Jump to content
Phil hunt

Vectorworks 2017

Recommended Posts

We should start a things to remind Jim about thread.... soon there will be tagging for posts and we can just add the official "Remind Jim" tag instead.

KM

Share this post


Link to post
I can explain why we got Caustics and VR before things like Texture Mapping were fixed quite easily:

VR does not affect any other aspect of Vectorworks. Even if it was completely broken in a SP and couldn't be used at all, the Door tool would still work, the Rectangle tool would still do it's job. It is an extremely low risk, high market visibility feature. It was low hanging fruit and they chomped at it.

Caustics wasn't designed by us, it was added a few versions ago by MAXON and was, in engineering person-hours extremely easy to implement. Not as simple as flicking a switch, but important enough to interior scenes realism that it was picked. Again, this feature has no chance of breaking anything that already exists in Vectorworks, it is kind of a safe island that has no risk of hurting anything else.

When engineering finally makes the call and goes hitting Texture Mapping with a stick, it will affect EVERY object in every document that users textures in any way. It runs the risk of altering the appearance of existing documents when users upgrade to the next version for instance, a path that is seriously watched and protected whenever possible, we never approve of a software upgrade changing a user's file appearance. When it happens, it gets the hammer as soon as possible.

Understand that I by no means intend these to be justifications for why we haven't upgraded important tools over multiple versions, just so that you can get an idea of the motivations behind the choices we've made.

I get the programming rational that its easier to this than that so we did it. The problem with that rational is that the user gets fooled into believing VW is something that its not, but that's a whole other discussion.

I do dabble in programming so I don't necessarily agree with your view point that improving texture mapping will break current objects. Clearly VW already is storing texture mapping attributes that are stretched and UV mapped on imported objects. Its just they choose not to show or allow us to alter these attributes. Internally this done by having a unique mapping type other than planer, perimeter, etc... This same approach can be used to "not break" current textured objects. For example, instead of changing the current"plane" mapping, introduce a new one called "scalable plane" so only new objects created with this mapping type would be affected.

Now. by no means am I implying this is easy or it should be done all at once but the longer they wait the harder it gets. Your suggestion of even being able to map each face independantly would be a million times better than what we have now. that is as long as they allow us to scale the texture independently on XY axis. Expecting us to go into photoshop every time we change the size of an object ever so slightly just isn't working for me anymore.

Share this post


Link to post

Please remind me about this or point me to the thread where we were ( im pretty sure) talking about it before in a few weeks, I want to chase it down further. Half the people I was working with report cameras now working fine in 2016 and the other half are seeing issues after sp4 that they claim didn't exist. No point in filing things until Sept but I don't want to forget about it.

I will remind you.

As you know my talent to avoid off topic postings it is spread over many threads ;)

I think this one covers most :

https://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=223325

I too think have experienced further issues with SP4 like problems after changing

active layer.

The main problems with cameras arbitrarily jumping to origin or completely to

nirvana, multiple camera activation, unwanted activation of view crop or so

persisted from SP 0-4 for me so far.

Share this post


Link to post
When engineering finally makes the call and goes hitting Texture Mapping with a stick, it will affect EVERY object in every document that users textures in any way. It runs the risk of altering the appearance of existing documents when users upgrade to the next version for instance, a path that is seriously watched and protected whenever possible, we never approve of a software upgrade changing a user's file appearance. When it happens, it gets the hammer as soon as possible.

Your assurances about breaking old files is fine, but worries me quite a bit.

My work and I suspect most other users is 'project based' meaning most files are inherently time limited. Granted some projects are multi-year, even in my little corner. Keeping a broken tool in case I have to review an old project is a poor trade off. Updating minor parts to adapt to new features is a small price to pay for getting rid of old issues. "We've always done it that way" is a weak argument but a strong blockade.

If something looks funny on import (warnings?) then it would be much simpler to have old versions available. Other software I use does this, and it's not such a big deal, except for licensing issues. And I'm sure there are other solutions.

On other subjects - I too support your efforts Jim, in getting the rest of the company to see things from our point of view. This has been quite an interesting thread!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
I do feel that full UV unfolding and image painting is extremely complex not only to implement but also to use

+ 100

But I don't think that users that ask for UV Mapping are really thinking of a

complete UV unfolding system.

But the most basic projection mappings like planar, cubic, cylindrical, spherical, ...

should work. And these are quite rudimentary currently in RW and uncomfortable

to use.

Plus some fake or workaround options to allow path extrudes and such to

be mapped reasonably looking for landscapers.

I completely agree with Zoomer on this. We don't want or need a complete UV unfolding system, just the basics as Zoomer outlined.

Share this post


Link to post
I do feel that full UV unfolding and image painting is extremely complex not only to implement but also to use

+ 100

But I don't think that users that ask for UV Mapping are really thinking of a

complete UV unfolding system.

But the most basic projection mappings like planar, cubic, cylindrical, spherical, ...

should work. And these are quite rudimentary currently in RW and uncomfortable

to use.

Plus some fake or workaround options to allow path extrudes and such to

be mapped reasonably looking for landscapers.

I completely agree with Zoomer on this. We don't want or need a complete UV unfolding system, just the basics as Zoomer outlined.

Agreed, sorry if my lengthy posts made it seem otherwise, that's what I want as well. We can come to a happy medium on a texture mapping feature set that will be plenty useful in Vectorworks alone without needing external software unless the user REALLY wants to take it elsewhere. Currently, the limitation forces even the average user trying to work with textures to look elsewhere (either exporting to C4D or roundtripping to Photoshop) and I think that's the major issue.

Share this post


Link to post

I do dabble in programming so I don't necessarily agree with your view point that improving texture mapping will break current objects. Clearly VW already is storing texture mapping attributes that are stretched and UV mapped on imported objects. Its just they choose not to show or allow us to alter these attributes. Internally this done by having a unique mapping type other than planer, perimeter, etc... This same approach can be used to "not break" current textured objects. For example, instead of changing the current"plane" mapping, introduce a new one called "scalable plane" so only new objects created with this mapping type would be affected.

This isn't something I really understand personally, that's just how it was explained to me by engineering. Apparently it certainly isn't impossible, but there are a lot of "strange" workarounds in the background of objects like Doors and Windows that have component classing to make things work, and it isnt guaranteed that something will break, but that it presents a high enough risk factor for it to be over a certain threshold.

I personally only understand the basics of how this kind of thing is handled under the hood, but I've spoken to enough engineers with the same line of thinking that I believe them when they say Here There Be Dragons when it comes to this sort of thing.

Again; It certainly isn't impossible. I think this is mostly just the reason it has been such a long standing limitation. And in any case, logical justifications for concern or no, I'm going to continue to poke them with a stick until it is significantly improved.

Share this post


Link to post

but there are a lot of "strange" workarounds in the background of objects like Doors and Windows that have component classing to make things work, and it isnt guaranteed that something will break, but that it presents a high enough risk factor for it to be over a certain threshold.

Isn't the advantage of projection mappings that they ignore all possible UVs

or dependencies and overwrite everything as they happen from outside in the

renderer. The C4D engine dose not know if there is a window or door.

Just a mesh like any else that has applied that material.

Aren't those mapping dependancies in BIM objects related to hatches and those

things only in that case ?

I'ld be happy with cubic mapping only, even planar only.

But be able to edit U and V independently. In position, scale and rotation.

And no problem with adding that globally to the material only, like it is done now.

The need for a rotated version needs a material duplicate which has to be done

as it is also.

Nicer of course, similar to C4D, to be able to overwrite that on object or class base.

(C4D does by object only, which not cool at all, as you have to always select all

assignments when you need to edit them)

useful in Vectorworks alone without needing external software unless the user REALLY wants to take it elsewhere.

1.

this

and

2.

Just because of that Exchange.

Which does not work if things are not exactly the same type and settings

on both sides. So I wish to get the complete Material settings like Archicad

got and that there is no need redo mapping.

The typical synchronization problem when editing things on both sides.

It has to somehow work like VW multiuser project. Both connected and

checking parts out and lock them on the other side.

Currently,

if you do edits in C4D, which marks things edited to prevent them from

being overwritten, you loose synchronization for more and more parts as

more often you synchronize. If you do some class rearrangements in C4D

because it can't sort by name. Delete it later in VW but it will stay in C4D.

And it is not oversee able what will happen with geometry.

It is not a big problem to keep cameras, lighting and render settings separate.

Of course you need to change both manually in some cases.

And you can face the strange material and texture duplication and renaming

by an optimized class setup to bring it to an acceptable level.

But Geometry, Material, Class compatibility should be at a level that will allow

to do all these changes in VW only, to keep the update function over time.

Of course, if both would use the same synchronized file data base and it doesn't

matter where to edit things would be much cooler.

Share this post


Link to post

I've played with a demo version of Archicad 20 over the last two days. VW on steroids!

Hmmh,

have not installed the App so far but watched the keynote video.

Can't get rid of the feeling that both VW and AC try to get exactly the same

feature set. Energy calculation in AC, VW brings Energos some years later,

Marionette in VW, AC 20 brings Grasshopper one year later, ....

While Marionette inside VW sounds to work well on the forums,

that real time AC-Rhino connection looks absolutely great when you can

use Rhino geometry in AC and even get BIM objects from it in AC.

I am most jealous about the optical work on their UI.

The german critics about AC was that they never updated their old wall tools

and still have no story levels. But I think I have to look in the App if that is

really worse. As I'm not quite happy with these in VW too.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Jim,

Do you know if the different sections (ie. symbols, hatches, textures etc.) in the new Resource Browser can be re-ordered? Right now they are alphabetical which isn't particularly intuitive. I wish that symbols and folders were always shown first....

Kevin

Share this post


Link to post

Not the list of resource types next to the search bar no, but honestly I find myself leaving that at "All" and then using Search and not even thinking about the category, or when using the resource selector UI from the various tools more often, they auto-filter to the expected resource type so you don't need to keep navigating around it over and over.

It's kinda odd, so much work was done on the resource manager palette and actually a lot of that work was so that you don't even need to use most of it on a regular basis anymore, lol.

Share this post


Link to post

Release of 2017 must not be too far away..... as I just noticed that VW YouTube channel has uploaded few new videos on rendering tips using 2017...! looks exciting... hoping to see the much discussed 2.0 version tools to aid us to design (or rather help us and clients to visualise our designs)...!

Share this post


Link to post

@JIM: There once had been talked about not releasing yearly anymore, but releasing each feature when it was finished, so that VW would be more a continual updating program, which would benefit both the development team and the users, as users would have the chance to learn the new/improved tools in a timely manner, and not all at once, etc.... Are there still plans for this, as I would really love to see this, as I believe this will also open up the transparency to the users about the direction VW is going.

Share this post


Link to post

There is still talk of it, but no official plans. For now it looks like the same cycle will stay for the main software package, though we do release Vision updates in a rolling release style rather than tying them to yearly versions.

Share this post


Link to post
Release of 2017 must not be too far away.....

4 and a half weeks I would say.

(or rather help us and clients to visualise our designs)...!

I hope.

Meanwhile I played with that other family member's demo App.

And have to see that their built in RW :

Does not rename my materials or textures.

Has a 2 point or architectural perspective for cameras (that don't get corrupt)

Has the complete C4D material system so full compatibility and synchronization.

Brings geometry perfect (component walls !), with correct face orientation into C4D.

Has sharp lines in OpenGL.

Lets me render and save at a given pixel resolution.

Has all texture mapping options needed in architecture.

While for Architecture it gives me :

A global universal building material system with all data and rendering info.

(Thought I invented this here on the forums - too late)

A part connection system that works beautifully, by priorities, even between

vertical and horizontal Elements, so sections fit out of the box.

Generated 2D is synchronized, there isn't even any difference in which 2D/3D

mode you currently work and manipulate.

Architectural objects have unlimited settings for creation and final appearance.

And all in a functional, hierarchical and (now) beautiful interface.

Of course it doesn't allow to layout a book and those 2D things, landscape or spotlight

use and mass modeling isn't that intuitive.

But I see there quite some gap between that solution and my VW.

Hope 2017 will close most parts of that gap.

Share this post


Link to post

as long as there are no slanted walls we'll always be handicapped when it comes to designing free-form buildings. we still can't impress anybody with it, and having it for floor plan generation from the free-form massing model would give us an enormous edge in modelling for macro bim, everything in one and the same software.

Share this post


Link to post

Really looking forward to new version. the fascinating feature of VW is 'one-stop' design tool, which is the most attractive function to me.

Although, some basic functions still need to be fixed---personal preference.

For example,

Control XREF files class visibility from viewport,

or issue grey PDF files,

or Text Finding(the best one still is CAD-again, personal opinion)

and basic adjustment for images colour,stature...(PS function)-now in order to make my plan better, I have to use 5-10 same images but different statures/color.

I mean, all these functions would change VW a lot, but they are powerful functions to my daily work, making my life really easy.

Really hope VW can inherit these advantages from other programs, and also develop the feature itself.

Thanks

Edited by aozhouyyq1982

Share this post


Link to post
Will VW 2017 be macOS 10.12 Sierra ready ?

Depends if we get their release build soon enough, but most likely that will come in SP1, it's been that way a few years now. I have not had time to test it personally yet this year, but from what I have heard 2016 does NOT run properly on the current MacOS 10.12 beta however, so I do not recommend it on any production machines for the time being.

Share this post


Link to post

Each year this happens, I always wonder why the release of Vectorworks is not pushed back by six months so that it is off-cycle from the new OS X release.

I don't know if Windows releases updates on a set calendar schedule, but since OS X updates do seem to have a set schedule (mid-September to mid-October), this insistence on releasing Vw in mid-September baffles me. I imagine it makes things more difficult on engineering as well.

Share this post


Link to post

Well ORIGINALLY Apple's OS schedule wasn't so rigid when we established our cycle. However in the past few years they've become very reliable.

This whole schedule was explained to me by accounting here, when I asked something similar; Apparently it boils down to how our release rolls out globally. For instance, we want to release in the US just before the fourth quarter (When companies are going to be spending their budgets as fast as possible), a few other financial events in between but the other major one so that we release in Japan right near a similar point in their fiscal year, which I believe starts in April.

Effectively, the bureaucratic/financial benefits of keeping it in September outweigh the technological issues that arise keeping it in September. I am not saying I fully understand the intricacies of their decisions, but they were able to satisfy my concerns that our release date was not just blindly picked regardless of the tech industry repercussions.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks JimW for the info, I figured that was probably the reason.

It also helps explain why I never install a new version of Vectorworks until the release of SP1. (I also wait to install a new OS version until at least the first .X update)

Share this post


Link to post
Will VW 2017 be macOS 10.12 Sierra ready ?

Depends if we get their release build soon enough, but most likely that will come in SP1, it's been that way a few years now. I have not had time to test it personally yet this year, but from what I have heard 2016 does NOT run properly on the current MacOS 10.12 beta however, so I do not recommend it on any production machines for the time being.

Ah, ok.

Forgot that could influence 2016 too.

Nevertheless,

as an early adopter I couldn't hold myself from OS X updating more than 2 days

after release. I rather risk a VW pause :)

That worked ok the last years beside some smaller things.

No guarantee of course.

Each year this happens, I always wonder why the release of Vectorworks is not pushed back by six months so that it is off-cycle from the new OS X release.

That would not work with the year number in the name.

Now one would buy an outdated VW.

Share this post


Link to post

i'm also an early adopter, but there is a rule of thumb: never update/upgrade the software during the project. sometimes it can be highly advisable.

Edited by gester

Share this post


Link to post

I very much agree with delaying a file upgrade until after a project is over, or only starting out with a new software version after it gets its first patch. These are both extremely sound practices and I encourage them fully. My thanks to everyone here who promotes the same.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

 

7150 Riverwood Drive, Columbia, Maryland 21046, USA   |   Contact Us:   410-290-5114

 

© 2018 Vectorworks, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Vectorworks, Inc. is part of the Nemetschek Group.

×