Jump to content

Stair Tool v12


Recommended Posts

Actually, no. I haven't reviewed the documentation (recently). I did get a stair to work before (v12.0), and incorrectly assumed that I could quickly design another one.

Notwithstanding, having been a user since early MiniCad, I (eronously) assumed I could dope it out.

Attempting to do a typical, what used to be called Even-Double, or something like that, 10'-6" flr. ht., 7x11 riserxtread, 48" clear between railings (Mass code), 48" clear platform, 2" railings both sides, including the platform.

This is schematic-level work, so more detail than that is not required. If it takes longer than 2 minutes to set this up, it would be quicker to draw it piece-by-piece.

Thanks for your interest, Robert.

P.S. Ditto Door Tool. I've spent the last 20 minutes trying to get the door swings to show. This is sort of fundamental...and it's difficult?

[ 03-03-2006, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: ErichR ]

Link to comment

There is a movie (one of a series) on the new stair tool -

http://www.nemetschek.net/upgrade/demos.php

which is worth watching.

I think investing a little time to understand a new feature, especially when it doesn't work quite the way the old one did, is more productive than firing off grumpy messages.

Regards

David W

Auckland NZ

G5 iMac, 1.5Gb RAM, OS 10.4.5

VWA+R 11.5

Epson Stylus Color 1160, HP Designjet 110plus nr

Link to comment

It?s hard to withhold grumpy messages when your workflow is interrupted by gaps in logic regarding the development of the software tools.

Regarding the door swing, why allocate it to the class 'sills'? If an integral component of a door is not showing up in plan and we have to hunt for a class to turn on that we'd never used in a previous release, at least place the item on a class that represents the actual door component like 'leaf' or 'panel'. Last time I checked there was quite a difference between a door swing and a door sill.

[ 03-05-2006, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Runtime Error ]

Link to comment
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee

mnelson, you said:

quote:

Regarding the door swing, why allocate it to the class 'sills'? If an integral component of a door is not showing up in plan and we have to hunt for a class to turn on that we'd never used in a previous release, at least place the item on a class that represents the actual door component like 'leaf' or 'panel'.


I think this is a reasonable question, and deserves a response. This is one of those times when we must sub-class items in a PIO. A door or a window can't have a property control its visibilities on a per-drawing basis (as was the case in vw11 and previous) -- not in the world of viewports (multiple simultaneous views, emphasis on "simultaneous"). In a drawing set, I could reasonably be expected to have viewports of floor plans (showing leafs and swings) and ceiling plans (hiding same) co-existing. This has to be done using classes.

We chose the name "sills" because window sills also fall into this category. If you don't like the particular class names, you can use the Standard Naming feature to customize the standard names OR you can change the name in the PIO string.

PS: saw your blog, and was interested by your BIM piece. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "boutique elements". Could you email me with some elucidation?

Link to comment

Robert,

But if you chose 'SWING" (not sills) there woluld be no resulting confusion.

Runtime,

Thanks for the support. Also thanks for the link to the demos. I wasn't aware of them. Now, if I could only get CEUs for viewing them.

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

Link to comment

Sorry, but you're missing the point:

Doors ALWAYS have their swings indicated, but rarely their sills.

By citing a condition rarely needed, you have obscured the obvious.

Why make showing the swing conditional at all?

[ 03-07-2006, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: ErichR ]

Link to comment

Talk about the tail wagging the dog!

When 99% of the need is for doors in plan view, VW chooses a reflected ceiling plan as a priority!

In over thirty years of architectural practice, in projects from small residential renovations to $100M+ medical complexes, I have yet to see a door shown on a reflected plan.

With all due respect, you need to examine the credibility of your sources.

VW is a great product; bad advice could kill it.

Link to comment

I agree with ErichR. This is one of those VW instances that begs the question, why not take it all the way when just a little further and it would have been complete? NNA should have offered a separate class for swing and another for sill.

VW still has the propensity to not quite be 100% on some things. Having to mess around with glitches and imperfections costs money and these small items make the program appear less professional than it really is.

I, for one, would be willing to drop the false economy and wait till the functionality matures, and/or pay even more for a nearly bug-free, take-each-offered-functionality-all-the-way-for-the-intended-user, no-glitch program. You end up paying one way or the other. Why pay with frustration and time on top of it all?

Not a deal breaker for me though. I just upgraded to 12 and despite its shortcomings, it's a GREAT program and getting better. I really can't quite believe how capable this program actually is, given it's relatively modest price. I'm pretty new to CAD and don't know any of the practical differences with the other biggies but I would be willing to pay even more for an even better VW.

I know there are some who disagree with this, but I am curious as to what it would take. Let's say right now you could buy VWA

w/ RW for $1,500. What if they charged $2,000 dollars and it were bug free or $2,500 and it were bug free AND the stairs and doors and windows etc. all worked properly and lacked those little insensibilities such as no door swing class. Would you pay more if you could have it now?

No program can be a perfect all things to everyone but I'd pay more because even the prices above are still a great deal compared to the others.

Thanks for hearing my little rhetorical rant.

[ 03-09-2006, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: bc ]

Link to comment

bc,

Are you saying, You get what you pay for?

And by implication, what we're getting (and paying for) is something less than functional?

And how much less than functional is it?

And how much less than functional is acceptable?

I don't know about you, but I was charged for this upgrade, and so far I would say the functionality is dimished.

Link to comment

Before I open this can of worms, understand that I?ve been using Vectorworks everyday since 8 or 8.5 (lost track) and believe in its approach to CAD production and the future of BIM. I never hesitate to recommend it to anyone looking to purchase a CAD program and I think that NNA have made some great strides over the years and created some very valuable resources that I can?t do without. I?m of the opinion that software in general will inherently have flaws and if you?re willing to plunk down money for it you?ve got to be willing to work with and around those flaws to get the job done. I?ve bit the bullet so to speak. In conjunction with some interesting points raised on some recent posts (see BC?s above) and some chats with local VW users, I?ve seen a pattern develop with the VW release numbers in relation to their stability:

9.0, 9.0.1, 9.5

10.0, 10.0.1, 10.5

11.0, 11.0.1, 11.5

12.0, 12.0.1 etc....

To some extent I feel as though I?m paying for a beta copy with that of VW 12.0.0 and 12.0.1, which isn?t the end of the world for me because by nature I enjoy troubleshooting technological matters just as much as architectural issues. But from time-to-time I really get frustrated with what seems to be less than polished PIO?s. For instance the base cabinet PIO?s in 12.0.0 (there?s a topic from January on the BB about it) drove me up the wall for a couple of hours until I found a workaround for it but I?m beginning to see how some paying customers can get pretty ticked. It doesn?t help matters when some NNA Admin bulletin board responses fall along the lines of ?I wouldn't call the cabinet object in the state that it is as "final". Everything is a work in progress.? If that?s the case, shouldn?t it be called at least in beta state?

If I?m not mistaken VW XX.5 releases are free upgrades if you purchased XX.0 so maybe we should be paying for the XX.5 releases rather than the XX.0 and XX.0.1. Here's a hypothetical release restructuring to replace what a previous poster called a ?false economy? for the 13 series. (on second thought, maybe NNA should bypass13 and move on to 14? [smile] )

- Rename 13.0.0 to 13alpha and release it for NNA in-house and select industry users only.

- Rename 13.0.1 to 13beta and put it out there at no charge for wide release to the public for those willing to venture into the unknown.

- Rename 13.5 to 13.0.0 and sell it to the public as a mature or ?stable? platform release.

Call it beta and a lot of issues would be easier pills to swallow in my opinion.

It should be noted that some of the cabinet PIO issues found in 12.0 were tweaked and re-released in 12.0.1.

[ 03-11-2006, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Runtime Error ]

Link to comment

Well, VW 13 superstition aside, I think it WOULD be a good idea for NNA to sit back, take their time (maybe a couple of years even) and work out 95% of the current issues, add some well advised new and bug free functionality for the various disciplines served, and then come out with a product that will truly sell itself because it unfailingly does everything the rest of them do for $2000 less.

Perhaps what is fueling premature releases is the need to

generate positive cash flow. I know this as being between a rock and a hard place and I wish I had a better answer.

All I was saying above is that I would save up and pay more for this. One more example. Say an architect decides to buy VWA based upon nice presentation of functionality (and there ARE great features) and he's learned the program a bit and goes to place a window into a roof to create a dormer only to find that he can't edit the eave profile. Every dormer he places has to have a vertical eave, nevermind that the rest of the house is square cut.

So NNA took the functionality only 90% of the way, and all of us are left to work around it. For me it is useless. I model all of my dormers from scratch now (and kudos to NNA for making that possible at least). But why present a less than complete feature?

Again, I love VectorWorks and I'm not switching. I just wish VW would sell itself better with more solid, mature programming. That way there might be more than 3 users in my state.

Link to comment
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee

This thread has (for lack of a better word) escalated somewhat because some users don't like some of the decisions we've made. ErichR says that he's -never- displayed doors (or their openings) on an RCP. Erich, I don't have any reason to doubt what you say, but trust me -- there are other users who -do- display door openings on RCPs and consider it important. It's important to us at NNA to support a wide variety of workflows, not just certain ones. I apologize that the change in internal classing of doors and windows caught you unawares, and have explained the logic in it above, so I won't repeat.

Some users above suggest that we separately class the door swing, the door leaf, and the sills for naming clarity. It has been our goal (as a result of other criticisms in the past) to absolutely minimize the number of classes that we create automatically for the user. We could call it "floorplan only" or "leaf/swing/sills" or otherwise, but we chose "sills". It's a visibility class that is used for plan elements that show up -only- in floor plans but -not- in ceiling plans. You can rename this class (if you absolutely hate the name) by changing a plug-in string or by enabling Standard Naming and reassigning it.

Link to comment

VectorWorks 12 has capabilities which make it ideally placed to become a realistic alternative to programs like ArchiCAD, Revit and Microstation for many users. To do so however requires flexible PIO capabilities that can cater for a variety of needs in locations all round the world.

To realise this will require a shifting of the focus away from providing capabilities for North American housing to providing capabilities for both a broader architectural spectrum, and for large projects.

The current stair, door, window and balustrade PIOs demonstrate the narrowness of the focus. Where are the capabilities for commercial and institutional architecture?

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

Link to comment

I know the thread has veered from the original question but with regard to the matter of door swings appearing on reflected ceiling plans there is one very good reason why they should. If you use full height doors the swing will alert you to a possible clash between the door and lights or other ceiling features which may be dropping below the general ceiling level. Believe me its real embarrassing to stand with the client and watch the door smack into a light.

Link to comment

jonas mac .... in my field as the owner's rep (client), the Architects I deal with always blame the doors hitting the lights as the contractor's failure to coordinate the work..... [Wink]

Also .. Robert.... I see drawings from about 4-5 different Architect's per year, and I don't recall any of them ever showing the door swings on the reflected ceiling plans.... but anyway.... I think VW is a fine product and I recommend it to others.... (but I don't tell them about the problems menitioned above.... and by the way, the current bug in VW 12.0.1 with the windows/door trim not rendering the wall properly is a big deal for me.... I show my 3D images/movies to many who are impressed.... but I can't impress them now. Looking forward to a fix in VW 12.5

Link to comment

Maybe I'm overreacting. I too think VW is the best, and has been, and I have certainly certainly recommended it...

But elevendy-five steps to get a door and it's swing or a window to appear in a schematic-level plan? And a similarly difficult process to draw a simple stair?

I'm not really sure that now I CAN recommend VW. 11.5 yes. 12.0.1? No.

Building architecture is a refining process. It progresses from the general to the specific. If you try force an architect to reverse this process, you've lost him.

By the way, Where I haven't seen door swings on an RCP where I have worked: Florida (healthcare in Miami, Venice, Ft. Lauderdale, Sarasota, Manatee), Alabama (Healthcare, educational and commercial in Birmingham), Washington (healthcare and commercial in Seattle, Highline), Oregon (healthcare in Portland), Arizona (Healthcare in Scottsdale), California, New York, Masachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island (Healthcare and residential), and a couple of states I've probably forgotten about, ad nauseum. And I've worked on a couple of Air Force, VA and many USPS projects, and I don't remember any of them requiring door swings on RCPs. BTW, the Air Force requires Bentley Systems (or did at the time).

What's it going to take, Robert?

Link to comment

not to jump in to the deep end of the pool, but as I read this thread it looks like there has been confusion. From earlier in the post:

quote:

Robert Anderson posted 03-08-2006 11:07 AM

Doors do not have their swing indidated on ceiling plans, and that is why they are classed so.

ErichR posted 03-08-2006 12:56 PM

Ceiling plans do not have doors indicated (nor windows)

Robert Anderson posted 03-08-2006 03:11 PM

What we hear from users is that they want the door openings indicated, but not the swing or ths door leaf.

Seems to me everyone is agreeing, on a ceiling plan one shows the openings, but does not show the leaf nor the swing. Thats the way I see out here in California...

Link to comment

Back to the stair tool discussion: The v.12 tool is more powerful/flexible than before, but I want the stair break to be back like the 11.5 version - a break line at an angle to the stair run with a break bubble. The new break, perpendicular to the run and located at a tread is visually awful and gives the impression the stair ends in mid air.

Am I missing something with this tool?

Thanks,

Bonose

VW 12.0.1

Mac OS 10.4.5

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...