BDC,
my post was probably a little abrasive, sorry
i have some, possibly, more considered than previously, views of VW to share if you're interested
i don't think that this is repeating the thread that archiben helpfully pointed out (which seemed to be more about conceptual approaches) but anyone bored can leave now
so:
i have used vectorworks on and off for about 20 years, probably going back to one of the first iterations of minicad. when i first used it i thought it was really neat and the future of cad, i am quite conversant with all it's advanced functions
of course it has developed over the years. more and more functions were thrown in. and thats the problem, functionality was thrown in at the expense of usability. it wanted to be the solution to everything, including embroidery (seriously)
functional viewports in vw11 are, i have to say, a massive step forward
when a campanile 'tool' was added i realised that they really did not get 'it'
the core functionality of vectorworks is fantastic, equalling, and, at times, exceeding that of archicad
however, in use, it just feels like it's been written by a couple of hundred coders who don't talk to each other.
my frustration is that it could be a really good piece of software if only someone would take an overview and be prepared to give it an interface rewrite, ground up
the bottom line is that, as an architect, i want to transfer what's in my head into the means of building a building. vw and ac both do that, ac just does it at least 5 times faster for me
vw is pretty close to being a BIM solution, i'd be very happy if it got there
bill
ps
my employer uses vw because it's a heck of lot cheaper than autocad, archicad or revit
unfortunately, like most architects (in the UK at least) he sees it as an electronic drawing board. what a waste. computers can do so much more given the chance