Schematic View 3D Rotating (Booms)

[Daniel B. Chapman 17]

I'm was thrilled to see the schematic views as a new feature as the model viewports were next to useless when you needed accuracy in a model. (I actually opted to maintain a 3D file and a 2D file as it saved me time). I cannot stress how much I would like this feature to work for theatrical designers. 

I spent the better part of the morning trying to make this work and I stumbled upon the fact that I needed to create the lighting position perpendicular to the plan and then rotate it up.

If I built this as I normally would in 3D (with a boom  created as a boom would normally stand) I can't use label legends:

 

Obviously there is a workaround (create the position and rotate it) as I have done here, but this seems like an oversight. Is there a way to display the "2D Component View" AND the view of the schematic so we can control this behavior more accurately? It seems to me that I'm nearly ALWAYS going to want to display the 2D component view in "top" where my label legends will be legible but I might want to LOOK AT THE SCHEMATIC from the FRONT/LEFT/RIGHT etc...

 

Is there any more insight I can get into this workflow? It is an obvious improvement but I'm going to be forced to rotate all my 3D components 90 degrees to make it work.

[wclights 2]

I would also love any insights into a more efficient workflow for this. Same as above my normal workflow would be something along the lines of draw lighting pipe, rotate to standing, convert to hanging position, hang lights from there. However, the schematic front view when I do this places the lights and position at a perpendicular angle from each other. The workaround so far is create the light pipe, create the schematic view in top view, rotate the pipe to standing, place my instruments. If I try to convert my light pipe to a hanging position before instruments but after schematic view the schematic no longer works as it still references the light pipe which technically only exists as the base for the hanging position so any lights added do not show up.

[Daniel B. Chapman 17]

Ok, I've been playing around more with this and here's another example where we need more functionality to get the schematics to lay out correctly:

Here's an example of my "ladder" position with a light focused upstage and a light focused as side light. As you can see the plan view doesn't take into account the rotation against the normal (Y) axis.

I would love the ability to set the orientation of the top view of the symbol. I'm sure I can "make this work" by rotating the position but this assumes all my lights are hung the same way in all positions. We really need to be able to control a few more variables in the schematic view.

 

Similarly this doesn't show an accurate depiction of the 3D model in other views:

 

To correct this I'm forced to rotate my hanging position base symbol into the orientation I want the lights drawn and then re-rotate it into the actual model space to get it to lay out. For the most part I'm able to work around this to get the paperwork to layout properly, but I can envision a situation where I'm going to need to draw the units differently and I need a finer grain of control. Something like "use layer plane rotation" rather than whatever the model is laying out in.

[TomWhiteLight 17]

There will be webinars for these workflows soon. I will post on the forum when they are available.

 

[Alexander Thiel 0]

@TomWhiteLight Hey. When will this happen?

 

Thanks in Advance

Alex

[scottmoore 236]

i know I say this a lot, but it seems like it would be helpful to spend a few hours creating yoked out versions of your typically used symbols. Then you can layout your booms and ladders in 2D in the actual way the fixtures hang and not have to rely on the “rotate 3D” functionality. This would also give you an accurate 2D representation. 

 

This is not necessarily a VW provided suggestion, but instead a way to improve your personal workflow. This is what a few of us do and it works quite well. 

[mjm 131]

6 minutes ago, scottmoore said:

i know I say this a lot, but it seems like it would be helpful to spend a few hours creating yoked out versions of your typically used symbols. Then you can layout your booms and ladders in 2D in the actual way the fixtures hang and not have to rely on the “rotate 3D” functionality. This would also give you an accurate 2D representation. 

 

This is not necessarily a VW provided suggestion, but instead a way to improve your personal workflow. This is what a few of us do and it works quite well. 

IN fact, I needed to do this very task with a Martin Mac III for a roof  mount. Took me under two minutes to create the dup, rotate it to satisfy my need and…done.

[Daniel B. Chapman 17]

@scottmoore

This topic is addressing the schematic views and their 2D representation, not the 3D orientation. Advice is always welcome, but in this case I'm interested in having my 3D model (Vision/Capture/Blender) match my Vectorworks model (2D printing plates). 

[TomWhiteLight 17]

Hi Alex. I will hopefully have these webinars in place before christmas. Workload depending. There will be content available on our new training site. Vectorworks University.

 

Best wishes

 

Tom W

[Austin Kelm 0]

Any updates on this??? Specifically how someone would use Schematic Views to show information like Channel & Unit #s?

[TomWhiteLight 17]

Hi Austin, Yes we did the webinar, I believe its going on to the Vectorworks University soon! Apologies forgot to update this thread.

 

Are you on the facebook group?

 

[TomWhiteLight 17]

BTW it will show lable legend information in the schematic view, in terms of your channel and unit number info.

 

[Daniel Dickman 0]

Our office just upgraded to 2020 and we are having some similar confusion regarding the intended behavior of the schematic view tools. It seems that creating schematic views from a ladder (not a hang position) and a ladder (converted to a hang position) has different results in the schematic view. For our purposes, the schematic view created by a ladder that is not a hang position results in what we expected to see (a front view with 2D lighting symbols and label legends). When you create a schematic view of ladder that has been converted to a hang position, the front view schematic shows front view 3D lighting symbols. Sure this is useful for showing how the fixtures are physically hung, but we also want the ability to show the 2D symbols and label legends for fixture info.

 

Attached is my test file.

Schematic View Tests.pdf Schematic View Tests.vwx

[TomWhiteLight 17]

Hi Daniel

 

OK so I agree there is an inconsistency with this...

 

We are encouraging users to not make hanging positions with this object due to the complications you describe.

 

Firstly Top view is the only view that will display legends and 2d attributes of the hybrid lighting device symbol, exactly like top/plan view in the workspace. The other views are 3d views with a hidden line rendering.

 

I think what is happening is that when the lighting pipe ladder is converted into a hanging position it is losing its 2d Front view ladder form and basically converting a copy of the top plan single pipe into geometry with a fill which is expected behaviour. Interestingly when i redrew (added) in a 2d front view element in the edit 2d component of the lighting pipe ladder symbol. The Create Schematic View functioned correctly, however I was then left with a weird and unused 2d appearance to ladder when in top plan.

 

I think this is an issue because if you remember the original lighting pipe ladder tool created a 3d (Footprint?) ladder from its own 2d top plan

 

To be totally honest with you I hadn't encountered this issue with the ladder tool because I don't use it.  When I create a ladder I create a short 500mm - 1000mm length of lighting pipe, attach a host lighting device and then duplicate vertically on the Z - Axis. Give it some vertical pipes either side and then make the whole thing a lighting position.

 

I think moving forward it is becoming less important to make geometry a hanging position. This presents a few issues in terms of position names and detail etc but then I have been using data tags to display information of rigging objects.

 

I hope this is useful.

 

All the best

 

Tom W

[mjm 131]

Hello @TomWhiteLight : As a VWX employee, would you please elaborate on your statement above:

 

"I think moving forward it is becoming less important to make geometry a hanging position. This presents a few issues in terms of position names and detail etc but then I have been using data tags to display information of rigging objects."

 

Thanks

[TomWhiteLight 17]

Sure

 

the issues with creating hanging positions can cause a few problems.

 

1. has always felt like an unnecessary step

2. makes working with and customising the geometry of the position further tricky and isn’t particularly user friendly.

3. making connections with other rigging objects can be more straightforward when the rigging objects are not hanging positions.

4. existing truss symbols when raked at an angle and made into a hanging position (symbol) can have their 2d top/plan elements disappear. There are a few workarounds but these points illustrate the issues with hanging positions.

Just to confirm, there may always be rigging objects that lend themselves to becoming hanging positions such as identical truss spans which you can make into symbols to reduce the amount of geometry that is being generated at a given time. Also more complex combinations of rigging items such as a system of truss which is being constantly reconfigured or objects with complex requirements in terms of illustrating 2d geometry (such as ladders).

 

these are all issues which we are working to resolve and find solutions for. I cannot disclose exactly what’s to come. But moving forward I think that keeping more complex truss designs and some vertical hanging positions as  rigging objects  such as ladders would be more advantageous. There is a bug filed for the ladder issues.

 

best wishes

 

Tom W

 

 

 

You can attach

[mjm 131]

Hey Tom, thanks. So, sounds like you're relating a VWX shift in direction for these tools, looking ahead?

[TomWhiteLight 17]

The workflow will certainly become simpler.