digitalcarbon Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 vw could be so much more than it is Quote Link to comment
0 Kevin McAllister Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Yes!!! +1 (This is exactly what I was wishing for here - https://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=229887#Post229887) Kevin Quote Link to comment
0 digitalcarbon Posted July 27, 2016 Author Share Posted July 27, 2016 Kevin, what would be needed is not 2 states of on or off but constraints that we would add to a symbol that would allow for fast articulation. a rotation & slider constraint with stops would cover a lot then you just need a "grab" Tool (looks like a hand) that allows you to grab and articulate only Quote Link to comment
0 Kevin McAllister Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 I would be very happy with constraints and better rotation in 3d. I think you're saying that different instances of the same symbol could have different articulations in the drawing. And perhaps each articulation axis/motion could have a control slider in the OIP..... KM Quote Link to comment
0 Benson Shaw Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Isn't this the intent of create PIO option during Symbol creation? I think the excavator would need a symbol for the bucket, one for the arms and 1 for each articulation "half". Then the PIO wrapper would need 2 or 3 scripts corresponding to fields in the info palette. One the loader arm angle, one for the bucket angle, one for the steering angle. Similar could probably apply to the drawer in/out. I'm guessing that the PIO symbol/wrapper is more processor intensive than a simple symbol instance. I am totally ignorant of the scripting process, so this is a guess. -B Quote Link to comment
0 Markvl Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 That would be a cool feature. +1 Quote Link to comment
0 Kevin McAllister Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Isn't this the intent of create PIO option during Symbol creation? I think the excavator would need a symbol for the bucket, one for the arms and 1 for each articulation "half". Then the PIO wrapper would need 2 or 3 scripts corresponding to fields in the info palette. One the loader arm angle, one for the bucket angle, one for the steering angle. Similar could probably apply to the drawer in/out. I'm guessing that the PIO symbol/wrapper is more processor intensive than a simple symbol instance. I am totally ignorant of the scripting process, so this is a guess. -B Benson, this may well be possible as a Marionette network. An interesting idea. Kevin Quote Link to comment
0 digitalcarbon Posted July 29, 2016 Author Share Posted July 29, 2016 sorry guys... but no scripts... nor object info palette control just need 2 "movement" objects for starters just need a circle w/ the ability to add stops then insert this "movement" object into a symbol and show that this is connect to that by-way-of this "movement" object then when out of the symbol you select the "grab" tool (which is a hand) and then articulate the symbol writing scripts and linking to OIP is blah also if BIMObjects is taking over for all objects then they need to have this in their models Quote Link to comment
0 Tom Klaber Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 You would not even except OIP control? You are tough! Maybe it is not as big a deal as it sounds - and maybe these articulating pins would be more broadly useful that I am thinking... But man, I just want a stair tool that works.... 1 Quote Link to comment
0 rDesign Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 But man, I just want a stair tool that works.... ^^^^ I couldn't agree more. Quote Link to comment
0 Kevin McAllister Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 sorry guys... but no scripts... nor object info palette control just need 2 "movement" objects for starters just need a circle w/ the ability to add stops then insert this "movement" object into a symbol and show that this is connect to that by-way-of this "movement" object then when out of the symbol you select the "grab" tool (which is a hand) and then articulate the symbol writing scripts and linking to OIP is blah also if BIMObjects is taking over for all objects then they need to have this in their models So more like 3d constraints. The thing I like about your approach is that items could be articulated by a client using a viewer......... there's no question that simpler, more user friendly is better. KM Quote Link to comment
0 Kevin McAllister Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 You would not even except OIP control? You are tough! Maybe it is not as big a deal as it sounds - and maybe these articulating pins would be more broadly useful that I am thinking... But man, I just want a stair tool that works.... I often see this request by architects. I have to draw stairs all the time but they are always custom so I just model them manually which is way quicker. This week it was curved ship's ladders. I guess the stair tool helps with the 2d/3d aspect..... How about a stair tool with no OIP control..... now that I'd like to see..... KM 1 Quote Link to comment
0 rDesign Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 [Not intending to take this thread off-topic] I agree that stairs are "custom" in that they're different every time. Usually once the overall design of the stair has been approved (meaning no changes), I'll convert the Custom Stair PIO to a group and finish the stair design by direct modeling it from there. The problem with modeling-by-hand from the start is when you have to make design changes to the stair, you have to basically start over. It misses the entire point of designing with parametric objects, where you can revise the overall configuration of the object without changing the design details. The current stair PIO objects technically "work", just not very well. They are the opposite of user-friendly, which I would wholeheartedly support. [back on-topic] Quote Link to comment
0 digitalcarbon Posted July 30, 2016 Author Share Posted July 30, 2016 Kevin, i model stairs custom also.. please note above. rDesign, i do understand your point about quick adjusts through the OIP BUT here is what i have experienced. while the stair tool allows for fast adjust the failure is in all the viewport that it is in on the drawing sheet that i needed to go around and mask and patch funky parametric stuff. THIS causes you to lose out on any time savings you gain by parametric (its a false savings) when i model anything custom i never ever, ever worry about how it will look in plan, elevation, section. it always looks good. since i went on my own in dec 2014 i have not used any parametric objects. and if i do for starters i end up replacing them soon. (granted i am doing mostly industrial work) if i had a house job i may be tempted to use the wall, window & door tool and live with the limitations. but i do know how to work without them and i would be tempted to try. imagine a door symbol that had door slab, frame, hinges, kick, knobs, push bar etc that could all be seen in the model and on a spread sheet. i know how to do this easy. Quote Link to comment
0 digitalcarbon Posted July 30, 2016 Author Share Posted July 30, 2016 rDesign, ok, in the past i would use the stair tool as a place holder when we were designing and trying to get the owner to sign off. once they did i would delete the stairs and start custom modeling ok back to "Articulating Symbols" Quote Link to comment
0 rDesign Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 I can see a use for plug-in objects to have the ability to have preset open / closed / in-between positions - especially if this would be able to be individually controlled per object per viewport. An example of how preset positions could be helpful: For exterior elevations (section viewports) I typically show all door PIO as 'closed' but for 3D perspectives I would want just some of the doors to be 'open'. Right now to do this, I have to either manually change each Door PIO 'show 3D open' setting inbetween printing each Sheet, or I have to create a duplicate set of doors where one is classed as Doors-Open and the other as Doors-Closed. Then I turn one class or the other off in the VP, depending on what I want to see. I just have to make sure my Door schedules only look at one set of the doors. ^^^ This is not a very user-friendly workflow and could be improved by having preset open positions. just need 2 "movement" objects for starters just need a circle w/ the ability to add stops then insert this "movement" object into a symbol and show that this is connect to that by-way-of this "movement" object then when out of the symbol you select the "grab" tool (which is a hand) and then articulate the symbol What you're describing is basically inverse kinematics (IK), where you specify the joints, the range-of-motion for those joints and then the rigid bones connecting those joints. Most dedicated 3D animation software packages can do IK, but it's complicated to rig the structure correctly and it's not user-friendly (see Rigging Introduction and IK solver example from Blender User Manual). Personally, I don't see an overwhelming need for this functionality inside Vectorworks. Quote Link to comment
0 Benson Shaw Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 I think adjustable symbols is a useful concept, but the loader is not best example. The fix is super easy. I'm pretty sure DM is already doing this. This vwx workaround is 3 extra keystrokes beyond the process of placing and adjusting the envisioned articulating symbol. Create the loader symbol as a nest of 4 symbols - front half, back half, arms, bucket. If desired, add a 2d ground plane protractor for steering indicator. The arms and bucket can have working plane protractors classed for visibility. If desired, add additional protractors for terrain articulation between the halves. •Place/locate the loader symbol. •Extra click #1: CmdK (Convert to Group), but opt to preserve the nested symbols. •Extra click #2: Cmd[ (or dbl click to Edit the Group) •Adjust with Rotate tool for steering, terrain, arms and bucket. •Extra Click #3: Exit the Edit. This group can be copied and relocated as needed with Edit Group to adjust the rotations. Or place new instances of the "straight" loader symbol. -B -B Quote Link to comment
0 Kevin McAllister Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 •Extra click #1: CmdK (Convert to Group), but opt to preserve the nested symbols. You could save this step if you made it a blue symbol ;-) KM Quote Link to comment
0 digitalcarbon Posted July 31, 2016 Author Share Posted July 31, 2016 Benson, you are correct i will need to have nested symbols and rotate as needed Quote Link to comment
0 AlanW Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 (edited) You can use Marionette to do this. Have done a pretty rough one but with a bit more time with the components of the symbols you could get it pretty slick, and with the introduction of a slider control it would even be better. Edited August 2, 2016 by Alan Woodwell Quote Link to comment
0 digitalcarbon Posted May 18, 2017 Author Share Posted May 18, 2017 more on articulation of symbols i am working on a facility where i need to show the following in its various positions. i do not need to animate but just take one symbol and click it into the various positions. Backing a Quad https://youtu.be/OT1h4U8P7DE Quote Link to comment
0 digitalcarbon Posted March 6, 2018 Author Share Posted March 6, 2018 (edited) thanks a bunch for this...while this all may seem like eye candy...i have been working on projects where the movement of machinery had influence on the design... Edited March 6, 2018 by digitalcarbon Quote Link to comment
0 digitalcarbon Posted March 6, 2018 Author Share Posted March 6, 2018 we need to somehow get these companies to provide models like this...we should go to their sites and download an articulating symbol or at the least a simple model with all the pivot points called out Quote Link to comment
0 digitalcarbon Posted March 6, 2018 Author Share Posted March 6, 2018 while i appreciation the work done in Marionette...we need to have Mate assemblies like this... Quote Link to comment
0 digitalcarbon Posted March 6, 2018 Author Share Posted March 6, 2018 (edited) note how there is no need for an OIP input & anyone can figure this out w/o needing to learn programing.. Edited March 6, 2018 by digitalcarbon Quote Link to comment
Question
digitalcarbon
vw could be so much more than it is
Link to comment
27 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
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.