Get rid of screen plane

[VvierA]

Hello everybody,

 

I'd like to suggest to get rid of 'screen plane' mode.

I've been using Vectorworks for 10 years now and never understood the benefit of that option.

Maybe I'd change my mind if somebody could explain to me, why it's really important.

 

Kind regards

VVierA

[markdd]

In terms of Entertainment design then its invaluable. For any discipline that combines 2D schematic representations of objects and which also includes the ability to use that resource to model in a 3D environment, then the screen plane is absolutely necessary. It is also a particular feature of Vectorworks which sets it apart from many other software packages and one of the reasons why Vectorworks has been so widely adopted across the entertainment sector.

 

The Lighting Design industry has used the concept of 2D graphics since the birth of the discipline and it is unlikely to change any time soon. However, that is not necessarily a reason not to change the way we work, but someone will need to come up with a better way than we currently have.

 

It would be interesting to understand your misgivings. You don't have to use it.

 

Mark

Edited August 17, 2018 by markdd

[jbtroost]

I normally think of screen plane as  subtitles. Regardsless the 3d view you’re in, you can add texts etc. to give more information as an overlay. 

[VvierA]

 

55 minutes ago, markdd said:

In terms of Entertainment design then its invaluable. For any discipline that combines 2D schematic representations of objects that also includes the ability to use that resource to model in a 3D environment then the screen plane is absolutely necessary. It is also a particular feature of Vectorworks which sets it apart from other software packages and one of the reasons why Vectorworks has been so widely adopted across the entertainment sector.

 

The Lighting Design industry has used the concept of 2D graphics since the birth of our discipline and it is unlikely to change any time soon. However, that is not necessarily a reason not to change the way we work, but someone will need to come up with a better way than we currently have.

 

It would be interesting to understand your gripe. You don't have to use it.

 

Mark

Screen plane bothers me, because it keeps crossing my way when I work.

For example: when I want to define a symbol, VW asks me, if I'd like to change to selected objects to screen plane if they were drawn on layer plane.

If I do not mark this check box something strange happens: the symbol of (in this example 2 rectangles) becomes a 3d symbol.

So it's simply not possible to forget about screen plane by not using it. It 'pops' up from time to time and you'd have to think about it and do the right thing. Otherwise unexpected behavior may occur. So maybe it's not the functionality that bothers me, but the way it is integrated into the GUI and the workflows.

 

Do I understand your gripe right: You use screen plane for 2d graphic elements that you use in 3d drawings but that you don't like to be drawn in the perspective view like the rest of the drawing? I would use 'annotations' on sheet layers, but maybe this is to limited or inconvenient for your purposes?

 

So maybe screen plane is not so bad but the integration could be improved so that somebody who doesn't want to use it at all wouldn't be forced to bother with it.

[Kevin McAllister]

Remember that Screen Plane came first, way before Layer Plane and the evil Screen Aligned Plane.

 

I almost always use Screen Plane and work entirely in 3d. The problem isn't with Screen Plane itself. The problem is with how Screen Plane / Layer Plane was implemented. We should never be placing 2d objects in 3d space, We should be placing 3d objects in 3d space (eg. all the "2d" tools should have the ability to create NURBS curves in 3d like Rhino). The main reasons for using Screen Plane is that its not handicapped like Layer Plane and Screen Aligned Plane. It allows for proper, guaranteed snaps and also forces tools that can misbehave in 3d (Add Surface, Clip Surface, Duplicate Array to name a few) to do what you expect.

 

Regardless if you love or hate it, I doubt its going away since it would break file compatibility all the way back to Minicad.

 

The certainly need to be improvements but its the Layer Plane implementation that needs them, not Screen Plane. Screen Aligned Plane should be removed completely. All of this would require a complete rebuilding of the snap system with allowances for 2d, 3d and 2.5d snapping.

 

Kevin

Edited August 17, 2018 by Kevin McAllister

[VvierA]

35 minutes ago, Kevin McAllister said:

Remember that Screen Plane came first, way before Layer Plane and the evil Screen Aligned Plane.

 

I almost always use Screen Plane and work entirely in 3d. The problem isn't with Screen Plane itself. The problem is with how Screen Plane / Layer Plane was implemented. We should never be placing 2d objects in 3d space, We should be placing 3d objects in 3d space (eg. all the "2d" tools should have the ability to create NURBS curves in 3d like Rhino). The main reasons for using Screen Plane is that its not handicapped like Layer Plane and Screen Aligned Plane. It allows for proper, guaranteed snaps and also forces tools that can misbehave in 3d (Add Surface, Clip Surface, Duplicate Array to name a few) to do what you expect.

 

Regardless if you love or hate it, I doubt its going away since it would break file compatibility all the way back to Minicad.

 

The certainly need to be improvements but its the Layer Plane implementation that needs them, not Screen Plane. Screen Aligned Plane should be removed completely. All of this would require a complete rebuilding of the snap system with allowances for 2d, 3d and 2.5d snapping.

 

Kevin

Very interesting, thank you, Kevin.

So I completely agree now that screen plane is not the issue here.

My suggestion would be to remove all the limitations with snaps etc. in 3d space and layer plane that you mentioned. Once this is done, we could get rid of 2D or 2.5D and work completely in 3D, even with 2 dimensional objects like lines etc. We could keep screen plane for the purposes markdd mentioned i.e. to angle objects to the screen plane in every view of the 3D space. What are your thoughts about this?

[Pat Stanford]

But not everyone wants to work entirely in 3D.

 

As was stated earlier, having a simplified Top/Plan view can be a critical ability in many applications. In entertainment the ability for lights to have a "schematic" view in Top/Plan (i.e. screen plane and 2D) that is very different than the 3D model of the light is critical.

 

Similarly if you only had 3D in architecture people would complain all the time that there was too much detail in their plan views when all they need is the simplified view.

 

I understand that it can be frustrating when something pops to screen plane when you don't want it to, but it is a feature that is depended on by a very large subset of the VW users. You will just have to find a workflow that works for you as Screen Plane is too useful to too many people to go away. It is always dangerous with a flexible program like VW to assume that everyone uses it the way you do. 😉

 

[VvierA]

2 hours ago, Pat Stanford said:

But not everyone wants to work entirely in 3D.

 

As was stated earlier, having a simplified Top/Plan view can be a critical ability in many applications. In entertainment the ability for lights to have a "schematic" view in Top/Plan (i.e. screen plane and 2D) that is very different than the 3D model of the light is critical.

 

Similarly if you only had 3D in architecture people would complain all the time that there was too much detail in their plan views when all they need is the simplified view.

 

I understand that it can be frustrating when something pops to screen plane when you don't want it to, but it is a feature that is depended on by a very large subset of the VW users. You will just have to find a workflow that works for you as Screen Plane is too useful to too many people to go away. It is always dangerous with a flexible program like VW to assume that everyone uses it the way you do. 😉

 

Well even if you work entirely in 3D you can still have the benefits you mention:

If you could choose between '2d plan view' or a '3d top view' or a '3d horizontal section' VW could offer all the different types of views that you need. And all was based on the same 3d model lying underneath. You could even have objects that angle automatically to the view like in 'screen plane'.

So the functionality would be the same but there was no need to differentiate between 2d, 2.5d or 3d objects. It was just a matter of implementation.

VW usability could be modernized and streamlined without losing anything and maybe even with keeping the compatibility with MiniCAD 0.8 from 1982 😉