Jump to content
  • 5
zoomer

Screen Plane issues with DLVP in 3D

Question

(Beside that I am pretty known for wanting Screen Plane System to die completely)

 

When I use Referenced 2D Source Data by Design Layer Viewports to draw over,

that works fine in Top Plan View.

 

But if I need a Crop for my VPs,

which is forced to be defined using Screen Plane,

and want to use my 2D underlay to model also in 3D, like in an Isometric View,

That crop will be oriented different than my geometry in View (by Screen Plane so to say*)

and so cut parts of my needed 2D Plan.

 

That makes referenced Geometry pretty useless in 3D

 

 

(*) the Crop is not oriented by screen plane in reality, it is just rotated in to screen plane's rotation.

As it will scale/zoome and move related to my Geometry.

Otherwise I could at least zoom in to re-visibilize the occluded parts of my 2D plan underlay.

Share this post


Link to post

10 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

BTW

 

It doesn't matter if I have "Project Screen Objects" On or Off.

Or if I "Display Screen Objects" in Model View Settings.

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

If you are referring to this:  (2D DLVP crop of entire venue down to the space I want)

 

image.thumb.png.6580664e8bfb9891c46f19490be14b00.png

 

Looks like this in top/plan: (As I want and would expect)

 

image.thumb.png.a26cdb9711106d6143e03a73d4159fdc.png

 

When switching to an ISOMETRIC view or fly over I get this:

 

image.thumb.png.74fe6223d9ee420407e0bfcde3d6448a.png

 

Then absolutely,  this is frustrating.  You are right,  there is no way to force the crop to layer plane.   (That I have found)

Edited by Wesley Burrows
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

I queried this a few years ago and got a slightly indignant response from a Vectorworks staffer that it was "working as designed!"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

"Working as Designed" = working the way the original specification that we programmed from says it was supposed to work. Since the original specification says nothing about what the behavior should be in an isometric view (probably because no one ever thought about using it that way until after it was done), we just programmed a simple view that will work in top/plan.

 

It sounds like you need to submit an "Enhancement Request" (definitely not a bug) and explain HOW the current implementation of the viewport crop does not meet your needs and what you would like it to do instead.

 

I know that some of this stuff seems really obvious, but remember, most of the people actually writing the code for Vectorworks are not frequent users of the program. Unless the instructions specifically state that something is a requirement for the task, they might not have a good enough understanding of your workflow to realize they are not providing what appears (to the experienced user) should be a definite requirement.

 

From an architectural example, what would you do if you a client comes back to you after you submit construction documents and says "there was supposed to a pool house and a barn as well as the original house. Where are they". You go back to the contract (the specification the programer is working from) and say "We delivered everything that was in the contract" (Working as Designed). Are you going to go back and design the pool house and barn? Probably not unless the client is willing to renegotiate the contract.

 

I believe that most of the people at VW want to give us what we want. But in many cases, they have been given incorrect specifications to make something have maximal usefulness. And they don't have the authority to change the spec to give you what you want. And Working as Designed, is just programmer shorthand for "I can't help you right now."

 

Submit the Enhancement Request and hopefully the chain of command will agree that it is important and you will see it in a future version.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
1 hour ago, Pat Stanford said:

Submit the Enhancement Request and hopefully the chain of command will agree that it is important and you will see it in a future version.

 

At the risk of sounding like a complete idiot,  is there an official enhancement request channel or is this forum it?

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

@zoomer,  Could we maybe update the title of this Wish to more clearly reflect what we're after?     Something like "Enhancement Req - DLVP Crop should be assignable to layer plane" or something.

 

@markdd Would you mind up-voting this thread if you'd like to see this implemented?

 

-W

Edited by Wesley Burrows

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
11 hours ago, Pat Stanford said:

This is already in the Wishlist Forum, so it is in the right place.

 

Anything else to add about submitting wished @JimW?

 

11 hours ago, Wesley Burrows said:

 

At the risk of sounding like a complete idiot,  is there an official enhancement request channel or is this forum it?


This subforum is the right place for the time being. We are working on making it easier and the method of submitting requests might change in the future, but for now this is the place.

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
11 hours ago, Wesley Burrows said:

@zoomer,  Could we maybe update the title of this Wish to more clearly reflect what we're after?     Something like "Enhancement Req - DLVP Crop should be assignable to layer plane" or something.

 

I can do this.

Ah ... what do we want exactly ?

Do you have a suggestion for the a better header ?

 

 

13 hours ago, Pat Stanford said:

"Working as Designed" = working the way the original specification that we programmed from says it was supposed to work. Since the original specification says nothing about what the behavior should be in an isometric view (probably because no one ever thought about using it that way until after it was done), we just programmed a simple view that will work in top/plan.

 

It sounds like you need to submit an "Enhancement Request" (definitely not a bug) and explain HOW the current implementation of the viewport crop does not meet your needs and what you would like it to do instead.

 

I know that some of this stuff seems really obvious, but remember, most of the people actually writing the code for Vectorworks are not frequent users of the program. Unless the instructions specifically state that something is a requirement for the task, they might not have a good enough understanding of your workflow to realize they are not providing what appears (to the experienced user) should be a definite requirement.

 

From an architectural example, what would you do if you a client comes back to you after you submit construction documents and says "there was supposed to a pool house and a barn as well as the original house. Where are they". You go back to the contract (the specification the programer is working from) and say "We delivered everything that was in the contract" (Working as Designed). Are you going to go back and design the pool house and barn? Probably not unless the client is willing to renegotiate the contract.

 

I believe that most of the people at VW want to give us what we want. But in many cases, they have been given incorrect specifications to make something have maximal usefulness. And they don't have the authority to change the spec to give you what you want. And Working as Designed, is just programmer shorthand for "I can't help you right now."

 

Submit the Enhancement Request and hopefully the chain of command will agree that it is important and you will see it in a future version.

 

 

 

uh, that sounds pretty much like heavy bureaucracy and work-to-rules.

Hope it isn't that bad.

 

There is a large gap between Users and Developers with JimW and his Team in between

and I think there needs to be some translation done between both worlds.

I think a terrifying "WAD" is for a user as meaningful and helpful (and a bit annoying)

as an error message like : "Exception in Hexcode of choice" (Cancel) (OK)

And should not reach a user.

 

15 hours ago, markdd said:

I queried this a few years ago and got a slightly indignant response from a Vectorworks staffer that it was "working as designed!"

 

A User does not care or can differentiate between Bug/Feature/Change Request.

He wants such things simply to be changed so that its different than it is now.

 

So a useful translation could be :

 

Dear example user,

thanks for your report, we watched you issue closely.

But the Tool is indeed not broken, it works well as it was designed at that time.

We see your problem so we forwarded your wish as a Change Request

for you.

But we are sorry to tell you that this has

[  ] very low priority

[X] is very hard to implement in the current System

[  ] impossible

[  ] other excuse of choice

that you can't expect a solution in the near future.

Kind Regards,

your VW

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
23 hours ago, zoomer said:

 

But we are sorry to tell you that this has

[  ] very low priority

[X] is very hard to implement in the current System

[  ] impossible

[  ] other excuse of choice

that you can't expect a solution in the near future.

Kind Regards,

your VW

 

@zoomer  Nice!  B|

Share this post


Link to post

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.


 

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.

×
×
  • Create New...