Jump to content

VW12 - The Emperor is naked!!!


Skot

Recommended Posts

quote:

Originally posted by Skot:

I still have yet to see how veiwports can be a useful tool for what we do. Every demo of viewports that I have seen is done from a 3D model, already prepared ahead of time. We are strictly 2D in my office. I hear everybody raving about viewports being the end-all, be-all, but I just don't get it.

Believe. You'll do 50% more work in the same time. You just don't get it, yet; but when you do, you'll have a rushing sensation of power and relief...

VPs can be extraordinarily useful. Just doing one simple door or window relocation to a design halfway through the CDs is murder. And clients love to do that to us all the time. A revision in a model (3D) will automatically be updated in 3/4s of your info. That is precisely why I came over from PowerCADD. It simply couldn't do any decent viewporting. And it is strictly 2D. A great program otherwise.

Think about it, you are now using your computer as a $4K pencil.

Link to comment
  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:

Originally posted by jan15:

But right now I don't know anyone who's using 3D at all, except for renderings to impress a client or a zoning board. I start all projects as full interior/exterior Sketchup 3D models, to study the geometry and to export basic 2D views as a start on construction drawings. For me, that's an easier first step in the transition to 3D. But I don't know anyone else who's even doing that.

Well, I do. And I am no expert, far from it. I can't do a half decent rendering yet, but I definitely work 3D. I just decided that working in SketchUp and transporting to 2D was too much trouble. I think anything you can do in SU, you can do in VW. Maybe not as fast or nice looking (SU is super nice). But you can definitely get the job done, esp geometry; and while doing your geometry studies you are actually doing the startup phase of your Const Dwgs. And, as I said earlier, any revision done in the model is automatically and geometrically coordinated; icing on the cake....

I am a believer. I'm a bit pissed over v12.0.x lately, but definitely a believer. It is a great step in the right direction.

[ 03-02-2006, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Ramon PG ]

Link to comment

Skot says:

I still have yet to see how viewports can be a useful tool for what we do.

Viewports can be used to create a sheet of details, 2D only if you want.

The details can be drawn at different scales in separate layers, and then brought into a sheet layer via viewports.

Another approach is to make the details separate drawings, created by different people, "workgroup reference" them into the detail sheet, and place them into viewports.

Using this latter method, an entire detail sheet can be assembled before a line is drawn. Then as the details are drawn, they'll automatically show up on the detail sheet. Neat.

Link to comment

Viewports in 2d can be like putting a magnifying glass on a detailed drawing in the same way they're used to show different views of one 3d model. Changes made in the main drawing are automatically updated to the detail views.

So I can do one drawing that controls many views. Used like this it's much like layer links, but simpler to use and control.

This one feature saves me hours when the changes start rolling in and eliminates mistakes from redrawing (or forgetting to) the detail views

Link to comment

Skot

Jumping from 8 to 12 is a huge leap - like learning a whole new program. Its better to stay tuned with the updates as they come.

Why use version 12, when you are perfectly happy with 8?

Well try imagining, yourself asking 'Why use version 32, when I'm perfectly happy with version 8?' in 20 years. Your co-workers will look to you as a dinosaur, your boss will fire you.

Maybe your coworkers are laughing at you now. But if you stick to the new version, who's laughing in 5 years?

Link to comment

George,

We're agreed, then, about the value of 3D modelling, both the wow and the underlying value.

But my point is that many people still aren't using it for the underlying part. They do complete 2D construction drawings in Autocad, and then have someone create a 3D model of the exterior only and render one or two views of it for presentation. Some architects aren't even using viewports in Autocad, and I've never yet seen an engineer's drawing that does.

Link to comment

Originally posted by Skot:

I still have yet to see how veiwports can be a useful tool for what we do. Every demo of viewports that I have seen is done from a 3D model, already prepared ahead of time. We are strictly 2D in my office. I hear everybody raving about viewports being the end-all, be-all, but I just don't get it.

_____________________________________________________________

In the office where I just started working, they had each building section at 1:100 in one drawing, and then the detail sections at 1:25 in a separate drawings. Each time a change was made to the building section it also had to be made to the detail sections. What a pain in the ykw,. Since I had also just started working with VW previously from AC, I had really hard time convincing them that they needed to use viewports and sheet layouts.

Here are the advantages, I only need to make the change to a building section in one place, since the detail wall section is only a blow-up viewport of the same thing (with extra info added of course). Also by using sheet views I can batch print all the design sheets from one file. This is a lot better than opening and printing 70 different files.

Next job to convince the powers that be, to use a BIM approach on the next project.

By the way all this information was created 2D.

Link to comment

quote:

Originally posted by jan15:

George,

But my point is that many people still aren't using it for the underlying part. They do complete 2D construction drawings in Autocad, and then have someone create a 3D model of the exterior only and render one or two views of it for presentation. Some architects aren't even using viewports in Autocad, and I've never yet seen an engineer's drawing that does.

AutoCAD precisely. It's obviously complicated. SketchUp is the opposite. And VectorWorks is a pretty good marriage of both capabilities 2D & 3D.

Link to comment

As a contrast to " Some architects aren't even using viewports in Autocad, and I've never yet seen an engineer's drawing that does." Every architect and engineer that I deal with uses Autocad viewports. The way they use viewports varies, but they do use the feature. That would mean approx. 20 architects and engineers (civil, structural, & electrical)in the PNW.

Link to comment

Yes, Washington state has always been ahead of New Jersey in that regard. I used to live in Seattle, and I know that CAD use among architects was common much earlier there.

What about complete 3D virtual modelling? Is everyone using that? I do it, but I don't know any other architects who do, except through internet forums.

Link to comment

quote:

Originally posted by jan15:

What about complete 3D virtual modelling? Is everyone using that? I do it, but I don't know any other architects who do, except through internet forums.

Complete 3D virtual modelling is quite an accomplishment. It can more easily be done (with texturing, cars, people, trees, etc.) when a project is large $$$ or when you have a resident expert which most firms don't.

But 3D modelling is not that complicated at all.

Link to comment

Ramon,

By "complete 3D virtual modelling", I meant creating the 3D geometry of the entire building inside and out, as opposed to modelling just enough of the exterior to have a rendering done from it. As I said above, I find most of the architects in my local area doing the latter, and noone except me doing the former.

The adding of textures, cars, people, trees, etc., I would have called "rendering" rather than modelling.

Thank you for the information about the relative difficulty of the two. I was more interested in finding out what percentage of architects in other places are doing 3D.

Link to comment

jan15,

In my view it has more to do with ignorance than anything else. Had I known that 3D (in VectorWorks) was so easy I would have started a long time ago. But the tutorial info, even from the MiniCAD era was unfathomable, at least to me.

Another thing is that most Arch firms are small and they just try to go by with the least possible expense in terms of tech personnel. Anyone can draw CAD within a week's experience, but it takes a few of months to decently master 3D. It's definitely worth it but takes time and money.

You pose an interesting question. I, too, wonder how many VWs users actually do 3D modeling.

Link to comment

I'm still trying to see how a 3D model of a house/small commercial building can possibly be a cost effective way to create drawings. From what I can tell, the holy-grail of VW is the viewport and all the wonderful ways you can manipulate it's output to create drawing sets. That said, I get 2D drawings (if I'm lucky they're even VW dwg files) from the architects I work with and then turn those into engineering drawings that match. How in the world can it possibly be cost effective for me to take someone else's 2D dwg, turn that into a 3D viewport and spit out the 2D views I need? And why would I even want to to do that? This is what I mean when I say that it's folly for NNA to expect me to completely change my whole workflow because they didn't listen to what people are doing with the software. Sure it's great to have a powerful 3D tool that's easy to use, but why would I buy a D-9 Caterpiller tractor to dig ditches? And what would people do if the local hardware upgraded all their shovels and hand tools to Bobcat accessories? That's how I'm starting to feel!

Link to comment

Skot,

You clearly don't understand the viewport technology. It is not only used in 3D, but can be used to greatly increase the possibilites for developing 2D working drawing sets. Perhaps it would be beneficial to use the collective wisdom of this support board, and its many knowledgable members, before knocking a useful and powerful feature of VectorWorks.

Link to comment

quote:

Originally posted by Skot:

...That said, I get 2D drawings (if I'm lucky they're even VW dwg files) from the architects I work with and then turn those into engineering drawings that match. How in the world can it possibly be cost effective for me to take someone else's 2D dwg, turn that into a 3D viewport and spit out the 2D views I need? ...

I 'm not sure what you mean by 3D viewport. Remember you are trying to make base level info that will be reused may times. Eg: The plan view will share info with and be used for Existing, Demolition, Arch, Elect, Mech, Plumbing, Furniture, Reflected, etc. A plan view can be further viewported for enlarged Kitchen, Bathroom, closet plans.

I get your point that engineering drawings might not benefit that much. Except that if you get a 3D model from the Arch you could insert all your work and be aware of the available space and route conditions. It is already being done in high tech (meaning expensive) projects were time and proper coordination means tons of money saved.

On the other hand, if you work engineering systems with 3D you will get the in-house benefit of better coordination. Especially in multi-story buildings. And less mistakes and clarification drawings for the contractor, means your time saved.

I would love better coordination from my consulting team. But, again, they are not trained to work with 3D drawings or even any kind of viewports or referencing. I've had my Elect and Mech, who are the same people, place lamps and a/c diffusers into the same spot in a ceiling grid!! They work their drawings separately. Then I am supposed to do their coordination.

I choose 3D because it saves time and coordination effort. Even if it is a closet design. With VW you don't need much more time to do it in 3D.

[ 03-06-2006, 01:38 AM: Message edited by: Ramon PG ]

Link to comment

This thread illustrates the point that the corrollory of program capability is complexity. For many new and existing users the complexity of VW 12 is overwhelming, and this is translated into confusion about how to use the program properly.

What people like Skot need are resources that show them how to use the program efficiently and effectively to achieve results. After all this is the purpose of the program. The existing CD's supplied to new or upgrading users don't even start to do this. (In my view the appropriate CD's should be included with every version of the program sold.)

If people want more of the "how to use the program to achieve results" resources they have to buy them. It is not always easy to convince people of the need to do this, notwithstanding the proven benefits of doing so. In my experience part of the reluctance comes from people having an expectation that this type of material should be included with the program, not bought separately.

Most users only buy the program for a purpose - to do work which they will be paid for. They are not motivated like "the enthusiasts" are to explore and experiment, working out the best ways of doing things. Not being provided with the resources to help them learn how to do this quickly leads to frustration and angst. Skot seems to be in this group - he can see the new features but doesn't know how he should best use them to achieve what he wants (and he is not Robinson Crusoe). Is this frustration and angst in the best interests of NNA - I would suggest not.

Providing better "How To Work" resources with the program should be a priority. These should be supplemented by more "How to Work" movies downloadable from the website.

[ 03-06-2006, 04:12 AM: Message edited by: mike m oz ]

Link to comment

quote:

Originally posted by mike m oz:

What people like Skot need is resources that show them how to use the program efficiently and effectively to achieve results. .....

Providing better "How To Work" resources with the program should be a priority. These should be supplemented by more "How to Work" movies downloadable from the website.

I totally agree. I have been there, completely confused and told by Tech Support that what I need is to attend to their seminars (a few thousands of miles away).

The "how to" is the issue. You read about all the great features and then you don't have a clue on where to start. For me at least, the drawing/viewport setup routine is next to useless since it will not work with your added or edited classes and layers.

Link to comment

Skot: ' I'm still trying to see how a 3D model of a house/small commercial building can possibly be a cost effective way to create drawings.'

I don't know about cost effiency, but to me, 3D is the only way. It is just a different way of thinking. I simply don't have the capability of former generations to hold a complete image in my head of how a building or a design would look like in real life. So I create that image with VW.

The great advantage for a lesser spirit like myself is, that I can test and evaluate a number of variations, before I settle with the final solution - and at the end of the day, I can do it faster, than many 'old school' professionals do a similar 2D projects - as plans, sections, perspectives and presentations are all handled within the same workflow, and all changes in the design are implemented throughout the drawings almost automatically.

Link to comment

quote:

Originally posted by Skot:

I'm still trying to see how a 3D model of a house/small commercial building can possibly be a cost effective way to create drawings.

For a small building with simple geometry, a 3D model doesn't offer much help in generating construction drawings. I make them because I'm almost always working with strange complex 3D geometry lately. That trend may be caused by the fact that the new 3D tools make it easier.

Now that I have the capability, I find uses for it even if the building geometry is simple. For example, I'll create an isometric riser diagram (which all the towns have started requiring lately) by laying out the pipes in plan, then stubbing up at fixtures and viewing it in iso.

So even if you work only with simple geometry, there's the "new toy" factor to consider. It makes work fun. It's nice to be able to instantly and effortlessly create a section anywhere and study how things fit together, how ducts squeeze past beams and so on.

And I use 3D because it helps in selling the client on the design, again probably at least partly because it's fun for the client to virtually fly around a 3D model. That part wouldn't apply to Skot's work. Clients are more prone to accept an engineer's judgement about his part of the work. But certainly my 3D models of these strangely shaped buildings help the engineers figure out what's going on.

[ 03-06-2006, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: jan15 ]

Link to comment

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.


×
×
  • Create New...