topic Re: Exploding dwgs changes the layers existing things ar eon in Project data & BIM

Exploding dwgs changes the layers existing things ar eon

Anonymous — Tue, 30 May 2023 10:52:55 GMT

Has anyone noticed that when you explode a dwg in a file, in my case on a work sheet, it chnage sthe layers things that are all ready in the file are on. Mine all changed to random layers that came in with the exploded dwg. This is really awful. it is going to take m for ever to fix.

Re: Exploding dwgs changes the layers existing things ar eon

Anonymous — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 15:55:36 GMT

You know what it did- it didn't move things to different Layers, it just changed the names of the layers I allready had to the names of the layers that were in the DWG.

What do you guys think about that?

Re: Exploding dwgs changes the layers existing things ar eon

Karl Ottenstein — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:37:54 GMT

Jesikuh123 wrote:
You know what it did- it didn't move things to different Layers, it just changed the names of the layers I allready had to the names of the layers that were in the DWG.

What do you guys think about that?

In principal, this should be impossible, since layers are stored by index number and the dwg would have come in (prior to exploding) with index numbers completely independent of the ones already in use.

I assume the dwg was xref'd before exploding?

Is this reproducible? Which version? Sounds like something to send in to GS...

Karl

Re: Exploding dwgs changes the layers existing things ar eon

Anonymous — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:42:34 GMT

Well I don't know if it's an Xref- I made a new Worksheet and dragged and dropped the dwg on to it.

Copied it, and exploded the copied one with keep drawing primitives option selected.

YEs I understand what your saying about the index numbers which is why i find this hard to believe too.

I am using Version 12 of Archicad, and I dont knwo what the DWG is.

I will try it again in a new file and see what happens.

Re: Exploding dwgs changes the layers existing things ar eon

Anonymous — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:49:59 GMT

So- I tried it again, and yes it did it again. . . .

Re: Exploding dwgs changes the layers existing things ar eon

Anonymous — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:03:45 GMT

HEY! It even m oved my ARCHICAD LAYER down to like 30 . . .

Re: Exploding dwgs changes the layers existing things ar eon

Anonymous — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 19:47:20 GMT

I bet it screws up the linetypes also by overwriting ones that have the same name as the ones in Autocad, ie DASHED, DOTTED etc.

Does it help if you explode the drawing in a new blank file, change everything to the 'ArchiCAD layer', purging/deleting the rest, then copy/pasting it into the project file?

Re: Exploding dwgs changes the layers existing things ar eon

Anonymous — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:08:02 GMT

Yes, Peter I can do that- however my project is allready completely screwed.

I didn't notice what had happened until after i had done a whole days worth of work to it, just not checking my layers cause I hadn't had to.

I guess maybe still worth doing the days work over again if I archived, than trying to sort this mess out.

Do you think this thing is a bug? or that I did something wrong? Has anyone else tried it?

Re: Exploding dwgs changes the layers existing things ar eon

Anonymous — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:48:04 GMT

I am blown away by the ArchiCAD Layer moving. I dont understand.

Re: Exploding dwgs changes the layers existing things ar eon

Barbara Sommer — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:49:06 GMT

We have started investigating this issue. It is reproducible unfortunately, but only with dwg files. With dxf we were not able to replicate the problem and therefore suggest to try to use it for now as a workaround. We can assure all users that this is being taken very seriously and will be solved as fast as possible.
If the overwriting already happened it is possible to get back your attributes via the attribute manager by simply opening a back-up file and overwriting the existing attributes with the original set.
Sorry for the inconvenience!

Re: Exploding dwgs changes the layers existing things ar eon

vfrontiers — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:00:54 GMT

Only VERY loosely related...

I have been trying to export a DWG from a layout and CANNOT get PEN COLORS to translate! This must be a simple thing, but can't do it.

I've changed translator setup 4 or 5 times, changed the drawing from B/W to colors defined by pens, changed pen sets, but the only way I can export with color is to export from the model...

Anyone? Some other checkbox that I'm missing?

Re: Exploding dwgs changes the layers existing things ar eon

matthewjj — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:41:46 GMT

On a similar but different note I am unable to explode a copy of a DWG file xref'd into my file. Any ideas?

Re: Exploding dwgs changes the layers existing things ar eon

Link — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:15:54 GMT

matthewjj wrote:
On a similar but different note I am unable to explode a copy of a DWG file xref'd into my file. Any ideas?

Unlock the layers first?

Cheers,
Link.

Re: Exploding dwgs changes the layers existing things ar eon

Erika Epstein — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:29:58 GMT

I was just about to post a similar anomale. When I exploded l dwg on 3 different computers, (1 mac ppo, 1 mbp wintel, 1 pc) it changed all the text to some kind of Cyrillic language.

All AC11.

Re: Exploding dwgs changes the layers existing things ar eon

matthewjj — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:54:06 GMT

Link wrote:
matthewjj wrote:
On a similar but different note I am unable to explode a copy of a DWG file xref'd into my file. Any ideas?
Unlock the layers first?

Groups were off and layers were unlocked. At the risk of appearing incredibly stupid, is it not possible to explode an xref'd dwg?

Re: Exploding dwgs changes the layers existing things ar eon

Link — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:00:24 GMT

Actually I believe the intended workflow is to open the Xref Manager, select the DWG and Bind it.

Cheers,
Link.

Re: Exploding dwgs changes the layers existing things ar eon

matthewjj — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:51:25 GMT

Link wrote:
Actually I believe the intended workflow is to open the Xref Manager, select the DWG and Bind it.

Cheers,
Link.

I was afraid of that.

My problem is that my contractor is sending me the backgrounds for the building and then I am publishing modules of just the stuff I need for my Site Plans. This works fantastically because when he sends me new backgrounds all I have to do is republish the modules and everything updates.

The problem is that I needed to make a change to the building and send it back to him. So what I wanted to do was simply make a copy of the xref'd dwg, exlode it in a worksheet, make the suggested changes and send it back to him. But I now have more than one instance of that dwg in the same file and one of them is a live hotlink to all the other files in my project. I read that when binding an xref all instances are affected. Since I only wanted to explode the one dwg instance copied to the worksheet for editing I am kind of stuck.

But, after reading your guys' problems, maybe I should be glad it won't explode. I guess I will just open the dwg into a new file so I can edit.

Re: Exploding dwgs changes the layers existing things ar eon

Link — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 05:45:53 GMT

If I follow you, you are making changes to his DWGs and sending it back to him, right?

I won't ask the obvious question, but recommend that you insert the DWG using the Drawing tool and then explode it. This won't affect your Xrefs, but will add all the layers to your project. If that's a concern you could explode it in a separate file and hotlink it in as a module.

Cheers,
Link.

Re: Exploding dwgs changes the layers existing things ar eon

matthewjj — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 05:55:58 GMT

Link wrote:
If I follow you, you are making changes to his DWGs and sending it back to him, right?

Yes. In this instance anyway. I hadn't thought of placing it as a drawing. It was one of those things where I was trying to get something done quickly and it wouldn't work and then I was like "Dude! I swear I have done this a million times, why won't this work!" So I decided to look it up and figure it out when there was totally another way to do it. Just not the way I thought it should do it.

Seriously though, thanks for the input Link. I still think you're wrong about disagreeing with me on the template file thing. 😉