I would like to add my vote for this. I now use SafeLayout and it makes layout tasks already much easier, but a general control many details at the same time, for what is shown/line thickness/color/print color etc, would be a real time saver. Also agree with @Eugen that core mechanisms here should be provided by McNeel.
All right, I get it. We could add an option to control in which levels an object is displayed, even though it is located on a different level.
As a clumsy workaround, you could overlap two detail views, one that shows the current level, and another one that only shows these walls from other levels. You will need to place the objects in different layers in order to control their visibility per Detail view.
This is basically what I do. I draw a section a little further back, in a place that shows the hidden linework. This usually works but not always.
The plan and section view concept in VARQ is really good. If adjusting them was more intuitive and a few more parameters were available I think they’d actually be better than Revit sections.
I had mentioned before that many of the section settings don’t actually do anything. This made it hard to initially figure them out, and later re-learn how to use them. Also, having more options including the ability to shade projected objects would be invaluable. By comparison (and don’t let me insinuate that I think VARQ needs to match the capabilities of a program with a much steeper price tag), Revit sections allow for the ability to adjust ‘projected’ objects, both edges and face shading. So if I recall, Revit allows you to control the linework and shade/hatch of cut objects (either by object or view), projected objects, and “background” objects a certain distance away.
Said and done I can get nicer looking (and in some cases more accurate) sections from Rhino/VisualARQ. It takes marginally longer but I can live with that.
Hello all, I use this Topic to share a new page on VisualARQ’s web we have just published. There you can see the VisualARQ’s roadmap. The list of planned features includes some features that might be ready in VisualARQ 3, but also some of the most requested features by the users that we plan to develop in future versions:
This definitely looks positive.
Also don’t be afraid to refine the little things. Some easy improvements are better templates, tutorials, and a well organized easy-to-navigate knowledge base. VisualARQ is slowly gaining a user base but it doesn’t have the advantage of say, Revit, where you have thousands of 3rd party content creators doing the bulk of the work. The best example is Balkan Architect. If you search his YouTube channel you’ll come across a template he has. He also collaborated on a rebar detailing template (VARQ would actually do well for structural drawings believe it or not). Templates and tutorials (and a well organized website) are important because they provide the means for users to maximize the utility out of the program as-is. That is to say, is there more benefit to users if a really thorough template is provided? Or a flashy new feature? Both are important of course but I think the template goes relatively further based on the effort required to create it.
I would create a kick-ass template and gladly share it on here. For now at least, I don’t have the skill to create a good template that would really flatter VARQ’s strengths. I also keep running into little hiccups that force me to adjust my workflow (check my post history for examples). I intent to do that one day one I’m able to experiment with let’s say, at least 75% of VARQ’s features. Right now I really only use the sections and levels.
And to that extent… why don’t you reach out to your top users on here and see if they would be able to actually create the content for you? Actually have someone design and detail a small project, build templates, show off the final result a little bit. I think if you paid them the same as their typical fees it could go a long way…
I guess what I’m getting as is that if you open up Revit, you’ll notice that they have a sample project (there’s a few of them) that REALLY flatters the program’s strengths (and side-steps it’s weaknesses). Right now there’s nothing like that for VARQ. At least not a complete model. I know the workflow often involves Revit but it can be done entirely in Rhino.
Thanks for sharing your roadmap! I take it as an opportunity to share a little background story.
Our office is comparatively ‘young’ with it’s 7 years. In the beginning, the workflow was: Rhino for the first project phases, then ugly ol’ AutoCAD for the production phase. Truth was: Rhino just wasn’t (and isn’t) fit for prime time when it came to producing those huge 2D shop drawings. AutoCAD’s advantages: dynamic (2D) blocks, native DWG, gradient hatches, more reliable linestyles…
I came in about 3,5 years ago. A little earlier, the decision was made to go down the Revithole. Did some entry-level stuff with it, but 1-2 years ago, for a variety of reasons, we abandoned it again. Cost, complexity, hard-to-find skilled personnel in Austria. Also, many (including me) just didn’t like it. Steep learing curve, pitfalls all over the place. Those nasty error messages from hell…
Some time passed where I used Rhino together with VisualArq, which I tried to fit into the workflow. It eased the pain, but honestly, it’s just not feature rich enough just yet for a workflow over all phases, which is important, at least for bigger projects, and an office of our size (about 40).
So, just recently, the bosses decided to go for the other big player: ArchiCAD. I now have 7 days of training course behind me, on top of some (forgotten) skill from an university project 4 years ago.
What can I say… that program became a real performer. Don’t know yet if I really like it, but it’s brutally feature rich, for what we need. Stairs, curtain walls used to suck. Not anymore. Morph/shell/terrain tool…
Version 25 is also better than ever, because it’s less ‘hermetic’ than it used to be. GH connection, Rhino 7 support, (experimental) python support,… they even built in their own node-based script editor for parametric blocks (like poor man’s Grasshopper, called Param-O, found that out just yesterday).
But the main selling point are it’s brilliant features to get 2D plans out of the 3D model. Miles ahead of Rhino/VA.
AC’s worflow (which you might know), in short, has 4-steps:
1 ) you model, either in 3D or 2D, which is the same thing. 2) you create views, with tons of overrides for symbols and graphics dependent on the scale (level of detail) etc. 3) you layout all the views, including schemes, renderings etc., and finally 4) export all layouts PDF or DWG, with powerful batch options.
(You can even can derive a true 2D vectorgraphics-view from a 3D-perspective, where the parts keep a live connection to the 3D model, so that their properties are still editable.)
The dealbreakers of Rhino/VA is (please take this a constructive criticism):
- ‘Graphic overrides’ (including layer settings) are a per-layout-feature, and are only rudimentary. No complex filter rules can be defined, no transferring to other layouts, no LOD… Not even toggling layers, which are so essential for ‘emulating’ overrides, is reliable enough.
- No decent batch export of many layouts as PDF and DWG.
- No decent collaborative workflow (many users working on one file. Not VA’s fault!)
Now, on the one hand I’m amazed about ArchiCAD’s features, and at the same time a bit heartbroken, because I really wanted to be Rhino/VA the one-stop-shop that it one day could be. However, at the time being, it’s not. In fact, it’s an unfair comparison. AC had 30 years time to get where it is now (Revit 20).
Why am I telling you this… I guess I had to get something off my chest, because I ran into so many limitations the last years. Main point is maybe: you really need to get your stuff together and bring DWG export from layouts!! (great to see it’s in the making!) Can’t count the times anymore I would have needed this.
Regarding your user poll some time ago how this should work: in fact, the user shouldn’t care. What you see in the layout should go into the DWG, period. How this magic is happening should be transparent to the user.
However, what’s so nice about VA: it’s straightforward, really simple to learn, and comparatively cheap. Rhino/GH, as we all know, is modelling master of the universe. We will continue to use it in tandem with AC, of course.
Thanks for reading!
Eugen, you’re who I hoped would comment when I made my last post 
.
Right now it seems that most of us are ‘pioneering’ our workflows and really exploring the potential of the program. ArchiCAD and Revit have had years of development. But they’ve also had years of users figuring out how to to get the most out of the programs and at least with Revit, work-arounds for all of it’s shortcomings. As we speak I’m currently dealing with a horrible Revit disaster (my planned side business will basically be 3D modelling botched Revit models). My secondary reason for writing this simply to procrastinate from having to deal with that horrible mess of a job 
.
Recently I posted on not being able to import AutoCAD multi-leaders into Rhino. This seems like a “small” inconvenience. But in reality it is a huge blow to my planned workflow; something as small as that. I’ve already figured a way around this using AutoLISP/.NET… but… that takes time. And for an everyday user it might mean game over.
For myself, I’m targeting a basic CAD (even 2D CAD) combined with 3D via Rhino and VisualARQ. I need the flexibility. And in recent years, several AutoCAD ‘clones’ have improved enough as far as usability goes to replace AutoCAD. Anything 2D is far faster in CAD than anything else (all else equal that is).
Hi Eugen - my company is in a similar situation regarding use of Archicad, with similar reasons for not being able to exclusively use Rhino and Visarq.
Would you be able to elaborate a little bit more on how you integrate Rhino/VArq and Archicad?
Would you mind sharing your current workflow, and which software you use at each stage?
Any news, showcases, sneak-peaks of new features?
Guys…
Are you still around and well?
Do you mean the VARQ team or us or everyone in general?
Well… in case you were asking me :
I’ve more or less placed Rhino on the back burner for now. But I want to get back into it. I realize that with V8 on the horizon, if I mess around with anything right now it may very likely be redundant in the near future. Right now I’m working on some AutoCAD/AutoLISP stuff including a really well developed template. All that stuff is really far from ‘leading edge’ and I really want to get back to doing C# programming and Grasshopper, and resume my quest of making really good full drawings in Rhino/VARQ. While working on my template I often think about what it would take to implement the same features in Rhino. Building stuff in AutoCAD with AutoLISP and Dynamic blocks is blazingly fast. Not to dis Grasshopper (nor ignore the almost limitless boundaries of what can be accomplished with it) but it requires a substantial time investment.
Using Savanna 3D I can really well explain the conundrum I’m faced with (it will make sense in a second): Savanna 3D has really good 3D models. It’s just a collection of 3D models really, but you have to open the files one by one. Trying to find a normal looking chair for example…
This is an important example because, if you think about it, every single user has to go through that same process. And it’s agonizingly slow.
To use Visual Arq (and Rhino in general) you have to have everything set up, ready to go… You need to have a data base of models where it’s easy to find, say, a king-sized bed or a certain type of fridge (and fast). You need to have all your styles; section styles, section view styles, door styles, windows… you get the point… As you know of course once you get all this built… but it’s A LOT of work. In my case even being unemployed at the time I realized I just didn’t have enough time. As I built the template I kept running into walls (lol figuratively, because the walls were probably actually the easiest and quickest thing to come to grips with hehe), most of which were solvable but the time required…
In AutoCAD one person can create a template in a few hours (and of course more time can be spent refining stuff). In Revit (and other BIM programs) creating a template can still be done by a single person in a reasonable amount of time, but it’s a chore; most offices use other people’s stuff. I think that VARQ would require more of a team effort, especially if the template includes grasshopper definitions.
I still ponder the potential. I build Rhino models for practice and recently just finished watching 36 Verts primary surfacing tutorials. I’m stubborn enough to have another go and laid some good foundation work in that I learnt Grasshopper and did a little bit of C#/.NET API programming.
@Eugen, @barden00 @keithscadservices ,
We are just about to release VisualARQ 2.13. It will bring some important improvements regarding performance, support to Enscape, Rhino’s raytraced mode, and many new functions available for the VisualARQ’s API. But probably the most engaging improvement is the “Get Object” component in Grasshopper, which will allow selecting VisualARQ objects when running Grasshopper scripts with the Grasshopper Player. So you will be able to create your own commands involving VisualARQ objects.
We will provide a set of new commands, compiled in a new plugin (“VisualARQ Labs”, that will be available for free on our web or on food4Rhino) that will run internally with the Grasshopper Player.
You can guess what do each one of these do…
Just a sneak preview of the first one:
Meanwhile, we are also working on VisualARQ 3 version.
This is Sick !!
So glad to see you are alive and kicking (a**)… Thanks for the information!