Jump to content
Simon Allan

MVR questions

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I have been experimenting with the MVR import and export functions and have some strange things I don't understand. I am hoping to get some answers/guidance ūüôā

 

I have attached 3 files:

The VWX Test Export is a simple scene with some truss and lights. Everything is classed and lights and truss have rotation settings on them.

The MVR Test export is the MVR export of the file above.

The MVR Test Import is the file above (MVR) being re imported and saved as a VWX file.

 

I have not included any other software yet as I wanted to see what happened when I just went 'Out and In' to VW with the same file via the MVR import/export feature. This is to try and gain a better understanding of how the MVR feature is working (or not working) before trying to get it supported in any other software.

 

So my questions are (relating to the "Test Import from Export" vwx file):

  1. Why are the lights being replaced with a "place holder" and not the actual fixture?
  2. Why do the light place holders contain no 3D rotation info for my lights as it was present in the original VWX file?
  3. Why do the trusses come back as groups?
  4. Why has everything other than the lights and the fan lost its class information?

 

Thanks.

MVR Test Export_Rev02.vwx

MVR Test Import from Export_Rev02.vwx

MVR Test Export_Rev02.mvr.zip

Share this post


Link to post

As I understand it, MVR is not yet supported. It will be interesting to see if some of this is just the point in time, or if some of these are bugs

Share this post


Link to post

Hey @Simon Allan

 

Looping in @bbudzon for some backup, but I'll do my best to answer these questions. It is important to note that while MVR export is now available in Vectorworks, this is a project that is being continually developed and optimized. 

 

19 hours ago, Simon Allan said:

Why are the lights being replaced with a "place holder" and not the actual fixture?

This has to do with the way that programs using MVR treat lighting fixtures. Not every program uses a lighting device in the same way that Vectorworks does, instead they often use native geometry and parameters for how the lighting device should appear and function in their program. For this reason MVR contains info for a light's 3D location as well as some info about the light. The receiving program then decides what object belongs at that location, what attached info is relevant, and how it should behave. 

 

19 hours ago, Simon Allan said:

Why do the light place holders contain no 3D rotation info for my lights as it was present in the original VWX file?

I would have to check up on this, but I might assume it has to do with the first answer. The rotation information is being applied to the geometry of a lighting fixture in a VWX file that is not being transferred through MVR. If true, this would be a sensible optimization for the future. 

 

19 hours ago, Simon Allan said:

Why do the trusses come back as groups?

Not certain what the reason for this is. But I have had several experiences where similar objects ended up grouped together. Another thing I'll need to ask about, but it may just be to simplify the drawing.

 

20 hours ago, Simon Allan said:

Why has everything other than the lights and the fan lost its class information?ÔĽŅ

This sounds like it is working as designed. MVR was created to contain information about lighting devices, 3D Geometry/Locations, and textures. All other info may be extraneous and could lead to larger file sizes and possibly less performance. 

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the reply.

 

On 11/13/2018 at 3:28 PM, BSeigel said:
On 11/12/2018 at 7:09 PM, Simon Allan said:

Why are the lights being replaced with a "place holder" and not the actual fixture?

This has to do with the way that programs using MVR treat lighting fixtures. Not every program uses a lighting device in the same way that Vectorworks does, instead they often use native geometry and parameters for how the lighting device should appear and function in their program. For this reason MVR contains info for a light's 3D location as well as some info about the light. The receiving program then decides what object belongs at that location, what attached info is relevant, and how it should behave. 

I guess I understand but would have assumed that going out and then back into VW would mean the fixtures would have been there and not place holders. Maybe my expectations are too high ūüôā

 

On 11/13/2018 at 3:28 PM, BSeigel said:
On 11/12/2018 at 7:09 PM, Simon Allan said:

Why do the light place holders contain no 3D rotation info for my lights as it was present in the original VWX file?

I would have to check up on this, but I might assume it has to do with the first answer. The rotation information is being applied to the geometry of a lighting fixture in a VWX file that is not being transferred through MVR. If true, this would be a sensible optimization for the future. 

To not have rotation transferred makes the purpose of MVR a bit redundant. I really can't see how MVR is "supported" without this most basic of functions.

 

On 11/13/2018 at 3:28 PM, BSeigel said:
On 11/12/2018 at 7:09 PM, Simon Allan said:

Why do the trusses come back as groups?

Not certain what the reason for this is. But I have had several experiences where similar objects ended up grouped together. Another thing I'll need to ask about, but it may just be to simplify the drawing.

Please let me know when you have the answer to this.

 

On 11/13/2018 at 3:28 PM, BSeigel said:
On 11/12/2018 at 7:09 PM, Simon Allan said:

Why has everything other than the lights and the fan lost its class information?ÔĽŅ

This sounds like it is working as designed. MVR was created to contain information about lighting devices, 3D Geometry/Locations, and textures. All other info may be extraneous and could lead to larger file sizes and possibly less performance. 

Seems odd that some objects follow one rule and other objects do not.

 

 

Hopefully you can provide some more concrete answers soon as the more I look the more I feel that MVR is really not supported in anyway that makes it usable in its current form. I know you mentioned that it is still being developed and optimised but you guys really need to calm down on your marketing if that is the case.

Edited by Simon Allan
typo

Share this post


Link to post

Support for MVR is getting better and better, day by day. I have a fairly large update for MVR waiting SP3 approval. Assuming that gets approved and it tests well, SP3 will be a much more interesting release to talk about MVR. For Vision, the first goal is get MVR importing correctly. The issues we are dealing with right now are the Z-up to Y-up conversion, right to left handed conversions, 3D Fixture Information, and the local coordinate system of objects. I'm looking forward to further MVR discussions down the line!

Share this post


Link to post

We are in the process of testing MVR changes to see what can and cannot ship for SP3. What problem are you trying to address? Generally speaking, the workflow for Vision 2019 SP2 is to use the ESC exporter. If you run into issue with geometry, you can try OBJ and 3DS exports into Vision.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't use Vision at all and have no intention of using it.

 

I want to use MVR to work with other software and at present, there is no chance of that.

 

Problems at present that need addressing are:

  1. Fixture rotation info
  2. Scale Definition (when you import  into say Sketchup or C4D the scales are wrong)
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Please stay posted for further updates related to MVR, Vectorworks, Vision, GrandMA, Robe, and more ūüôā

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, but your last post did not tell me anything.

 

Please let me know if the fixture rotation info and scale definition will be fixed in SP3?

Also provide an estimated date for SP3.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately, I can't commit to saying that any fixes will be shipped for SP3. I also cannot provide a date that SP3 will be shipped.

This is honestly for the greater good though! We don't want to tell you something will be fixed if we haven't put it through proper testing yet!

And similarly, we don't want to tell you that the software will ship on a specific day as you never know what may crop up! I'd much prefer to delay the release by a day if it means getting a quality release out to our customers ūüėČ

 

I hope you understand why we like to remain flexible like this for our customers. I also hope it won't be too long before SP3 will be ready and that we can answer any other questions you have in the meantime!

Share this post


Link to post

I fully understand that you cannot state a date but I was hoping for a ball park estimate of which Month it is expected to fall into.

I would also like to think you could tell me if the 2 fixes I am looking for are due to be implemented in SP3 (subject to all working out OK) or they are definately not due to be implemented.

 

I don't think I am asking anything unreasonable here...just some basic info. After all, you are the guys who decided to market the hell out this MVR thing so please be prepared to give answers when people ask. 

Share this post


Link to post

Simon,

If you are trying to import the information into another application it will need to understand the complete MVR.  Current specifications on the MVR and GDTF are available on the GDTF Share, https://gdtf-share.com/.  If you are working to implement reading/writing of the MVR file please contact the group via the website.

 

The application you are using to read the MVR file must be capable of understanding the entire MVR file, not just the pieces it contains.
MVR contains other files that can be read individual that will generate geometry but without reading the entire MVR, including the GDTF file an application can not properly use the MVR.

If you are only looking at the geometry in the MVR you are missing a lot of data.

As to your question of scale by definition all geometry is represented in mm.

As to the rotation this is stored as part of the fixture instance description in the MVR. It contains both the location and rotation of the fixture. (See the specifications for details.)

All this information is provided on the GDFT Share website.

Share this post


Link to post

Kevin,

 

Did you read my original post?

I put my post here as it only involves VW at present.

I am only trying to go out of VW and straight back in using the MVR. I have not introduced any third party software yet.

 

I have read the wiki here https://gdtf-share.com/wiki/MVR_File_Description#Node_Definition:_Matrix and can see the rotation is defined but it is either getting lost during an export or import in VW...or maybe it never existed in the first place?

 

Share this post


Link to post

Now on SP3 and still getting issues.

 

I drew a new version (attached) of the test plot in SP3 just to be sure and when importing back into VW, all the fixtures disappear.

The fixtures are in the drawing because I can select them...but that is because I know where they are. I also see the don't have the rotation info with them which was the main issue in the original post.

 

From what I can tell, the difference between SP2 and SP3 was SP2 showed a place holder for the fixture.

I know there have MVR updates in SP3 so I am not sure what is going wrong.

 

Please advise as I am trying to get some progress on this much hyped feature.

Thanks

 

MVR Test Export_Rev03.vwx

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Simon Allan said:

I drew a new version (attached) of the test plot in SP3 just to be sure and when importing back into VW, all the fixtures disappear.

 

I'll make sure the Spotlight team gets this feedback. Unfortunately, I can't help out a whole lot here as it sounds like your issues are outside of Vision. There are some issues we are discovering that didn't get caught during testing. We're hoping to resolve them as soon as possible!

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks. Hopefully someone can clarify if this is a bug or user error.

 

I would have hoped that this particular issue (lack of rotation) did get looked into during SP3 testing as this was first brought up back in November.

Share this post


Link to post

It's probably worth pointing out that while the goal is to eventually support imports back into VW, this is not the key workflow change we have made for Vision SP3.

The primary benefit of MVR, in relation to Vision, is the improved workflow and quality when sending to Vision. I pointed out a lot of the key benefits above in more detail.

 

So while your test is valid and something we want to get working, the main reason you should be using MVR at this point in time is to get better workflow when moving from VW to Vision. I hope to have things going back from Vision to VW sooner than later, but we'll just have to see how things shake out!

 

If you have a copy of Vision, I'd suggest trying that workflow out and providing Vision feedback here! If you have any questions about sending VW documents to Vision via MVR, I can do my best to answer those as well!

Share this post


Link to post

@Simon Allan As a fellow end user of VW, I am equally excited MVR and the potential therein to shift the industry in how drawings are created and shared across multiple platforms. I've been following this thread for a while, and am also planning to experiment with the updates in SP3. 

 

What 3rd party software are you hoping to incorporate MVR with? The other potential I see for this is Cinema 4D (especially as it's under the Nemetschek Group) or d3 (disguise).

 

I am no expert in the coding or software engineering required for creating the MVR container ( @bbudzon @klinzey ), but I would imagine much of your troubles with missing geometry and rotation are a result of missing code that would be generated by Vision when it creates the MVR file meant to be imported back to Vectorworks. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Charlie Winter said:

As a fellow end user of VW, I am equally excited MVR and the potential therein to shift the industry in how drawings are created and shared across multiple platforms. I've been following this thread for a while, and am also planning to experiment with the updates in SP3.

 

I'm excited for you to play around with it!! It's still a work in progress, for sure. But in my mind, certainly, it is a far superior VW/Vision workflow than using ESC.¬†ūüíĮ

 

3 hours ago, Charlie Winter said:

I would imagine much of your troubles with missing geometry and rotation are a result of missing code that would be generated by Vision when it creates the MVR file

 

I believe that @Simon Allan is opening a VWX in VW, exporting an MVR, and then importing that same MVR back into VW. It is not yet possible for Vision to create MVR files.

 

 

The reason, in my mind, that we pushed out this update for SP3 was because we felt it had too many benefits in the VW -> Vision workflow to hold it back from our valued customers.¬†That being said, its primary benefits to our products and our customers were in the VW -> Vision workflow. That's not to say we aren't working hard on improving this functionality in future releases!!¬†ūüĎć

 

Vision has seen DRAMATIC improvements to workflow, quality, and ease of use; all by simply allowing MVR import. We aren't even fully leveraging the MVR standard yet in Vision¬†to boot!! So you can imagine how bright the future is¬†ūüėČ

Share this post


Link to post

@Charlie Winter My main focus is to get VW exchanging data with C4D via MVR. I am also interested in the potential with media servers especially relating to pixel mapping.

 

I personally believe MVR will only grow and get widely adopted when it is working to a point that other 3rd party applications can utilise it.

 

 

  • Like 1

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.

√ó
√ó
  • Create New...