Rebuild Vectorworks from the Ground up

[abshapi]

I've spent some time during this isolation period to learn new things about Vectorworks and refine some of the skills I already have.   I must say, the program is incredibly inconsistent and not necessarily intuitive. Whether you're working in Architect or Spotlight....or even different tools within a fundamentals tool set, it is hard to understand the best practices for using a tool because it is different with every tool.  

 

For example, using the projection screen tool vs. using the speaker array tool.   One has you edit its properties within the Object info pane, the other has you open a whole separate window to edit is properties.   Speaking of Speaker Array; I cannot use a predefined symbol as apart of the array, I have to use a generic symbol.   I can work around this by inserting a speaker into the generic speaker folder but that is not intuitive or easy.    This is a completely different process compared to adding a lighting instrument into a drawing.  Finally, advanced tasks throughout the program are not intuitive.   A lighting pipe tool by default is not a hanging position?  Adjusting the individual objects cut plane on a horizontal section yields results that don't necessarily make sense (and things seem to be buggy depending on your file size?).  

 

My suggestion would be for Vectorworks to spend a year or two focusing on just cleaning up everything, making every tool more intuitive and ensure consistency between every aspect of the program.   

[C. Andrew Dunning]

You pose some good questions.  As the developer of two of the tools you cite (and, a vocal critic of things that bug me, too...), I'd like to offer up a little food-for-thought:

 

For the most part, Video Screen (or, VS4-Projection) lends itself well to being an "OIP-driven"/"one-wrapper" tool.  For each object instance, individual parts are relatively few and dealing with the "whole" is fairly simple.

 

Speaker Array (or, Audio Array 2) is another animal, entirely.  An array can contain a bumper and 3 different speaker types - which, together, can comprise 40+ array elements, each inserted at different angles and tracking different data.  This would be INCREDIBLY difficult to configure through the OIP alone - and, would be a huge time-hog as you'd need to wait for each and every adjustment as the OIP makes changes real-time - not to mention not being able to see the whole assembly until you had done that waiting over-and-over.  Also, because a populated array is a "parent/child" or "master/slave" assembly, you can do such things as display dispersion for individual cabinets or easily create reports like hang sheets or circuiting charts - with each speaker being entries in the reports.

 

Granted, not necessarily ideal, but I hope that sheds at least a little light on some of the "whys" behind those 2 tools.

 

As to the stock audio tools not inserting actual Symbol geometry, you are quite right.  In their current form, the tools don't do that.  If inserting Symbols is important to you, you might want to take a look at the Landru Design version of the tools (links in my sig). 

 

[Mark Aceto]

@abshapi welcome to the forum!

 

[Mark Aceto]

1 hour ago, abshapi said:

Speaking of Speaker Array; I cannot use a predefined symbol as apart of the array

 

As Andy pointed out, the Landru version of the audio tools are capable of inserting symbols (and have been for over a year now). The functionality works and looks exactly as you'd hope. I take a Soundvision report from my audio engineer, and replicate it in VW. The Landru versions also have more annotation options for plating up your plots. And, as I'm sure you noticed, the developer is very responsive (vs waiting for who knows how long it will take VW to update the tools).

[abshapi]

@C. Andrew Dunning great points and inherently I can see this is why it is the way it is.  But as a user; I care about the program being efficient and easy so the drawings I create can get to my client quickly and cleanly.  Consistency in the programs design is key and as a user, I can see which developer worked on which tool.....it should not be that way.   The functionality of each tool, for the most part, is great; I just want the user interface to be more logical in its design.  

[C. Andrew Dunning]

1 hour ago, abshapi said:

Consistency in the programs design is key

 

Agreed 100%.  That is, by-far, one of the biggest things I've learned from the VW engineers who have worked with me along the way.  With the initial licensing of the video tools came A LOT of work aligning them.  In looking back, WELL worth the effort... 

[Matt Overton]

You do raise an important point - VW could use standard practices when it comes to scripting tools to make the program as a whole more consistent.

[line-weight]

We've been complaining about this for about 100 years now and very little has improved, in terms of fixing existing broken stuff, and making things more consistent. So I doubt much is going to happen in the next 100 years. @abshapi see this thread:

 

https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/49017-my-wish-vw2020-to-have-no-new-features-please/

 

Your experience is the same as mine - the closer you look, the worse it gets. It's become a familiar process - I decide to try out some tool that I've not really used before, because I think, let's invest some time in better understanding VW and taking better advantage of all it has to offer. After a day or so of investigation, in perhaps 75% of cases, I don't arrive at a point of "great, now I understand this and can use it to make my work more efficient" - I arrive at a point where I've figured out exactly which bits don't work at all, which bits of the interface are needlessly confusing, and often, that the conclusion is that the tool is effectively useless. Then I write a thread on here complaining about it, including often a quite detailed explanation of the problems (other posters do this too) there's a half-acknowledgement if I'm lucky, and hardly ever are any of the problems fixed.

 

The door and window tools are the classic and most outrageous examples of this.

Edited April 8, 2020 by line-weight

[ThreeDot]

👆 Vectorworks is a verb and this is it. 

[JBenghiat]

18 hours ago, abshapi said:

A lighting pipe tool by default is not a hanging position? 

As of 2020, this is no longer the case. Pipes, Ladders, and the three Truss tools no longer need to be converted to Hanging Positions in order to directly interact with Lighting Devices and other Spotlight objects (Softgoods, speakers, video screens...)

[Mark Aceto]

13 hours ago, line-weight said:

We've been complaining about this for about 100 years now and very little has improved, in terms of fixing existing broken stuff, and making things more consistent. So I doubt much is going to happen in the next 100 years. @abshapi see this thread:

 

https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/49017-my-wish-vw2020-to-have-no-new-features-please/

 

Your experience is the same as mine - the closer you look, the worse it gets. It's become a familiar process - I decide to try out some tool that I've not really used before, because I think, let's invest some time in better understanding VW and taking better advantage of all it has to offer. After a day or so of investigation, in perhaps 75% of cases, I don't arrive at a point of "great, now I understand this and can use it to make my work more efficient" - I arrive at a point where I've figured out exactly which bits don't work at all, which bits of the interface are needlessly confusing, and often, that the conclusion is that the tool is effectively useless. Then I write a thread on here complaining about it, including often a quite detailed explanation of the problems (other posters do this too) there's a half-acknowledgement if I'm lucky, and hardly ever are any of the problems fixed.

 

The door and window tools are the classic and most outrageous examples of this.

 

Thanks for reviving that thread. VW is due for a maintenance release (not a rebuild).

 

Meanwhile, Apple is long overdue for another 'Snow Leopard.'

[line-weight]

11 hours ago, Mark Aceto said:

 

Thanks for reviving that thread. VW is due for a maintenance release (not a rebuild).

 

Meanwhile, Apple is long overdue for another 'Snow Leopard.'

 

Should I change it to the same wish for 2021 now?

(I've not used 2020 yet. I don't get the impression that there is a consensus it's fixed the various long running problems though)

[Mark Aceto]

15 hours ago, line-weight said:

 

Should I change it to the same wish for 2021 now?

(I've not used 2020 yet. I don't get the impression that there is a consensus it's fixed the various long running problems though)

 

(face palm) Yes, 2021, please. I"m in a vortex with no sense of time. Last week was the longest year ever.

 

[Mark Aceto]

Just now, Mark Aceto said:

I've not used 2020 yet.

 

2020 SP 3.1 is great.

[Ethan R.]

we have all noted this for years.

The new model of 'annual release' to justify subscription packages is the culprit.

This - i belive - is  a practise started by apple wit the iPhones and has come to dominate the industry.

 

Gone are the days when software could refine itself over years.  The push for new features now outways basic functionality; and we are all dealing with bloated software.

Anyone wonder why Acrobat is over 1GB of code?

[Ethan R.]

On 4/8/2020 at 9:53 AM, line-weight said:

We've been complaining about this for about 100 years now and very little has improved, in terms of fixing existing broken stuff, and making things more consistent. So I doubt much is going to happen in the next 100 years. @abshapi see this thread:

 

https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/49017-my-wish-vw2020-to-have-no-new-features-please/

 

Your experience is the same as mine - the closer you look, the worse it gets. It's become a familiar process

 

Oh yes we have!  Forget new features - fix the ones that are tere.