Testing Vectorworks: how to stitch while maintaining topology and from solids/surfaces to BIM

[MFRW]

Hi,

 

I have been trying on and off Vectorworks for some time, looking to replace AutoCAD on Mac as my drawing tool. I produce all my architectural designs in 3D using formZ, and I export them to AutoCAD via DWG to create my drawings and CDs.

 

I have the following two questions.

 

Q1: I would like to know if in Vectorworks it's possible to stitch individual faces and meshes, many of them coplanar, with the condition of preserving the topology, meaning edge distribution and structure, and materials at face level.

 

Let's me explain my actual procedure. In formZ, I separate (unstitch) the solid and surface objects by material, generating individual faces and meshes before exporting. This way, I resolve the problem that the DWG format doesn't support colors/materials at face level. Then, I import to Autocad or BricsCAD, which I'm also trying, and I can stitch everything again into solids or meshes and reconstruct the original topology of my formZ objects, maintaining the faces coplanar when they have different materials.

 

The reasons to choose the DWG format are multiple. For example, I can move the 3D geometry back and forth between FZ and ACAD, keeping parametric the non-polygonal geometry.

 

Doing my tests in Vectorworks 2021, I couldn't find a way to do the same, which surprised me, to be honest. It's possible to stitch everything into solids again, but, in the process, you lose the topology at face level by color/material, which I consider essential to maintaining. So, now that version 2022 finally supports colors/materials at face level, maybe there's a way to make it possible.

 

Q2: I would like to know if there is a way in Vectorworks to start designing using solids and surfaces with their associated tools, then move to BIM without rebuilding everything with its BIM-specific tools.

 

In theory, this is what BricsCAD offers, and BlenderBIM proposes indirectly also.

 

I'm attaching some images from formZ and BricsCAD and the corresponding DWG file. Any input would be very appreciated.

 

Marcelo

 

FZC-simple test VW-BC.dwg

 

[zoomer]

I don't think so.

 

The usual approach would be to do everything in VW, what you do in FZ and Bricscad.

But I am not sure if that will really fit your current used workflow or taste.

 

Like many people are designing in Sketchup. Basically you can do similar in VW.

Maybe not as simple and comfortble but your resulting geometry is not crap and

you can start to "bimify" from there.

Same for workaround FZ with Bricscad Shape, if it is mainly rectilinear designs.

 

For Q1

you may not be able to comfortable separate Faces, or especially not work with

coplanar Faces. But since VW 2022 you can comfortable Texture objects on Face Level.

 

For Q2

Yes you can work with custom Solids and apply BIM Tags (manually) later.

You even have to do so in special cases not covered by VW's BIM Plugin Objects.

(Inserting Windows as Symbols/Blocks or modeling with Generic Solids)

But as long as you are within VW "PIOs" capabilities, working is so much faster

and parametric.

 

 

But if you mainly like to work and design freely by modeling with Standard Solids

and Surfaces, stay with Bricscad, which has optimized such workflows with its

AI competence.

Generally if you have developped a workflow with FZ and ACAD that you like

and don't want to develop a completely new workflow,

stick with FZ and just replace ACAD by Bricscad for financial and futureproof

reasons.

[MFRW]

Thanks for your response @zoomer, your feedback is significant because I noticed that you use both Vectorworks and BricsCAD, and if you have any other comments, I would appreciate them.

 

Comparisons are not good, I know... but let me give you some more context.

 

Starting my career in the mid-90s, It was clear I wanted to work on Mac, and the decision at that time was between Archicad or Minicad. Well, I picked the BIM one! A little later, I was responsible for bringing it to the office where I was working and where I worked for more than 15 years.

 

Archicad ended up working well for me for a while before I started to feel I was trapped, although I could lunch a 3D viz business selling services to other architects and real state developers. It was my only modeling tool and central in my workflow. On the other side, the immersion into Archicad at the office was a total disappointment. So, in the end, we moved to AutoCAD on Windows.

 

One day, I was at the office reading an article about Apple and architecture in an Architectural Record magazine when I knew about formZ. I decided to buy it without even trying it, and soon after using it for the first time, I stopped using Archicad. The decision was easy, and I never looked back.

 

Learning formZ changed my focus completely, moving toward the basis of 3D modeling and the understanding of generic solid and surface modeling techniques. I started creating a new workflow for our architectural designs at the office, and later I started exploring other areas of interest. Like, for example, hardware design, sustainable architecture with geodesic domes, building my residential projects and producing my custom kitchen designs.

 

Back to the present, I recently moved my life from Santiago de Chile to Seattle, and I'm again at the crossroads, looking for the right app that helps me to restart my work here, complementing formZ and evolving my workflow in the process.

 

The obvious choice might be ArchiCAD because I know it, and in Seattle, I'm part of a group of over 40 architects where several of them use it. My big problem with ArchiCAD is my hesitation thinking about using it again, mainly because it is too enclosed, and after all these years, it would be too hard to try to fit in again.

 

So the next one I thought of was Vectorworks. It's a Mac app and has that historical 2D/3D hybrid logic that makes sense to me, offering also BIM and its other connexions, plus excellent 2D drawing capabilities and a beautiful interface. So, I tried Vectorworks 2020 and 2021, last time last year, I saw several webinars, and I have been following the forum on and off for a couple of years.

 

After learning and testing the app trying to figure out a possible workflow importing one of my projects from formZ, the disappointment was big when I couldn't find clear answers to those two simple questions. I can be wrong, but my thoughts are that there is no connexion between its legacy 3D tools and its newish BIM tools. Said in another way, it's not clear to me you can design the way I like, using the 3D generic solid and surface tools at the predesign and schematic phases, to then think on the possibility to BIMify your design starting from there. There's no clear pathway to do it, which was disappointing, and it feels to me that something is missing. This is not a problem per se because I'm not looking for a BIM app. It's the lack of clarity that is more concerning to me.

 

The question about the stitching tool and how to preserve the topology by face color it's a different story. In this case, it's just about the capability of the tools and their implementation, and it doesn't make any sense to me that it's not possible, and I wonder why. From my point of view, it is a limitation.

 

In my work with FormZ, I extensively use the reshape tool (push-pull) and the segment insertion tool, among others, to create complex structures as one solid object. I divide the faces and apply patterns to express breaks and material changes, applying different colors or materials at the face level. My working method is iterative, starting with simple volumetric shapes and redefining them into complex forms. formZ is the right tool for this, with total precision and control, working with surfaces and solid objects.

 

If in Vectorworks, there's no way to stitch into solids preserving the topology, it means I have to keep the surfaces separated or rebuild the objects at least partially. Both possibilities have no purpose at this level. I'm talking about generic modeling capabilities not related to BIM or anything fancy, and that's why it's so surprising to me.

 

And finally, there is BricsCAD, which seems to offer what I am looking for, at least in theory. The concept is easy to comprehend, and the structure is clear. You have a 2D/3D Pro module and a separate BIM module that cross boundaries with an understandable logic. The same is for its other modules. I don't want to go in-depth here; it's not the place, and my post is too long already. I just want to say that I have no problem moving my designs back and forth between formZ and BricsCAD, and I already have a working workflow, which I need to refine further. My opinion here is that the key is the ACIS-based DWG format, which makes the connection seamless. My concerns with BricsCAD are the Apple Mx processor support and Bricsys (Hexagon) commitment to the Mac platform for the future.

 

I'm getting busier with my work, and it's time to decide. So my post was looking for some last-minute input.

 

Thanks!

 

...

 

The following images are from a test I did a year ago when I started exploring a possible workflow between formZ, BricsCAD, and Vectorworks.

 

As you can see, in this example with BricsCAD, the topology is preserved using the method described before. In this case, all the objects are solids in both apps, and all the exterior walls and the floor form one solid, the same for all the interior partition walls. This method allows me to move the geometry between both apps without losing any information using the DWG format, designing in formZ and producing my drawings, or moving to BIM in BricsCAD if I want to follow that option.

 

I tried to do the same in Vectorworks, and although I could make drawings, the geometry was messed up in the process.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 23, 2022 by MFRW

[line-weight]

When you talk about BIM, what exactly do you mean?

 

Do you mean, the ability to create models/drawings compliant with formal BIM standards, in terms of the information they contain and how it is recorded, or do you mean software that's focused on creating construction elements in the form of parametric objects?

 

If you want to make models that are formed from a combination of custom-modelled solids, and parametric elements, then VW is quite flexible in allowing you to do this.

 

If you would not really be using those parametric elements, then I'm not sure what you gain from using Vectorworks. For example walls - in the example you show above, you say all the walls are made as a single solid object. If you were to move that model into Vectorworks, then I would suggest that you replace most of those walls with vectorworks "wall" objects because then you have control over multi-component buildups and so on, and you have a network of walls that is easily editable in subsequent revisions of the design. There might be some points in a model where the geometry is too complex to easily persuade the wall objects to do what you want, and in those cases there's a judgement call as to whether modelling those bits manually is the sensible way to do it, or whether doing that will cause you disproportionate hassle in the future when you want to edit things. But either way, Vectorworks is quite good for giving you that option. Perhaps more so than other packages.

 

However, if your workflow is to flip back and forth between applications, then Vectorworks parametric objects aren't going to play nicely; in other words I imagine all conversions would be one direction only, from something else into Vectorworks but not back again, because then you lose most of the advantages that VW gives you.

 

In general (at least this is my impression - I've not used other 3d software for a long time) 3D modelling in VW is OK and possibly better than other AEC focused packages, but some way behind dedicated 3D modelling software. Especially if you want to get into geometry with curved surfaces, I think you will find it has some significant limitations.

 

On your specific question about multiple materials at a face level, I've not yet got my head around what the changes in VW2022 involve. However - I would say that everything in VW encourages you to think in terms of solids rather than faces. You will probably find that most of us here, if say we want a wall with multiple coplanar portions with different materials, will do something like model each portion as a solid, an extrude with very minimal thickness, or perhaps a thickness that actually represents the dimensions of that material in the real world.

 

 

I'll be interested to follow this thread, because it's always difficult to compare VW with alternatives, when you don't have time to fully learn those alternatives.

 

I like to have an "escape route" from VW at least vaguely in mind, and half an eye on things like Bricscad.

 

By the way, I don't think I've ever before seen anyone describe the VW interface as "beautiful"!

[zoomer]

4 hours ago, MFRW said:

This is not a problem per se because I'm not looking for a BIM app.

 

 

So I have a similar situation.

Architectural Projects only, but normally no Plans or Dokumentation

Did not really need BIM, just a modeler that produces useful geometry.

But I prefer the "parametric" Tools of BIM Apps like Archicad or VW to

model architectural projects.

I prefer it over "destructive" Mesh Modelers like C4D, Modo or Blender

 

 

4 hours ago, MFRW said:

I have no problem moving my designs back and forth between formZ and BricsCAD

 

Then stay with FormZ/Bricscad.

VW does import DWGs nearly lossless but is a oneway street.

It is not so lossless when exporting !

 

 

And when DWG imported into VW, you likely often would prefer to have

native VW Objects instead.