Jump to content

General comment


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, nca777 said:

In theory, it sounds nice to build geometry out of shapes, as in illustrators pathfinder toolset, but in reality AutoCAD has been doing it way longer and pretty much figured out how the AEC world drafts.

 

I think there are definitely areas for improvement but we don't really need an Autocad clone. Building geometry out of shapes is very intuitive if you're a long time user. Who wants a collection of unconnected lines.... yuck.

 

KM

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Kevin McAllister said:

 

I think there are definitely areas for improvement but we don't really need an Autocad clone. Building geometry out of shapes is very intuitive if you're a long time user. Who wants a collection of unconnected lines.... yuck.

 

KM

 

 

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

 

Amen to that!

 

What are you two designing ? It would be easier, in my mind, to draft a plan, close polylines once you have everything dimensionally accurate and assign z heights. 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, nca777 said:

What are you two designing ? It would be easier, in my mind, to draft a plan, close polylines once you have everything dimensionally accurate and assign z heights. 

It's very hard to take this comment seriously. How would would you design in 3d using this workflow? A cube would need 12 lines drawn elevated, connected and composed. Or draw a square & extrude it (using Push Pull in the same operation if you want to). ACAD did it with lines because it was early across the fence & that was a programming marvel at the time. We've jumped many fences since.

 

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, bcd said:

It's very hard to take this comment seriously. How would would you design in 3d using this workflow? A cube would need 12 lines drawn elevated, connected and composed. Or draw a square & extrude it (using Push Pull in the same operation if you want to). ACAD did it with lines because it was early across the fence & that was a programming marvel at the time. We've jumped many fences since.

 

Um. You draw a polygon in plan view, convert it to a object (pad for example) and assign it depth. 

 

If you're an architect or landscape architect, you've probably hand drawn a plan already by the time you go into VW. So you trace the plan first (as you would in autocad) and assign dpeths/z-heights after the fact. 

 

Why is that so difficult to understand? You freeform model through your entire process??

Link to comment
1 hour ago, nca777 said:

What are you two designing ? It would be easier, in my mind, to draft a plan, close polylines once you have everything dimensionally accurate and assign z heights. 

 

Theatre shows, museum exhibits, Olympic ceremonies, jewellery, furniture, props, graphics...... I'd say most of us use VW because of its workflow flexibility. Sometimes I start with the plan, but more often than not I'm drawing from the side or front. Sometime I use lines as guides or combine basic surface shapes... it really depends on the project. Everything becomes a 3d model in the end, then I let VW generate the 2d drawings.

 

Kevin

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, nca777 said:

Um. You draw a polygon in plan view, convert it to a object (pad for example) and assign it depth. 

 

If you're an architect or landscape architect, you've probably hand drawn a plan already by the time you go into VW. So you trace the plan first (as you would in autocad) and assign dpeths/z-heights after the fact. 

 

Why is that so difficult to understand? You freeform model through your entire process??

 

That's a very specific workflow for a select group of users. I'm not sure that you understand the make-up of the general VW user base.

 

KM

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Just now, Kevin McAllister said:

 

That's a very specific workflow for a select group of users. I'm not sure that you understand the make-up of the general VW user base.

 

KM

 

 

Uhh..you might go back and read your previous comment. I'm just answering "How would would you design in 3d using this workflow?"

 

I don't design in CAD. I draw, then draft and model. VW is part of the design process, but my gripe is that it seems a lot of users are looking for automation.

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, bcd said:

A lot of us design in Vectorworks.

sure, you can design in autocad too...thats a whole other discussion i guess. when we design architectural projects we have things we need to align to--existing buildings, walls, curbs, etc. We always have a site with constraints and real-world coordinates. Even a pretty heavy modeler like rhino has a command line that operates pretty closely to autocad in terms of functionality--so I know im not off the mark. I just know I can draft a site plan in autocad and model it in sketchup or rhino in half the time it takes to do the same thing in vw, expecially when it comes to parking lots, roads.

 

I'm attracted to vw for it site modeling tools and bim capability, but finding the fundamental tools frustrating slow and inaccurate.

Link to comment
On 05/07/2017 at 0:16 AM, jah011 said:

So, you have multiplier option and on the other hand it is not possible to make several copies in random places.... ie. have a window or a chair and then multiply it in different distances, positions etc..

Hi, Making several copies in random places is certainly possible and we have done this using a Marionette Script. See file attached. This was done with random placement of image prop trees. The same principle

 

 can apply to any object

Random_Planting_IProp_001_v2017_v2016.zip

Link to comment

nca777:

Sure we do sketches on paper, but about 80% of our buildings are designed in VW. The ONLY thing I use a line for is as "helper", generally to clip stuff. We use 2D & 3D polygons to make some 3D items (that we save as hybrid symbols). This would be a J.O.B. if I didn't have the Wall Tool. I've watched with my mouth open as folks I know draw stuff with like a gazillion lines & have to type more that the entire typing pool in Mad Men in ACAD

 

We're not LA's so I don't know how long site stuff takes. In a recent project (a Garden Centre) we were making site suggestions to the Site Service consultant, the LA (who uses AI for some reason) was coming to us for help, and we were solving connection issues for the Greenhouse MFG, as well as helping to design Structure & a cistern (never done that before) for our Structural engineer and reducing the size and solving many mechanical conflicts because of the (almost) BIM approach we took on the project.

 

I do take your point about some PIO's (stair tool anyone?) but most PIO's are 80%-90% there and are good enough and may be improved in Annotation Layer.  I also take your point (to a degree) about SU, & wish my workflow was able to convert more 3D shapes from a 3D mass model to PIOs. But I guess I'll take the good with the bad and would find it very difficult to go back to a command line. I will take issue with you on inaccurate point. I did some consulting on a multi storey building & was amazed that it got built. The firm using ACAD has each storey assigned off in space & referenced - the result is these storeys are not dead nuts accurate the way they tend to be in VW due to Layers stacking in the same XY space.

 

May I suggest, (if you've not done so) that you look at some of Johnathan Pickup's training modules if you're finding the tools frustrating. 

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

nca777:

Sure we do sketches on paper, but about 80% of our buildings are designed in VW. The ONLY thing I use a line for is as "helper", generally to clip stuff. We use 2D & 3D polygons to make some 3D items (that we save as hybrid symbols). This would be a J.O.B. if I didn't have the Wall Tool. I've watched with my mouth open as folks I know draw stuff with like a gazillion lines & have to type more that the entire typing pool in Mad Men in ACAD

 

We're not LA's so I don't know how long site stuff takes. In a recent project (a Garden Centre) we were making site suggestions to the Site Service consultant, the LA (who uses AI for some reason) was coming to us for help, and we were solving connection issues for the Greenhouse MFG, as well as helping to design Structure & a cistern (never done that before) for our Structural engineer and reducing the size and solving many mechanical conflicts because of the (almost) BIM approach we took on the project.

 

I do take your point about some PIO's (stair tool anyone?) but most PIO's are 80%-90% there and are good enough and may be improved in Annotation Layer.  I also take your point (to a degree) about SU, & wish my workflow was able to convert more 3D shapes from a 3D mass model to PIOs. But I guess I'll take the good with the bad and would find it very difficult to go back to a command line. I will take issue with you on inaccurate point. I did some consulting on a multi storey building & was amazed that it got built. The firm using ACAD has each storey assigned off in space & referenced - the result is these storeys are not dead nuts accurate the way they tend to be in VW due to Layers stacking in the same XY space.

 

May I suggest, (if you've not done so) that you look at some of Johnathan Pickup's training modules if you're finding the tools frustrating. 

 

I have followed jonathans tutorials for a while and have a subscription. Maybe vw is ok for architecture--though I wonder why so few architects in my area use it (all are on archicad or revit that we work with--file sharing has been absurdly challenging, cant get a straight answer on file formats from tech support)...anyway, jonathans parking lot and road examples are just unrealistic. I dont blame him. Its just clearly a limitation of the software. 

 

Of course the last project I used vw I used objects as much as possible.

 

It's hard to explain my frustration--its just a lot of little things. Tools that get you 3/4 of the way there, site modeling that takes hours and four different tools, imprecision, weird drafting stuff...I guess if you're designing a house you can use a bunch of walls and windows and tools and objects for everything..maybe the landmark side is just underserved..

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
Reply to this topic...

×   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...