topic Re: Layers in Project data & BIM

Layers

Anonymous — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:36:56 GMT

We are having some debate in our office as to the level of complexity of our layering system (the number of layers). We are quite a large practice and multi disciplinary and so our layering system has increased to over two hundred layers. Is this unnecessary? Should we simplify and how?
Thanks in advance.
DF

Re: Layers

TomWaltz — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:56:32 GMT

We're 450 people with architecture, MEP, structure, and civil and have only about 100 layers.

Re: Layers

Link — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:02:31 GMT

Likewise. I don't think I've ever created a template with more than 100 layers.

Cheers,
Link.

Re: Layers

Anonymous — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:09:57 GMT

Try searching the forum. This was discussed at length a little while ago, with many and varied suggestions.

Re: Layers

Thomas Holm — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:39:19 GMT

TomWaltz wrote:
We're 450 people with architecture, MEP, structure, and civil and have only about 100 layers.

We're 5. So 1 layer should be enough for us

Re: Layers

Ignacio Azpiazu — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:55:55 GMT

Thomas wrote:
We're 5. So 1 layer should be enough for us

There once was an otherwise very nice guy who was working on a pretty large project that had a deadline, and I was called to help near the end with 'the model'. He gave me a file for me to work on, and sort of apologetically explained that because of the rush he was not caring about layers, he was 'just' putting everything in the ArchiCAD layer, which in his mind simplified and expedited things (btw, he was working from a pretty solid template file that had all possible views predefined etc.).
- But how do you do then with your RCPs, finish plans, equipment plans…?
- That's easy! I just copy everything, paste it on some other story, and draw my RCP in that story!

Re: Layers

Anonymous — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 03:31:53 GMT

Ignacio

I think you need a disclaimer on your message saying "This is not recommended practice" before someone thinks "hey, what a great idea "

Re: Layers

Dwight — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:34:55 GMT

It also simplifies work to use the same pen weight and color for everything.

Re: Layers

__archiben — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:59:50 GMT

s2art wrote:
I think you need a disclaimer on your message saying "This is not recommended practice" before someone thinks "hey, what a great idea "

i think it's already waaaay too late for that in some places . . . !

~/archiben

Re: Layers

Thomas Holm — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:37:16 GMT

s2art wrote:
I think you need a disclaimer on your message saying "This is not recommended practice"... "

I think I'll add that to my signature... eh... Link???

Re: Layers

Link — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:58:42 GMT

Thomas wrote:
s2art wrote:
eh... Link???

Ummmmmmmm..... sure.

Re: Layers

Anonymous — Sun, 11 May 2008 14:27:26 GMT

"this is not recommended..."
I think it's a great idea. I just figured out how to make the background the same color as all my pens. I like handing this one to my co-workers and then taking a coffee break. Now if I simply can figure out how to adjust the pens to ALWAYS match the background.... Then when they try and adjust things to make for a sane project.... (I'm kidding I'm kidding!)

LOL!

there is a lot of flexibility in layers. I like that about ArchiCAD. However, I miss the logical structure or simplicity of AutoCAD when working with layers in AC. I'm searching the forums on that one (customizing the layers structure templates to match AutoCAD's in appearances- like always the same color by default-etc)....

Here from what I've seen it is common for some people to add extra stories in rather than extra layers. However, it makes projects difficult if anything is to be shared, yeah?

200 layers is a lot. I'd love to see the project. There might be a better way... I can't imagine, as someone who built buildings for 20 years, that you'd ever need more than about 80-120 layers maybe even on the most complex real-world buildings if the layers were arranged correctly.

The more I work with AC, the more I think that the layers can be reduced simply with some smaller more hidden functions of the layering properties.

If you feel like sharing, or can, give us access to take a look at these 200 layers, just for the heck of it?

Re: Layers

Thomas Holm — Sun, 11 May 2008 21:21:04 GMT

JP-Design wrote:
I miss the logical structure or simplicity of AutoCAD when working with layers

You ever heard of BYLAYER, by any chance?
Please don't spread misinformation like this. The main, first, and most often only reason for the number of layers multiplying is Xrefed or Merged or imported and Hotlinked DWG files from Autocad. Very often from someone still using the ancient Bylayer standard, which forces you to split items and add new layers as soon as you want a different color or pen weight. Even though it isn't a requirement from the software anymore, many applications still require it.
simplicity? B*S !

Re: Layers

TomWaltz — Sun, 11 May 2008 21:43:44 GMT

Wow, I've never heard anyone call Autocad's layers "simple" before. I've never seen a worse case of taking a critical feature (turning elements on and off in drawings) and associate with with more un-related functions (color, pen weight, and line type)

Re: Layers

Anonymous — Sun, 11 May 2008 21:56:35 GMT

Yeah, you're right. It wasn't intended at all.
I often approach the design more from a visual reference- AutoCAD simply is easier to see the layers situation than AC, even with shortcuts and a toolbar. I don't know why, but simply it is for me. Personal habit? the visual CUE of the AutoCAD layering system means that us color-coded left-brained (hair brained?) artist-types can see and find things before we can even READ the WORDS on them.

So there is a way to do this in the layers selection in AC too then I take it???

If AC does this I haven't learned how to do it, though the layer DESIGN is far more sophisticated and comprehensive and logical for storing, working, manipulating and editing the information and what is shown and when and to whom, etc.

(One thing I'm having a hard time figuring out is using AC for.... Hmmm... more than a few variants of the same plan IN the same plan. Even with layers and things like walls at different priorities... I'm still too new to solve it in the best way, but so far it seems easier to simply make complete different variants of the same model if things interact too much, and hot link them to each other as is needed with layer combos. Since the projects are rather small this works for me for now, in my ignorance. For now. But this is a question for another thread and part of the forum, yeah?!!!
LOL!)

I think we AutoCAD users get used to our habits, like all things- BUT I am a total convert so not knocking AC at ALL!!!
AC is structured initially in a way that seems a lot more complicated when one is first introduced to it. I'm starting to realize though that it makes WAY more sense and is a LOT easier to organize the data once you understand HOW the layering system works in AC. I'm only beginning to learn, obviously. It's a bit like Linux vs, Macs though- so many options initially that it can be hard to figure out what is essential- I think I am missing something like a "settings pack" for a general use. That might be something really cool for AC users- to DL basic formats and settings use (like for those AutoCAD ex-users to convert easier, ya know?)...

I miss the simple color visual representation and some minor things from AutoCAD. Probably it's just habit and being new at AC and not knowing how to set up the same VISUAL working method for my layers yet- (pens!- yeah!).

So far I'd choose AC over anything else- it's all I'm using now unless I have to revert to AutoCAD for something minor.

Re: Layers

Anonymous — Sun, 11 May 2008 22:33:45 GMT

TomWaltz wrote:
Wow, I've never heard anyone call Autocad's layers "simple" before. I've never seen a worse case of taking a critical feature (turning elements on and off in drawings) and associate with with more un-related functions (color, pen weight, and line type)

I think it's simple. Simple logic.

However, the attached issues (line/pens. etc) was a real pain.
AC has fixed this, but at the sake of a visual cue.

The mind works first in shapes and forms, then colors. We humans can pick up a visual cue far quicker than a word or text. So autoCAD nailed it when they designed in the drop down layer manager, a visual then color reference.

AC hasn't matched that yet, but perhaps we can set up the program in a similar way with AC's wonderful more working-sense way of NOT associating all these possibly unrelated in practical applications of additional info in the layers themselves.

AC's layers are far more sophisticated, that is absolultely without question.

Re: Layers

TomWaltz — Mon, 12 May 2008 11:06:34 GMT

JP-Design wrote:
AC's layers are far more sophisticated, that is absolultely without question.

No, it's really not. It's one thing to say you find them more difficult to understand, which is fine. Saying it's "without question" is just absurd.

Archicad layers only turn things on and off. How is that sophisticated?

Re: Layers

David Pacifico — Mon, 12 May 2008 14:09:21 GMT

Archicad layers only turn things on and off.

Also Lock or unlock, Wire Frame or Solid, Intersection Priority.
Yes mostly for on and off.

Re: Layers

Anonymous — Mon, 12 May 2008 15:27:50 GMT

How about this, as a fairly new AC user, coming like MOST AC users, from a professional working atmosphere, and hence as a FUTURE SUPPORTER of AC, or not, simply this.

when I first tried out AC, the layers simply put, sucked. 100% sucked. They were a freaking pain to set up, use and understand. Everything was in black, everything wsas burried in sub-menus and nothing was intuitively laid out for someone coming in without specialized training.

Now I honestly don't give a *** what and who needs an explanation for that opinion. Everyone in our Seattle office thought the same, which is why it took us until version 11 to really get serious and get trained.

Personally, from a builders perspective, as someone who actually BUILT buildings for over 25 years, I thought AC's layers initially really were poorly designed for the visual designer and intuitive builder. They were cumbersome, and worked opposite the logic OF someone who might actually be BUilDING buildings in the real world, vs. on paper or in a virtual environment.

I've since reversed my opinion, but only because I got some training on the layers. Maybe that is the best that the AC programmers can do, maybe not, but that's up to them to figure out. Sure AutoCAD has it's issues, and finicking nitpicking aside of language and judgemental stickling about symantics and particular language use, SIMPLY PUT to a untrained person, which will be MOST OF THE NEW USERS and POSSIBLE CLIENTS for AC, the layering system in AC doesn't LOOK like it works very well. Not when one has used AutoCAD, which is what MOST PEOPLE get trained on in the local colleges.

It would behoove the designers to really look at the visualization of the layer system in AC. I think it's sophisticated as a PRGRAMMER because to IMPLEMENT these features in their cross-references of so many variables is a nightmare, which is why I now understand why the layering system has a steeper learning curve than AutoCAD's.

If AC isn't doing as good as it could, it might be because new users like me are not listened to enough about our opinions and first impressions when coming to the software. Thinking I am misrepresenting something or otherwise here to create a stir is what is absurd!

I love the software now, but I didn't initially.
I am not alone in this view, which is why AC isn't doing better commercially than AutoCAD. And this isn't arbitrary; when AC is taught in the major colleges to drafters and architecture students, that's when AC won't need to listen to new users and can sit around puff up their chins and say "paugh! how dare you spout an opinion! We're in the know and we're admins and we're educated about this!"

That is why firms like Microsoft are loosing out to freeware made by beginner nerds- the nerds listened to each other, even about the most absured and rediculous things in a supportive way.

AC layers need visual help. Period. I've yet to hear from anyone otherwise on either side of the globe, except in these AC -related forums.

go figure.

So listen up admins, to new users, about their impressions of AC- regardless of how silly, absurd or rediculous it seems. The future of your company might depend on it. We all have first impressions and everyone I worked with in the field REFUSED to even TRY out AC and still resists it even when I tell them how cool and easy it is.

Re: Layers

Anonymous — Mon, 12 May 2008 17:55:45 GMT

JP,

Firstly, I'm glad you have seen the light!

I personally think the layering system is pretty good as it is. In what way would you want it easier to understand? I'm not sure how you can simplify the concept of putting different building elements on their appropriate layer i.e. external walls go on the 'Walls-External' layer or a piece of trim that you don't want to appear on plan goes on the 'Trim-3D only' layer. Each view then has a different layer combination which turns on only the needed layers that should be seen.

I would have said this is a fairly idiot-proof way of doing it.

Also having the layers completely disassociated from the colour and the pen thickness makes far more sense when one element can appear in any number of different views and projections.

SIMPLY PUT to a untrained person, which will be MOST OF THE NEW USERS and POSSIBLE CLIENTS for AC, the layering system in AC doesn't LOOK like it works very well. Not when one has used AutoCAD, which is what MOST PEOPLE get trained on in the local colleges.

Have you ever put an untrained person in front of AutoCAD? As you say with ArchiCAD, of course they will struggle. No software can be used to its fullest extent without some external help. It's the same with anything complex, you don't expect a child who has thrown a paper plane to be able to fly a jumbo jet?! I suspect with a little training they would pick it up scarily quickly though!

Anyway, why are colleges still only teaching AutoCAD, 2d is dead, baby, get over it! 3d is clearly the future, they should get on board now, or be left behind!