Jump to content

Can I "unlink" a Section-Elevation line?


Recommended Posts

There are multiple previous threads with similar-ish questions but they seem to apply to previous versions of what is now called the "Section-Elevation Line". This question is to do with the Section-Elevation Line as it behaves in VW2021 (and presumably also VW2022?).

 

Actually I have two related questions.

 

Question 1:  Once I have created an instance of a Section-Elevation Line, in the annotations space of a viewport, can I "unlink" it from the viewport it refers back to, so that it is still a Section-Elevation line but can be moved around without affecting the cut plane of that viewport, and without affecting other instances in other viewports?

It looks like I can ungroup it, in which case it becomes a bunch of "dumb" objects which I have to regroup together if I want to move them as one. Is this basically what I have to do, or is there some other way of unlinking it?

At first I thought unticking "auto-coordinate" would do this, but it doesn't.

 

 

Question 2: Often I will have a section line that I want to appear on more than one viewport, and I want it to define the same cut plane in each case and link back to the same section viewport, but for reasons of laying out drawing sheets I want to tweak the position of the end markers. This usually occurs when it shows on several floorplans. The screenshot below shows the kind of thing I want to achieve.

Is there any way of doing this without "unlinking" one or more of the instances?

 

116332593_Screenshot2021-12-02at12_52_47.thumb.jpg.cc6743d612713d2f004d5cdb70efed79.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment

Ok. Another problem. If I adjust the section-elevation line on a viewport, it turns out that this then shifts the model within the section viewport that it is linked to. This is even if I have the section viewport set up as "length range" = "infinite" rather than limited by section line length.

It looks like I can move one end of it without issue, but if I move the other end, or move the object as a whole, then this is the result. Is this what is supposed to happen, or am I doing something wrong?

If this is the behaviour, then it seems these linked section lines are hardly usable for me, because I almost always want to be able to adjust where the markers sit, on the various viewports they are in the annotations of.

And if they can't be unlinked as such, then it looks like my workflow has to be:

- create section

- tell VW which viewports I'd like an instance of its section-elevation line to appear on

- VW places the instance with end markers wherever it feels like

- go round each of those viewports, into the annotations, ungroup and regroup the section-elevation lines

- adjust the resulting objects manually to get the marker positions I want.

 

If that's how I now have to work, then this is a backwards step from the previous system.

Edited by line-weight
  • Like 1
Link to comment
14 hours ago, Matt Panzer said:

 

Select the Section-Elevation Line, Cut, then Paste In-place.  After that, you see the "Linked Viewport" popup in the Object Info palette enables meaning it's no longer defining the viewport.

 

 

Ah, OK, this works and gives me what I want! Thank you.

 

But as far as I can see, this rather crucial knowledge is not documented anywhere in VW help -

 

 https://app-help.vectorworks.net/2021/eng/VW2021_Guide/Annotation/Creating_section-elevation_lines.htm

 

Unless I am missing something? I think the distinction between a "defined" and "linked" viewport also needs to be made explicit, and very clear. As far as I can see this is not the case at present.

 

I'd suggest it should be something you can control in the OIP as well (ie switch a section-elevation line between "linked" and "defining") so that it's clear that these objects can behave in these two modes.

 

 

14 hours ago, Matt Panzer said:

Unfortunately, you cannot.  We would like to improve these objects so that they allow more independent control over each instance without changing the defined viewport.

 

Ok. But setting them as "linked" rather than "defining" near enough gives me what I want for now. It lets me co-ordinate drawing numbers automaically. For the future yes it would also be nice to have them automatically sit on the cut plane line and update with it if it is changed ... while allowing the end markers to be moved.

 

14 hours ago, Matt Panzer said:

 

I believe these same issues existed in the previous system.  That's not to say that is okay - it is not.  If you're seeing different (worse) behavior than in previous versions, please submit a bug stating it as a regression.

 

Do you mean, it's a bug if this happens with "defining" section-elevation lines, or it's only a bug if it happens with "linked" ones?

 

 

 

 

Edited by line-weight
  • Like 2
Link to comment
16 hours ago, Boh said:

 

Another option which I have used, and which might answer your follow up issue is to use a section elevation line style that has no markers, then use data tags as markers. Then only the section line itself will define the vp but the marker tags can be anywhere you want.

 

Presumably the section line itself still has to have certain end points though? Or do you set it as a kind of invisible line that you can snap to?

Link to comment

By the way a suggestion. These are the dialogue boxes I get when I want to set a section line instance, or choose a viewport to link to.

 

They give priority to the "viewport name" rather than "drawing title" associated with that viewport. One of these dropdowns gives viewport name only, and the other one gives the drawing title but in a way that it's not clearly visible, at least with my palette setup.

 

I'm guessing it's not just me who doesn't usually bother naming viewports, and hence end up with a load of meaningless names like "3/SECTIONS-33". If I'm searching for a particular viewport, the drawing title is likely to be much more useful for identifying the one I want (while I recognise it won't necessarily be unique).

 

I'd like a dialogue that gave me columns from left to right: Sheet Title / Drawing Title / Viewport name. So I am looking at eg. "Floor plans / 2nd floor existing / 3/SECTIONS-33"

 

 

 

 

533017375_Screenshot2021-12-03at10_05_56.jpg.a089cd07caec2dd6d3bb511f6029700e.jpg199216221_Screenshot2021-12-03at10_09_21.jpg.690506ab521ff29efa52dca25ceb2308.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to comment
6 hours ago, line-weight said:

Presumably the section line itself still has to have certain end points though? Or do you set it as a kind of invisible line that you can snap to?

Yes the section line itself has to be the same for every defining section line. Ive used the data tag technique where I wanted to have the marker off the line due to crowded annotations so haven’t had to fiddle either the line

 

I agree with you re viewport naming. Vw should have a better way of naming vps that use the sheet no, drawing number and drawing title. I rely heavily on a script to rename vps for the very reasons you outlined in you post above..

Link to comment
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee
On 12/3/2021 at 4:54 AM, line-weight said:

 

Ah, OK, this works and gives me what I want! Thank you.

 

But as far as I can see, this rather crucial knowledge is not documented anywhere in VW help -

 

 https://app-help.vectorworks.net/2021/eng/VW2021_Guide/Annotation/Creating_section-elevation_lines.htm

 

I just requested to include something on this in our help.  thank you for mentioning this!

 

On 12/3/2021 at 4:54 AM, line-weight said:

Unless I am missing something? I think the distinction between a "defined" and "linked" viewport also needs to be made explicit, and very clear. As far as I can see this is not the case at present.

 

I'd suggest it should be something you can control in the OIP as well (ie switch a section-elevation line between "linked" and "defining") so that it's clear that these objects can behave in these two modes.

 

I entered an Enhancement Request for this (VE-102564).

 

On 12/3/2021 at 4:54 AM, line-weight said:

Ok. But setting them as "linked" rather than "defining" near enough gives me what I want for now. It lets me co-ordinate drawing numbers automaically. For the future yes it would also be nice to have them automatically sit on the cut plane line and update with it if it is changed ... while allowing the end markers to be moved.

 

This is on my list of future improvements.  The behavior could be somewhat similar to how Grid Line objects behave.

Enhancement Request (VE-102565) entered.

 

On 12/3/2021 at 4:54 AM, line-weight said:

Do you mean, it's a bug if this happens with "defining" section-elevation lines, or it's only a bug if it happens with "linked" ones?

 

Well, I believe the shifting with defining Section Lines is due to how the feature was designed.  So it may be considered (technically) as working as designed.  However, we know it's a problem and want to address it.  However, if a linked section line causes them to shift, that would definitely be a bug.  But I don't believe that happens.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee
On 12/3/2021 at 5:15 AM, line-weight said:

By the way a suggestion. These are the dialogue boxes I get when I want to set a section line instance, or choose a viewport to link to.

 

They give priority to the "viewport name" rather than "drawing title" associated with that viewport. One of these dropdowns gives viewport name only, and the other one gives the drawing title but in a way that it's not clearly visible, at least with my palette setup.

 

I'm guessing it's not just me who doesn't usually bother naming viewports, and hence end up with a load of meaningless names like "3/SECTIONS-33". If I'm searching for a particular viewport, the drawing title is likely to be much more useful for identifying the one I want (while I recognise it won't necessarily be unique).

 

I'd like a dialogue that gave me columns from left to right: Sheet Title / Drawing Title / Viewport name. So I am looking at eg. "Floor plans / 2nd floor existing / 3/SECTIONS-33"

 

 

 

 

533017375_Screenshot2021-12-03at10_05_56.jpg.a089cd07caec2dd6d3bb511f6029700e.jpg199216221_Screenshot2021-12-03at10_09_21.jpg.690506ab521ff29efa52dca25ceb2308.jpg

 

I completely agree that these should be improved and consistent.

Can you please put this in the Wishlist forum?

Link to comment

@line-weight as usual, these are all really good points/problems/request.

It does seem that the help section could use some help...

 

 

On 12/2/2021 at 9:33 AM, Boh said:

...you can trace another section line over it an in the oip and just “link” it to the section vp. Then delete the original section line. The linked line and markers can be moved around without changing the vp...

wow... but thank you.

Link to comment
  • 1 year later...
On 12/3/2021 at 9:54 AM, line-weight said:

setting them as "linked" rather than "defining" near enough gives me what I want for now. It lets me co-ordinate drawing numbers automaically. For the future yes it would also be nice to have them automatically sit on the cut plane line and update with it if it is changed ... while allowing the end markers to be moved.

 

On 12/6/2021 at 4:54 PM, Matt Panzer said:

This is on my list of future improvements.  The behavior could be somewhat similar to how Grid Line objects behave.

Enhancement Request (VE-102565) entered.

@Matt Panzer did this enhancement request get anywhere yet?

 

The way section-elevation lines currently behave significantly limits their potential usefulness.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee
2 hours ago, line-weight said:
On 12/3/2021 at 4:54 AM, line-weight said:

setting them as "linked" rather than "defining" near enough gives me what I want for now. It lets me co-ordinate drawing numbers automaically. For the future yes it would also be nice to have them automatically sit on the cut plane line and update with it if it is changed ... while allowing the end markers to be moved.

 

On 12/6/2021 at 11:54 AM, Matt Panzer said:

This is on my list of future improvements.  The behavior could be somewhat similar to how Grid Line objects behave.

Enhancement Request (VE-102565) entered.

@Matt Panzer did this enhancement request get anywhere yet?

 

The way section-elevation lines currently behave significantly limits their potential usefulness.

 

No movement on the VE at this time.  I'll add a comment on it to give it a little nudge.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Matt Panzer said:

 

No movement on the VE at this time.  I'll add a comment on it to give it a little nudge.

 

Since this was last discussed, 2 years ago, I've started using the grid tool and elevation benchmarks, both of which allow the elements to be resized per viewport, so it does feel out of step that section-elevation lines don't offer something similar.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee
3 minutes ago, line-weight said:

Since this was last discussed, 2 years ago, I've started using the grid tool and elevation benchmarks, both of which allow the elements to be resized per viewport, so it does feel out of step that section-elevation lines don't offer something similar.

 

I agree 100%.  The new Section Lines (and other "Smart Markers") were being implemented at the same time the new Grid Lines were.  Both of those features introduced some new concepts.  The Smart Markers introduced a new constraint system used in the layout (which the Grid Line as uses) and the Grid Line introduced the idea of having multiple instances of a defining object with the ability to vary those instances from it.  We knew this was something both objects could use but needed to work out the implementation in one object before doing the same in others.  Of course, the Elevation Benchmark was the next object to get this kind of behavior.  IMO, Section Lines should be next.  I'll do what I can to keep this on the radar.

  • Like 4
Link to comment

Incidentally, when I add a section-elevation line to a viewport, by choosing that viewport in the "section line instances" of the section viewport that it links to/defines, I seem to get a section line in a default style, not my own style which I have set up.

 

That's despite having my own style set as the one to use in the section-elevation line tool preferences. Is there some way that my own style can automatically be used when I create a section line using this method?

Link to comment
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee
5 minutes ago, line-weight said:

Incidentally, when I add a section-elevation line to a viewport, by choosing that viewport in the "section line instances" of the section viewport that it links to/defines, I seem to get a section line in a default style, not my own style which I have set up.

 

That's despite having my own style set as the one to use in the section-elevation line tool preferences. Is there some way that my own style can automatically be used when I create a section line using this method?

 

The style of Section Line instances should all be the same for any given section.  Changing the style of one Section Line instance should change the style of all instances for that section.  If you create a section using "Section Line Style A", all instances of it should also be "Section Line Style A".  Changing one instance to "Section Line Style B" will change all those instances to "Section Line style B".  Is this not what you're seeing?

Link to comment

I have section viewports 1, 2 and 3.

 

Then I have plan viewports: ground floor plan, first floor plan

 

On the ground floor plan viewport, I want instances of section lines 1, 2 and 3.

On the first floor plan viepwort, I want instances of section lines 1, 2, and 3

 

I have section line style A (some sort of VW default one) and section line style B (my own one). The section line tool I've set up in the preferences to use section line style B and that works fine if I just use the tool to manually draw a section line (unlinked and undefining).

 

But what I want to do, is go to section viewport 1, press the "section line instances" button in its OIP, then in the list of viewports I'm offered, put a tick against "ground floor plan" and "first floor plan". When I do this, and then go to look at "ground floor plan" or "first floor plan", section line 1 has appeared in both of them as expected. However the section line that appears has section line style A (and I want section line style B).

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, line-weight said:

I have section viewports 1, 2 and 3.

 

Then I have plan viewports: ground floor plan, first floor plan

 

On the ground floor plan viewport, I want instances of section lines 1, 2 and 3.

On the first floor plan viepwort, I want instances of section lines 1, 2, and 3

 

I have section line style A (some sort of VW default one) and section line style B (my own one). The section line tool I've set up in the preferences to use section line style B and that works fine if I just use the tool to manually draw a section line (unlinked and undefining).

 

But what I want to do, is go to section viewport 1, press the "section line instances" button in its OIP, then in the list of viewports I'm offered, put a tick against "ground floor plan" and "first floor plan". When I do this, and then go to look at "ground floor plan" or "first floor plan", section line 1 has appeared in both of them as expected. However the section line that appears has section line style A (and I want section line style B).

 

Where do the original section lines from when the section VPs were created reside?On the design layer? Are they all Style B?

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

 

Where do the original section lines from when the section VPs were created reside?On the design layer? Are they all Style B?

 

Actually they all live on a special viewport on a dedicated sheet layer that I use only to control the cut planes of my sections. And there they are just "style whatever" because I don't care what they look like as they never appear on a published drawing. So I guess they are Style A and if I changed them all to Style B, then I'd get the behaviour I want?

 

It seems a bit strange that every instance of a section line on any viewport has to be the same style ... I'd have thought you might want to choose the style per viewport. But anyway, I think this answers my question.

Link to comment
  • 4 weeks later...
On 4/5/2023 at 3:09 PM, Matt Panzer said:

 

I agree 100%.  The new Section Lines (and other "Smart Markers") were being implemented at the same time the new Grid Lines were.  Both of those features introduced some new concepts.  The Smart Markers introduced a new constraint system used in the layout (which the Grid Line as uses) and the Grid Line introduced the idea of having multiple instances of a defining object with the ability to vary those instances from it.  We knew this was something both objects could use but needed to work out the implementation in one object before doing the same in others.  Of course, the Elevation Benchmark was the next object to get this kind of behavior.  IMO, Section Lines should be next.  I'll do what I can to keep this on the radar.

 

It would be good if Reference Markers could be included in this push as well. I would like to place them in one VP then have them display in additional VPs of my choice. Plus it would be good if you could rotate them on placement (like symbols) rather than have them insert as per the orientation of the definition then rotate them afterwards by entering an angle in the OIP. Likewise be good to be able to rotate an already inserted marker by interactively rotating a handle. Thanks!

Link to comment
On 4/5/2023 at 11:03 AM, Matt Panzer said:

The idea would be to get Section-Elevation Line objects to behave more like Grid Lines and Elevation Benchmarks where instances can be different but still be constrained to the location of the defining object.  This would include the ability to change the style of each instance independently from the others.

100%

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...