Jump to content
PVA - Jim

Teaser Tuesday - 2D Components for Hybrid Objects - Vectorworks 2019

Recommended Posts

Just now, Andrew Davies said:

@Matt Panzer of Camera Match fame?  That's great - Matt helped me a lot when I first started using Camera Match a few years ago.

 


Yessir! We snapped him up and I pester him regularly on development related topics 😉

Share this post


Link to post

I am interrested in the 3rd level of detail here. Will this be implemented in all the architecture tools? So i can define three sets of attributes for one wall/window/door/etc.

Example:

Wall with different components.

Low - set to show the wall as one solid color

Medium - set to show the different components as different colors (maybe even hide one or two thin ones)

High - set to show all components with detailed hatches.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, Jim Wilson said:


I'll answer this one off the stream: Yes. This has not changed at all, anything you could attach records to and pull information from before will work just fine. These aren't actually NEW object types, we just added more 2D components. 

Sorry, maybe my question was a bit misleading. 😬 I was more refering to, if there is record field, that we can access in  a worksheet, to see which LODs are assigned to the inserted symbols. + If that could be linked with an option to control what information is available at which LOD, e.g. LOD low for a wall would only give me the name and the length of a wall, but the LOD high would give me access to the fire resistance field in the record. I could than export a model with little information for pure viewing purposes and another one for data exchange with other planers.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, elepp said:

Sorry, maybe my question was a bit misleading. 😬 I was more refering to, if there is record field, that we can access in  a worksheet, to see which LODs are assigned to the inserted symbols. + If that could be linked with an option to control what information is available at which LOD, e.g. LOD low for a wall would only give me the name and the length of a wall, but the LOD high would give me access to the fire resistance field in the record. I could than export a model with little information for pure viewing purposes and another one for data exchange with other planers.


AHH I understand now, thank you for explaining. Adding this to the list!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

By the way the video made it look like LOD is set by design layer. That doesn't make sense in a model-centric world for the same reasons that it doesn't make sense to have a scale attached to design layers (which has been justified in previous discussions as allowing legacy workflows).

 

LOD should be set by viewport, just like scale, and it looks like it can be.

 

But it would also be useful to be able to switch the LOD whilst editing/drawing design layers. Not by changing the LOD of individual layers but by a view mode, just like you can switch between render modes. It's previously been suggested that this should be possible for scale. In fact, the two could be switched in tandem (perhaps with users being able to adjust preferences). So, I select 1:200 and it gives me a preview, whilst I'm editing/drawing of how the output will look at that scale, for example showing line thicknesses. But it will also select a low LOD. Then I can select 1:10 and I'll see the same geometry, but with adjusted line thicknesses and a high LOD.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, line-weight said:

By the way the video made it look like LOD is set by design layer. That doesn't make sense in a model-centric world for the same reasons that it doesn't make sense to have a scale attached to design layers (which has been justified in previous discussions as allowing legacy workflows).

 

LOD should be set by viewport, just like scale, and it looks like it can be.


We will clarify this more in our answers but the short of it is: You can do this both ways or either way.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, line-weight said:

By the way the video made it look like LOD is set by design layer. That doesn't make sense in a model-centric world for the same reasons that it doesn't make sense to have a scale attached to design layers (which has been justified in previous discussions as allowing legacy workflows).

 

LOD should be set by viewport, just like scale, and it looks like it can be.

 

But it would also be useful to be able to switch the LOD whilst editing/drawing design layers. Not by changing the LOD of individual layers but by a view mode, just like you can switch between render modes. It's previously been suggested that this should be possible for scale. In fact, the two could be switched in tandem (perhaps with users being able to adjust preferences). So, I select 1:200 and it gives me a preview, whilst I'm editing/drawing of how the output will look at that scale, for example showing line thicknesses. But it will also select a low LOD. Then I can select 1:10 and I'll see the same geometry, but with adjusted line thicknesses and a high LOD.

That reminds me of this button (s. attachment). Will we have now more buttons? Or will it be a pull down one? Can it be accessed with a shortcut?

Bildschirmfoto 2018-08-29 um 15.04.47.png

9 minutes ago, Jim Wilson said:


AHH I understand now, thank you for explaining. Adding this to the list!

Thanks for the quick reply. Very curious for the Q&A.

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Jim Wilson said:


We will clarify this more in our answers but the short of it is: You can do this both ways or either way.

...but not the third way, ie. on the fly whilst working on design layers?

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, line-weight said:

3. We seem to have yet another type of anomalous user interface thing, with the floating pallette used to control the editing. Does that exist for other tools? It doesn't give me faith that the inconsistency of the user interface in general is being considered seriously.

^ I wondered about this myself.

 

My first impression is that I can see uses for this feature.... even some unintended ones depending upon the implementation. For example does this inadvertently allow us to have symbols with multiple states which has been wished for (eg. doors open and doors closed). The switching of a toilet to a can seems to indicate yes in some way. Or perhaps this would be something to add easily in the future.

 

It feels like one of those features that needs to be experimented with to truly understand and see its practical potential.

 

2 hours ago, Jim Wilson said:

I can't express how weirdly happy I at at how many well thought out questions and clarifications being asked. Love working with folk like these.

 

^ This is something that ideally would be harnessed and used earlier in the development process.... 🙂

 

2 hours ago, Jim Wilson said:

 Looking like we will have @Matt Panzer, formerly of PanzerCAD on tomorrow!

 

I'll definitely have to try and tune in for this one.

 

Kevin

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Kevin McAllister said:

My first impression is that I can see uses for this feature.... even some unintended ones depending upon the implementation. For example does this inadvertently allow us to have symbols with multiple states which has been wished for (eg. doors open and doors closed). The switching of a toilet to a can seems to indicate yes in some way. Or perhaps this would be something to add easily in the future.

 

🙂

 

 

 

Kevin

 

 

This is a great point.  Can you allow users to make their own classification categories (in lieu of high/medium/low) so that per symbol we can choose to turn on and off different representations of assets individually?  Extending further, could you then allow us to keyframe animate this, so that, for instance, we could have an asset in a space and demonstrate build out sequencing?

 

I suppose that the idea to allow this to be used for animation comes from MODO.  In MODO, all channels are animatable.  This is very useful.  Come to think of it, if you added a transparency option to symbols as well that could also be set per representation and animated, it would allow for things like making an animation of a space wherein an overview of the space is presented and then assets are faded in or out or emphasized or deemphasized as the animation progresses, but in a quick and dirty and quick way without having to export and go to Cinema 4D, or MODO, etc.  This could be quite useful.

Edited by jmanganelli

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Kevin McAllister said:

My first impression is that I can see uses for this feature.... even some unintended ones depending upon the implementation. For example does this inadvertently allow us to have symbols with multiple states which has been wished for (eg. doors open and doors closed). The switching of a toilet to a can seems to indicate yes in some way. Or perhaps this would be something to add easily in the future.

 

Although, this can already be achieved using classes.

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, line-weight said:

 

Although, this can already be achieved using classes.

 

Sort of. You definitely can't do doors open/doors closed if you're using the Door PIO (and I'm sure this new feature doesn't address that). I think classes are not the ideal solution for multiple states since classes really are about classification.

 

KM

Share this post


Link to post

Where can one find the Q&A archives if not on FB? I would like to be able to see these but Im usually tied up at the scheduled times.  Matt's a very strong resource for VW and also assisted me in the Camera Match rollout.  We use this feature a lot and has been a huge help in workflow reduction.  Our customers love the outcome too.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, HEengineering said:

… if not on FB?

 

Same here. I don‘t have Facebook, but hear the Q&A is like a second screen to the forum. Is there another way to see them?

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, HEengineering said:

Where can one find the Q&A archives if not on FB?

 

12 minutes ago, Jan-Burger TROOST said:

Same here. I don‘t have Facebook, but hear the Q&A is like a second screen to the forum. Is there another way to see them?


I post the link to the video in the teaser thread for all to see after. As far as I know, you do not need to be logged into facebook to see them. To clarify, we do STREAM them live but they can be watched at any time after the livestream ends. Let me know if it gives you any trouble seeing them if you don't have a FB account.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks, Jim! Will that be 2pm ET or EDT? I’ll let you know if I run in any trouble watching the stream. Can you provide us with the url to the Facebook stream as well?

Edited by Jan-Burger TROOST

Share this post


Link to post

EDT, at the moment UTC-4.

https://www.facebook.com/pg/Vectorworks/videos Should be the one to show you both any active live videos (only shown as a special widget at the top while theyre live) and then the rest down near the bottom.

HOWEVER! I have just double checked and it looks like you can't see the past videos without being logged in to FB, so let me check with some folks and see where else we can pop them for everyone's eyes.

Share this post


Link to post

For people who do not have facebook accounts: We will put all the livestream recordings up on youtube week after next so that everyone can see without needing a login.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, line-weight said:

By the way the video made it look like LOD is set by design layer. That doesn't make sense in a model-centric world for the same reasons that it doesn't make sense to have a scale attached to design layers (which has been justified in previous discussions as allowing legacy workflows)..

 

Another good point.  Design layers should always be 1:1. Why add LOD functionality to a legacy feature?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Andrew Davies said:

 

Another good point.  Design layers should always be 1:1. Why add LOD functionality to a legacy feature?

Why should design layers always be 1:1?

 

The model is the true size, the visualisation is purely for discussion with the driver.

To me, eye on the prize work at what scale is going to get the job done and always think about what is needed to get the job done.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Kevin McAllister said:

 

Sort of. You definitely can't do doors open/doors closed if you're using the Door PIO (and I'm sure this new feature doesn't address that). I think classes are not the ideal solution for multiple states since classes really are about classification.

 

KM

 

That would be great option for Windor - "Open in high detail." along with open in 3D.  

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Matt Overton said:

Why should design layers always be 1:1?

 

The model is the true size, the visualisation is purely for discussion with the driver.

To me, eye on the prize work at what scale is going to get the job done and always think about what is needed to get the job done.

 

As you say, model is true size, ie. design layers at 1:1 (or if you prefer, scale simply not relevant).

 

Sometimes getting the job done works best viewing the drawing at 1:200, sometimes 1:5. That scale should be purely a matter of how the model/design layers are viewed, which should be easily adjustable as you work, rather than something intrinsic to the model/design layers, as it is now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Kevin McAllister said:

I think classes are not the ideal solution for multiple states since classes really are about classification.

I use classes successfully for multiple states, variants, levels of detail and for before/after rebuilds. I just put the whole thing into a group and the group gets the state class etc. Why do you have to pack these features into separate tools when the classes already solve all this? The classes can do so much more than just assign attributes.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, herbieherb said:

I use classes successfully for multiple states, variants, levels of detail and for before/after rebuilds. I just put the whole thing into a group and the group gets the state class etc. Why do you have to pack these features into separate tools when the classes already solve all this? The classes can do so much more than just assign attributes.

 

This is what I do too (and like the level of customisability using uncomplicated concepts that it offers).

 

However I can see that it doesn't necessarily work for something like a door plugin object - because you'd have to duplicate it, once in open and once in closed state - which then gives you two instances of something that might be tied back to a schedule or similar and needs to exist as only one there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, herbieherb said:

I use classes successfully for multiple states, variants, levels of detail and for before/after rebuilds. I just put the whole thing into a group and the group gets the state class etc. Why do you have to pack these features into separate tools when the classes already solve all this? The classes can do so much more than just assign attributes.

 

Different users, different workflows, different industries. Using classes can work in most cases, I just said it wasn't ideal. Its likely this new function may not be ideal for it either.

 

KM

 

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
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.


 

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...