Jump to content

New User Wandering in the Woods


Recommended Posts

Hello all,

 

I may be crazy, but I'm very seriously considering migrating to Vectorworks after almost 18 years in the "R" ecosystem (the new is now old).  Where I've become almost immediately lost, however, is in the layer/story/level maze of options.   One reason is the panoply of advise, from the tutorials I've seen, so far, to the stickies in this forum, that seem to be singing from different sheets of music.  

Use:  I'm primarily involved in high end custom residential, and so I do not exceed 3 stories in height, although I do often have multiple plate lines, roof heights, as well as differing floor levels, often within a single, or 2 story home.

 

To make things more complicated, although I get (presume?) that design levels are equivalent to revit levels, and sheet layers are equiv. to revit sheet views, it's just that their seems to be so many interconnections, that thicken the learning curve, and more, that it seems some users here are extolling the virtues of not using stories all together, while others seem to say the opposite (what does VW Architecture recommend, if anything?).

 

So my first question assumes all of this is great (complexity), because it makes the system flexible, but I'm truly lost, and have no idea how to set up a template, that isn't going to bite me in the rear in 6-12 month, because of the seemingly subjective feeling on how this should happen.  So I don't mean to spark another endless debate about something that's been covered endlessly, but can anyone make a recommendation to get me up to speed quickly? Or, a template/best practice workflow recommendation for my use case?  Or, is it possible to find a simplified set of docs or a blog, that tells it to me like I'm 5?  The bottom line is that I need to stay creative, and there are times when complexity kills creativity.

 

Last, I can't find a good, current book on VW for architecture, so is anyone aware of a legacy publication that could serve as a foundation?  In fact, I almost get the feeling learning the old, then progressing, could be a way forward.  And you have my permission to call me old fashion, but I am very disappointed there seems to be a void of written word, in that, in a book I can hold in my hand (is anyone aware of when the last Vectorworks Architect manual was published?)

 

Anyway, I've said allot, but I do have to confess if I wasn't intrigued, and if Vectorworks didn't look like a great platform, I wouldn't be here.  It looks like a great suite of programs

So I really look forward to diving in, and making this work, so I sure do appreciate any assistance.  

 

Best,

 

Mo.

Link to comment

It sounds like my work is similar to yours - custom residential with varying floor levels, etc. I used VW since the mid 90's as a 2D platform, and only transitioned to 3D a couple of years ago.  It meant learning entirely new workflows and document setup.  The only thing I really got to keep intact was familiarity with the interface.  One of the best/worst things about VW is that the system is very flexible and allows for different workflows, so each of us has to find the system that works for our practice and mindset.  

 

From what I've seen, trying to make a 1 to 1 translation from other systems is not a good approach, so put your previous knowledge aside and learn VW from the ground up. Here are the big picture items that work for me: Design Layers are where things go.  Classes are what things are.  If at all possible, put everything in a Class (not in "None"), and control how it's displayed via the by Class settings, not the individual object settings.  Design Layers are for building the model, from which Sheet Layer Viewports (SLVP) are created.  Sheet Layers are for presenting the model renderings and drawing sheets.  Dimensions, notes, etc go in the Annotations of the SLVP, as do graphic clean up & touchups.  Don't model every detail in 3D - use 2D to fill in the documentation holes.  Some tools are fussy/outdated/difficult to learn (lots of forum posts available).  Practice on a project you've already completed (or your own house) before even thinking of using VW on a "live" project.  

 

I have come to the conclusion not to use Stories at all, as they are more trouble than they are worth for this type of work.  It's also one less thing you have to learn and manage.  The best resource on the forum for this workflow is: 

You might want to search on the forum for other posts/comments by @Wes Gardner, because they're practical & helpful and sometime have "bonus" files.  

 

For general VW learning my comment here is still relevant:

 

You might also find this sample file helpful.  It's in VW2020, so some of the items (most notably how section and detail bugs are handles) are no longer "best practices", but it shows one approach to putting a project together. 

https://university.vectorworks.net/mod/page/view.php?id=495

 

If I had to guess, the last VW print manual was circa 2008.  I remember printing out the entire PDF help file the following year and kept it in a 3-ring binder.  I gave up after that.  The online help system is no longer available in PDF.  Archoncad used to have printed courses, though I'm guessing that if available, they're all out of date.  The one exception might be a Fundamentals course that would help you learn the basic concepts and interface.  You might ask @Jonathan Pickup about that.

 

Good luck!

 

Edited by E|FA
  • Love 1
Link to comment

I hope this doesn't confuse you, but I ignore the "stories" concept completely.  "Stories" offsets each layer by the story height from "ground," which is marginally handy if you want to modify story heights, but I prefer a simpler system.  (Bear in mind that you can change things from project to project as you work into the software.)  I just name layers by story number, with each layer set to 0 from ground, and move objects up by my floor-to-floor height for 2nd and 3rd stories.  I use the "layer wall height" parameter to set the heights of my walls.  These fields are accessed by editing the layer in question.

 

When you look at a set of walls and 3d objects from an elevation view, you can select them and move them or align them to make sure everything is right.  Check your doors and windows - there are some parameters in the info palette that set their heights, just play with them looking from the side to get them right.  Also, when you need to extend walls up or down to meet something, use the "Fit Walls to Objects" tool in the AEC dropdown menu.  I set up special layers just to make that easier.  For example, suppose you want your first floor walls to go down to a foundation footing.  Create a 3d polygon at the desired height, put it in a special layer, and extend your walls down to that object.  The beauty of that is that your doors and windows automatically stay put after that operation.

 

Have fun!

 

PS: the reason I never adopted "stories" (i.e., "layer elevations") is that when you paste an object "in place" from one layer to another, it doesn't carry with it it's "actual" height when the layers have different heights above 0.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee

@Moni, I'd start by looking at "No Stories, No Problem."  Download the example files.  One of the "tricks" in Vectorworks is understanding wall styles and how they can be automated to "look for" height information.   This can be accomplished by the No Stories, No Problem concept of using Layer Elevation (for the wall bottom) and Layer Wall Height for the top.  The more complex version uses Levels to further automate the process but often times the bounding concept seems overly burdensome.  The two types of wall styles I call "Layer Bound" and "Level Bound."  In the Resource Manager, they call them "Fixed Height" and "Story Bounded."  I don't like that terminology...  So read and understand the No Stories, No Prob document first, then compare it to the Model Set Up doc. then maybe build a simple model...Typically I tell people that the only reason to use stories is if you are going to be working with IFC files, or are anticipating a lot of floor-to-floor changes as storeis does automate these processes somewhat.

 

Wes

 

 

Screen Shot 2021-02-17 at 4.52.58 PM.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment

All of us here that have been at this for years, no doubt, have all evolved their own template, setups, etc. I certainly have my own developed after years of using VW. 

It may seem overwhelming, but honestly it does not need to be. Like others, I am not a huge fan of Stories, especially for most Residential Projects. So do not at all feel like you must embrace that paradigm. Not necessary.  But, if you feel Stories will work for you, have at it. Stories probably do well for larger, tall commercial work, etc.where there is a lot of the same floor plans, etc.


What may really be helpful to you is to maybe have a few of the Pro’s here send you a basic mostly blank file so you can clearly see how others approach this.  That said, if anyone is willing to send you a project file that they have completed recently, which will include the way they set things up and why, that too may be of value . This will at least let you wrap your head around what will work well.

However....do realize that everyone will have a slightly different spin on what works for them. Honestly, there is not one perfect way to best set up a file, in my view.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
On 2/17/2021 at 9:28 PM, P Retondo said:

I hope this doesn't confuse you, but I ignore the "stories" concept completely.  "Stories" offsets each layer by the story height from "ground," which is marginally handy if you want to modify story heights, but I prefer a simpler system.  (Bear in mind that you can change things from project to project as you work into the software.)  I just name layers by story number, with each layer set to 0 from ground, and move objects up by my floor-to-floor height for 2nd and 3rd stories.  I use the "layer wall height" parameter to set the heights of my walls.  These fields are accessed by editing the layer in question.

 

When you look at a set of walls and 3d objects from an elevation view, you can select them and move them or align them to make sure everything is right.  Check your doors and windows - there are some parameters in the info palette that set their heights, just play with them looking from the side to get them right.  Also, when you need to extend walls up or down to meet something, use the "Fit Walls to Objects" tool in the AEC dropdown menu.  I set up special layers just to make that easier.  For example, suppose you want your first floor walls to go down to a foundation footing.  Create a 3d polygon at the desired height, put it in a special layer, and extend your walls down to that object.  The beauty of that is that your doors and windows automatically stay put after that operation.

 

Have fun!

 

PS: the reason I never adopted "stories" (i.e., "layer elevations") is that when you paste an object "in place" from one layer to another, it doesn't carry with it it's "actual" height when the layers have different heights above 0.

 

Isn't there potential to confuse here - because there are "stories" and there is also the option to give layers an elevation.

 

I never use "stories" but I do sometimes give layers elevations.

 

Giving layers elevations can be handy if there's a fair bit of repetition between floors, because you can paste-in-place items relative to each floor level rather than relative to a universal level. If there's not much repetition then it's often less hassle not to give elevations to layers... as others have mentioned upthread.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee

Hi All,

 

In many of my projects, I set the Layer Wall Height to the most common height used on that particular floor and then set up my Layer Bound wall style to look for "Layer Wall Height".  In the attached example, it's 12'-4"

 

Wes

 

 

Screen Shot 2021-02-23 at 9.03.45 AM.png

Link to comment
On 2/18/2021 at 8:19 AM, E|FA said:

  Archoncad used to have printed courses, though I'm guessing that if available, they're all out of date.  The one exception might be a Fundamentals course that would help you learn the basic concepts and interface.  You might ask @Jonathan Pickup about that.

 

Good luck!

 

 Archoncad still has written manuals and updates them on a regular basis (when they are needed), see the link in my signature

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
On 2/18/2021 at 8:58 AM, Wes Gardner said:

@Moni, I'd start by looking at "No Stories, No Problem."  Download the example files.  One of the "tricks" in Vectorworks is understanding wall styles and how they can be automated to "look for" height information.   This can be accomplished by the No Stories, No Problem concept of using Layer Elevation (for the wall bottom) and Layer Wall Height for the top.  The more complex version uses Levels to further automate the process but often times the bounding concept seems overly burdensome.  The two types of wall styles I call "Layer Bound" and "Level Bound."  In the Resource Manager, they call them "Fixed Height" and "Story Bounded."  I don't like that terminology...  So read and understand the No Stories, No Prob document first, then compare it to the Model Set Up doc. then maybe build a simple model...Typically I tell people that the only reason to use stories is if you are going to be working with IFC files, or are anticipating a lot of floor-to-floor changes as storeis does automate these processes somewhat.

 

Wes

 

 

Screen Shot 2021-02-17 at 4.52.58 PM.png

This seems to be part of the problem Moni is having Vectorworks is the same problem many new or converting user have. The programme is full of half tools that work similar but are not compatible with each other.

Once you understand this as a new user you can say well just delete the first half attempt at a tool and get on with it. Follow the more recent guides, be comfortable you won't get the best system for you first time.

 

I say this in relation to walls in we have 2 ways to set the wall height but no link between them. Yet clearly the link between them is kind of obvious in practice. Why oh why the system wasn't built with these links in mind I could spent my life wondering or just get on with it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment

Hello again, all, and I apologize for not responding sooner, it's been a busy start to my week.

 

Well, I will be honest, because this seems like a very candid group, and I appreciate that.  Plus, I can't hold back, because I honestly really, really want to love this program.  So if I don't come correct with my inquiries, , I'll never know, and I will hold back on purchasing.  So beyond my foisting these comments and questions upon you all, perhaps someone else can use this info in the future, and in that, I won't feel so selfish.  So I'm just going to go down a list of thoughts and concerns that seem to linger:

 

First:  One person I read from in another forum stated his biggest regret with VW is that he felt as though, coming from whatever he had used before, he had traded 'simplicity', for "a forest of dialog boxes".  So I can understand that at first, of course we have to get set up, but do these prompts follow us around, even after we've got a template set up?  For instance, I noticed in the latest architectural online seminar (last week and the 2020 recording), it seemed the presenters use a generic wall type, to lay out there design,  and then swapped those out for a library type further into the process.  Similarly,  I did not, after following them throughout the seminars, perceive a way to set the wall type, before I started designing.  It seemed like vital info, but I missed it, or it wasn't there...(so this sounds like such a dumb q, but if I don't ask)...so can I set my wall types before I begin?  A simply y/n works, I don't want to drag you all through things easily found.

 

Now speaking of wall types, and getting my bim house in order, I must confess, in "R", I do hybrid bim, or lazy bim, all the time, and use generic wall types, then tag as "whatever" in the notes on the c/d.  I suspect this may be a similar use case for many here?  (also, in a related question, does Vectorworks have the capability to do material take-off, stud counts, etc., provided I set correct parameters)?  And all of this leads to a very high desire of mine, to begin using VW as a true BIM is meant to be used.  That is, all things BIM, all the time.  But is this realistic, in a production setting, and especially, as most of us are very busy, right now?

 

Second, because this issue still has me on edge; Revit is very, very much dependent upon levels (what appere to be stories, in VW).  And that's where I'm still glazing over.  I constantly, very much use levels, as a deeply ingrained part of my workflow, and in that,  as an integral part of controlling everything from wall/beam heights, to window head-outs, etc.  But mostly, levels simply control walls, and floorplate thickness/heights.  So in that, one simply sets up their "story pole" using levels at the beginning of a new project, or forever in the template, and then forget about them until they are called upon for use.  So before my first use, I honestly expected to see something obvious, like this, in VW, but I'm afraid, I'm still very much conflicted, because it feels like it's an implied rule break, that so many shun stories, while one here has said they use them, and VW is pushing the feature.  So to be tactless, is this a flat earth issue, that in reality, is tied to comfort, or even speed VS., pedantic's?   Or does it just not matter?  And recall, most, I'm not saying I want to use stories, but imagine a bim manager having this discussion, in a large shop setting, even if they only ever did residential, and he/she didn't want his droogs breaking convention for convenience?  So I'd also like to know if anyone actually loves stories, and if they see something different.   (counterpoint).

But most of all, I think VW would do well to address this issue, because from a traditional standards gal, I must admit I'm still fuzzed.

 

So in your workflows, comparing VW to R, which "component" replaces "stories", or is it purely a workflow pref?  (I'm going to go read the thread on stories now, I promise 🙂 )   And whichever route I end up in,  can both be graphically represented in the condocs? (I know stories can) via level heads?

 

Why:  My condocs are typically very graphic/info rich, simply because my mentor beat it into my mind that one must show all downstream readers, of my docs, everything, (no guessing/no regrets).  And so a very fascinating related aside, to me, is in last year's e-seminar the presenter alluded to the fact one can "break" story bound walls, for use in non story bound situations and workflows, and even went so far as to show us exactly how to do this. This year, not a peep about that (and I'm good with either, but is VW factory pushing us toward more story integrated workflows?).  So once again, it just felt like more potential cognitive dissonance because of perceived mixed messaging, (although I do kind of like the idea of breaking rules, : ) ).  My only concern would be then, once broken, does that wall then become non-intelligent/non-bim element? 

 

Third; one poster I read in on, mentioned, as of +- VW 2019, or so, there was no "reference plane" type of element.  That would be a line that permeates all views, so that one may line up elements between floors, or to insure elements line up between split views, and so on.  It seems to me that grid lines could be used as such hack,  but if not,  the poster mentioned he felt very insecure (at the time of his post), because without such a feature, building coordination between obscured elements could become eminately more error prone.  And I have to agree.  Ref planes inspire complete surety in element placement, regardless of how minimal, or costly.   

 

Which brings up one last final question, related to construction aids;  is it possible to stack views, and make one transparent, as in onion skin overlaying views, for coordinating and cross checking?  Up or down?

 

So in closing, I'm not looking for answers to disqualify, or kill the deal.  It would simply be very nice to understand where these features stand, if at all, so before I take the big bite out of the apple, I know exactly what I'm getting into.  For instance, I do not 'love' Revit's MEP suite, but I'm hoping VW's is stupid enough, a 5 year old like myself could wade through it, without too much trouble.  Or I just keep sending my docs out to the consultants.

 

Anyway, I've said allot, and like I said, I am extremely intrigued by VW, because it feels more artistic, then Revit (could be the freeform and vector based tools, as well as the push pull bar).  So I do want to start that relationship, with this guy, I just don't want, when the honeymoon is over, to feel like I made a bad choice.

 

Thank you all so much, and I hope your workflows are flowing well, this week.

 

Best,

Moni

Edited by Moni
Link to comment

This doesn't really answer your questions...but one reason it's difficult to give you answers on the more general ones about whether you should swap, is that I've only really ever used VW for a 3d bim-like workflow. I used Autocad in the ancient 2d past, and I used Archicad briefly also in the distant past, and I have flirted a little with Sketchup but not for serious production drawings. The reason I've stuck with VW is because the effort of changing is so large - not just learning the new programme but having a period projects are running in both applications and so on. I doubt I'm alone in this. So, I don't have much to compare with. Perhaps I have been stuck with an abusive partner for 20 years and just don't realise that it doesn't have to be this way. Or perhaps my notion that I could start a more rewarding relationship with something that looks attractive from a distance is just a grass-is-greener fantasy.

 

I think this is a real problem choosing between CAD programmes actually - and it limits how much trust you can put in reviews, because the only people who really know how good something is are those who use it day in and day out, and few people have the time or brain space to do that with more than one application.

 

So... some of the questions you ask, like "reference plane" objects - well, I have my own ways of trying to keep a handle on that sort of thing, but am unaware of whether these methods would just seem ridiculous to a Revit user. Or do I imagine in my head that Revit probably has much better methods, but a regular user would tell me all the ways that they are limited in their practical usefulness?

 

Also, there is loads of stuff I do in VW that I probably do sub-optimally, and that's the big downside of its flexibility and lack of a "proper" way of doing many things. I might happen to stumble on a better way of doing something (often via posts on here) or I might not. It's not a case of just reading the manual.

 

Most of the above is not very useful commentary for you. One thing I could say though; when I went through the painful process of transitioning from a 2d to 3d (BIM-ish) workflow I think I was overly worried about keeping things under control using reference levels and that sort of thing. I set up a system where I had geometry guidelines all over the place, but actually, in practice, it seems to be the case that VW is fairly tolerant of slightly messy procedures. Once I stopped stressing so much about keeping everything under control, things were better. For example, I'd try and avoid snapping things to other objects, instead preferring to have safely locked reference objects, and adjusting things relative to those wherever possible. Because habits from years of 2d drafting had told me that if I repeatedly snap things to each other, errors gradually build up. Well, I find that in practice I can actually get away with a few "bad habits".

 

The thing that I've found most beneficial to pin down is a system of how you view the working model in 3d, and control visibilities. I make quite extensive use of saved views. The way I organise the model is quite centred on making it easy to navigate and edit. Small things like: I use a layer for each storey, and each storey has the geometry of its floor and the storey below's ceiling on it. This is simply because I can then isolate a single storey (by turning other layers off), and it's much more convenient to be able to look down into it with no "roof" on it. That's why its ceiling belongs to the storey above. But I'm starting to ramble on about my own, possibly eccentric system, because this is not an approach that's specifically advised in any VW guidance, and the fact that I can have this approach is simultaneously VW's greatest benefit and greatest weakness.

  • Like 3
Link to comment

Thankyou so much for taking the trouble to comment. No - not hand assembled!!  

I am in the process of prising myself away from 2d.

It was simply a case of using ‘create roof from polygon’ command. Then selecting a standard roof build up and replacing the default build up.  Then changing the visibility on the viewport from solid black fill to more detail. 

Link to comment

I didn't even know you could get VW to draw a layer of tiles like that. My approach in that scenario is that they are drawn just as a double line element in small scale drawings (here the section is taken directly from the model, where the tile layer is just modelled as a plane with a thickness), and then on large scale detail drawings, they are drawn on manually in annotation layer, onto a section where some elements are taken directly from the model and some aren't (see screenshots below by way of example). I don't think VW is anywhere near intelligent enough to lay out things like roof tiles in such a way that you could actually use them as detailed construction info. You might be better off starting a dedicated thread for this though. The specific problem you identify may be a bug/design defect - bring it up in the troubleshooting forum. If it is a bug/defect, you can look forward to it being fixed 5 years from now, or never.

 

143001804_Screenshot2021-02-25at15_20_06.thumb.jpg.ce0962265af3bbab3ea6099ce32bf9c9.jpg710543339_Screenshot2021-02-25at15_20_45.thumb.jpg.d58c49704ef49bd7ab63bb34ce76ba8e.jpg

Edited by line-weight
Link to comment

I think @SVA Architects has selected a roof tile Tile Fill as the section fill for the roof component:

723262671_Screenshot2021-02-25at17_32_17.thumb.png.cbabbdbdd3f83a6d2f85194d4d15bfd3.png

 

Unfortunately I think the only way to get it looking correct on both pitches of the roof would be to have two different Tile Fills - one going in one direction, one going in the other - + ungroup the Roof into two Roof Faces so you can assign one Tile to one + one to the other.

 

Which is a bit of a rubbish solution.

 

So a bit of a misnomer to include these Tiles in the libraries.

 

Incidentally, to me even the tiles on the RH pitch of the roof don't look right because the nib should be on the underside, so that it hooks over the batten, not on the upper side...

 

You can edit the Tile Fills to get the geometry the right way around but like I say with a single fill it would still go up one roof then down the other so you'd need two.

 

Unless someone else knows different

 

 

Link to comment

I never realised that was an option. It would be quite handy if it worked!

I agree the tiles appear to be upside down.

 

What happens if the roof is sectioned parallel rather than perpendicular to the ridge? Does VW know to draw the tiles differently or will it still draw them in the same way?

Edited by line-weight
Link to comment

Thankyou all for your time and interest.  Let’s see what the pool of knowledge produced.  I am really fast at producing 2d sections out of my head. It comes with age 🙂.  To me a BIM system should have a degree of automation written by someone who can put a building together. I shouldn’t have to trace over a 4 lines section with no fills.  I was looking to see what the VW settings are like for what I thought would be a a really simple starting point - a tiled,  insulated timber pitched roof section.  It fell over so I went back to 2d as I have for many years.  If the intelligence is there in the app, let’s see who can reveal it for us. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, SVA Architects said:

Thankyou all for your time and interest.  Let’s see what the pool of knowledge produced.  I am really fast at producing 2d sections out of my head. It comes with age 🙂.  To me a BIM system should have a degree of automation written by someone who can put a building together. I shouldn’t have to trace over a 4 lines section with no fills.  I was looking to see what the VW settings are like for what I thought would be a a really simple starting point - a tiled,  insulated timber pitched roof section.  It fell over so I went back to 2d as I have for many years.  If the intelligence is there in the app, let’s see who can reveal it for us. 

 

Yup it completely falls over for this kind of thing. You will get very limited automation of actual realistic construction connections. None, perhaps. Nonetheless, I've found that a hybrid approach works ok and I think it saves me time over drawing purely in 2d.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

The tile fill was probably designed to be applied in the VP annotations. Use 2D polygon tool in inner boundary mode to make a polygon of the component, apply the tile fill, use attribute mapping tool to orientate it properly. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Ps.  The above may have seemed off topic.  However I am on a similar position to the headline writer except I am the opposite ie I am a user of VW for 15+ years who is looking at Revit for things like accurate representation of architectural sections drawn from the model base plans.  Our new architect is an experienced Revit user.  She is in the middle of a VW Architect trial to fit into our ecosystem and is finding it a disappointment.  We need to meet in the middle somehow either by me showing her VW can compete on BIM or her persuading me to switch. 

  • Laugh 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, SVA Architects said:

Ps.  The above may have seemed off topic.  However I am on a similar position to the headline writer except I am the opposite ie I am a user of VW for 15+ years who is looking at Revit for things like accurate representation of architectural sections drawn from the model base plans.  Our new architect is an experienced Revit user.  She is in the middle of a VW Architect trial to fit into our ecosystem and is finding it a disappointment.  We need to meet in the middle somehow either by me showing her VW can compete on BIM or her persuading me to switch. 

Let us know the outcome of this process!

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...