like Dieter says as long as the UI is simple clear and intuitive.

Take something like a drainpipe and gutter tool, do you really care how it is created as long as it looks the way you want it to and ends up in the right place. The technology is already there = hybrid solids/ extrude along path/ plug in objects we just don't have a tool in the UI dedicated to this.

I've delved into the realm of Revit families and sometimes a family is as complicated as a whole VWs building......yes it works but usually simple it is not.

Link to comment
  • 0
I'm not discussing which is better, but wanted to say that these Revit families are also coded objects like VW pio's. It just doesn't seem that way to the user. In the end, every thing is coded, it's just the way that it's represented to the user that's different, and of course the code itself.

Well this is my point, vw's makes the user work with code but Revit handles the code for the user and the user set's up windows, doors, etc. in a more user-friendly way i.e. drawing with the mouse with dimensional inputs. Far more easier, user-friendlier, superior and productive than a user typing code. Looking at a screen and just typing code isn't my idea of fun, more like boring.

There also needs to be some sort of move towards PIOs that blend free-form modelling with parametric modelling. Is this what Revit Families are?

I don't have enough experience with Revit to say if this is possible. However the tools are all there when editing families so I'm sure you can create a free-form shape however I'm not sure if you can make it parametric.

Link to comment
  • 0
Looking at a screen and just typing code isn't my idea of fun, more like boring.

Looks like we all have different ideas of fun! ;)

on topic: That's right Jershaun, it is the ui that's important. As I see VW, it's more like a base program where the users can modify it to suit their needs. And that's what I like about it. For VW to be better out of the box for most users, it just needs the missing tools in a ui friendly way.

Link to comment

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
Answer this question...

×   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.

×
×
  • Create New...