Modelling VS PIO - Opinions?

[RussU]

Hi everyone,

 

I'm really interested to to hear what people think of the many tools and workflows in VW.

 

I've been using VW since v2008, and generally had the full "Designer" package, which is what I use today. While some tools, like stairs, structural shapes, site model, fastenings etc. are really good and quick for initial layout, when my designs becomes more complex and more "custom" I tend to break it out into generic geometry, extrudes etc.

 

During Initial file set-up the parametric and plug-in objects are really handy,  but when you have something very specific in mind I've found it much quicker to directly model the item in question, rather than trawling through dialogues and drop downs, with a lot of hit and miss. (Sure, this is probably because I didn't learn the tools thoroughy enough in the first place, but often I want something which is not supported anyway)

 

So my initial plans and first stage designs are full of quick and easy plug in objects, but end up with a very VW look and feel, but as the design matures I end up with custom modelled content, and almost no parametric items at all.

 

I'm really interested if people think this is a normal workflow, or if in general folks try to keep eveything as parametric and do everything through dialogues and the OIP. What do you find quicker?

 

Therefore, personally I would prefer to see development focussed on generic modelling and texturing tools, rather than the Plug in stuff. To that end, I get a lot of comments about why I use Designer and not Fundamentals (Although I do enjoy section viewports, drawing number co-ordination and the Navigation panel!)

 

What's your two cents? I'd love to know what people consider to be the "normal" way

[zoomer]

My experience is that standard 3D modeling is so slow, inflexible and tedious in VW,

with its 2D priority, general tool design and inability to change multiple elements at a time,

opposed to creating and manipulating 2D objects.

So decided to use PIOs wherever possible. That gives me some more flexibility for revisions.

 

Regarding the PIOs, looking at what comes out at the end, geometry resolution wise,

the dialogs are far too complex. Bricscad gives same result with preselection of a Window Type

and just 8 possible setting values.

In my practice I reach their limits many times a day and think that making them more complex

to try to extend their limits a bit would make it worse. As VW claims to be a design driven App

I would like to see the PIOs even being reduced to be more flexible at the end.

 

So I also vote for development in usability and reliability of standard 3D Modeling Tools

and rethinking and simplification of the POIs.

[EAlexander]

I direct model everything, except truss. I use a lot of symbols, and everything is a hybrid symbol. 

[Kevin McAllister]

I think you'll find it varies by industry (as it does even in the first three posts). I model almost everything from scratch because almost every project is work on is unique. I also use VW Designer and have since 2009. I couldn't function without the Navigation Palette which isn't included in Fundamentals. PIOs are only useful once and a while since they aren't really designed for drawing existing architectural spaces quickly. If things like doors are included in my design work I have to model them from scratch since they will be built from the drawing not bought from a catalog (PIOs miss critical details like door stops etc.). It would be more beneficial for me if development was focussed on proper navigation (non-tool based), direct modelling tools, and drawing presentation/co-ordination.

 

Kevin

 

 

[RussU]

6 hours ago, EAlexander said:

I use a lot of symbols, and everything is a hybrid symbol. 

Hybrid, as in 3d, with a 2d overlay? or autohybrid?

 

Do you go to the effort of wall insert options?

[RussU]

6 hours ago, Kevin McAllister said:

I couldn't function without the Navigation Palette which isn't included in Fundamentals

Absolutely agree... this should be rolled out for all users, restricting to a design product just ruins the fundamentals experience...

Also, I'd like to break out the pallettes so I have classes and layers in side by side menus, rather than flicking between the two... although nested classes are a great organisational tool

6 hours ago, Kevin McAllister said:

 It would be more beneficial for me if development was focussed on proper navigation (non-tool based), direct modelling tools, and drawing presentation/co-ordination.

Do you think it could be useful to instate a quad view (top, front, side, perspective) similar to what you have in the bulk of other 3d apps? or do you like the current way?

[Kevin McAllister]

6 hours ago, RussU said:

Also, I'd like to break out the pallettes so I have classes and layers in side by side menus, rather than flicking between the two... although nested classes are a great organisational tool

I really would like the VW interface to be entirely customizable like the Cinema 4d interface. It offers so much flexibility to create a workspace that suits you and your workflow.

 

Quote

Do you think it could be useful to instate a quad view (top, front, side, perspective) similar to what you have in the bulk of other 3d apps? or do you like the current way?

Yes, definitely. There was a survey thread created by JimW that asked for feedback about this (Thread Here). I think NV is definitely exploring this for implementation in the future.

KM

Edited July 2, 2017 by Kevin McAllister
Added link to Multi View thread

[EAlexander]

19 hours ago, RussU said:

Hybrid, as in 3d, with a 2d overlay? or autohybrid?

 

Do you go to the effort of wall insert options?

3d with a 2d overlay. I rarely use auto hybrids. I should note though that I don't do architecture, I do concert stages, television events, and arena tours, so not a lot of doors and windows :). I agree with Kevin, each industry has different needs. 

[Chad Hamilton HAArchs]

We tend to use parametric objects whenever possible.  As the design is refined from schematic stage through construction documents, it is so much easier to make changes parametrically than to adjust (or possibly re-model) a modeled object.  Sometimes we add custom modeled elements to parametric objects - for example, a modeled sunshade in front of parametric windows or curtain wall.  Sometimes we turn stair railings off in elevation views  and draw them in 2D rather than modeling very complex elements.

[RussU]

7 hours ago, EAlexander said:

3d with a 2d overlay. I rarely use auto hybrids. I should note though that I don't do architecture, I do concert stages, television events, and arena tours, so not a lot of doors and windows :). I agree with Kevin, each industry has different needs. 

One option I would love to see, is "convert to hybrid symbol".

At the moment, if you have 3d and a 2d overlay, it makes the symbol a hybrid.... nice.

When you convert a PIO, you either get the 2d, or the 3d, so you need to do it twice and combine... not a major hardship, but another step

I work in a similar industry to yours, so it's very broad from job to job.

6 hours ago, Chad Hamilton HAarchs said:

We tend to use parametric objects whenever possible.

This is exactly the discussion I wanted to have. How people work and to understand other peoples workflows, to improve our own. As I mentioned I tend to start with parametric where possible, and then break out to custom when needed.