I whipped up a quick drawing to try and convey what’s going on. In the screen shot I have 3 different plan views with 3 different styles, as well as two vaSectionViews for reference. I’m able to successfully use the section view style properties to drive the appearance of the sections - the exception being the line color - driven by it’s parent object; see my other post (although this is easy to work around). The plan views however are only recognizing the section attributes of their respective objects and ignoring all my plan view settings. Therefore the three plan view styles are all quite different yet the plan views created with them look identical.
I felt like I was just missing something but after digging pretty hard I think this might be a bug - I would think that the plan view settings should behave the same or similar to the section settings.
Hello! I want to ask for help with section attributes which override all other. In the tutorials it seems to be very easy to choose a projection color (gray), click and it works.
I use the savoye test file and set a new solid-style as a section style. But the section only shows the section modifications of the hatch and hatch scale but not the hatch color - and most important for me - no changes of the projection color. (I used magenta) … Is it an window problem of rhino because the hatch of the section above gets a green printing color. Thanks!
Hi Francesc, unfortunately not. I choose automatic update of the section view and it works with the hatch and hatch scale, but like I wrote not with hatch color or the projection color. With vaUpdate the same. I tried again a new section style, but the projection color doesn´t changed. Please, help
My advice would be to make as many compromises as you can. You’ll drive yourself mad trying to get things perfect.
It’s been ages since I’ve used VARQ so I can really help. One thing I was doing was creating multiple SectionView/PlanView styles: One for the main outlines, one for the fill/hatches. And maybe even a third. Things were looking really good minus a few glitches. If you have dedicated layers for the “outlines” style and the “Fill/hatch” style it makes selecting them (and assigning draw order) much easier.
Probably the main reason I can’t use VARQ is that I wouldn’t be able to train people to use it. If people are spending days being stuck on key features they can’t stay competitive nor keep the lights on. There was a lot of ‘papercuts’. A lot of good stuff some of which even surpassing Revit’s capabilities. But just too many small things accumulating meant I couldn’t make it work.
Revit now costs $4,000 per year in Canadian $$$. I’m amazed at some of the low-quality programming and lack of attention towards certain features. Various settings are all set to stupid defaults when you first launch the program. Many other examples of sloppy programming. What I’m getting at is that it’s unavoidable whether you spend $600 for a one-time purchase or $4,000 per year. If you can get the $600 (probably more now but still a bargain) to work…
Hello,
Keith hit the point perfectly.
I don’t know how many VA users there are or how scattered we are around the world. But I doubt very much whether Asuni has the strength and desire to adapt the program to the needs of each of us. I wouldn’t. I suspect that no two countries have the same building, drawing or normative requirements. So we are left with adapting the program to our needs ourselves. We will be very lucky if we find someone in a similar situation, and even luckier if we manage to coordinate our efforts. A big plus is this forum and all the advice and comments that appear here.
I think the key is not to assume that any program will do everything for us. I have been working with VA for several years, I think I am doing quite well, but I am constantly looking for new solutions.
So I only have one piece of advice: keep trying, keep asking
Cheers, Jaro
Thanks for all. And I´ll try again because it´s a feature of plan view style that comes back to me. Vektorworks would be a professional solution I think, but with a “professional” license fee, too.
Bye, Christoph
