topic linking library vs linking folder in Libraries & objects

linking library vs linking folder

Anonymous — Mon, 03 Oct 2016 16:09:29 GMT

Hi

WE are constantly using new material textures (.jpgs) and i recently realised that it makes the files lighter if the textures are a linked library rather than in the embedded one.
Since we keep adding more and more textures it would be more easier to have a linked texture folder rather than having this folder in the library file (.lcf).

Is there any problem of linking a folder instead of a .lcf file? those the file and its use became slower?

thanks in advance

Luis

Re: linking library vs linking folder

Eduardo Rolon — Mon, 03 Oct 2016 17:05:02 GMT

None. Been doing it like that since AC08. You don;t need to have it as a LCF.

Re: linking library vs linking folder

Barry Kelly — Tue, 04 Oct 2016 01:21:03 GMT

I think an LCF (Library Container File) will load slightly faster but unless you have massive libraries I don't think you will notice a difference.
LCFs are fine if your library is not changing but if you are making updates it is a pain to extract, update and then re-create the LCF.

External folders are much better than the embedded library when you are making changes as well.
Any file (PLN) can link to the library folder (on a local hard drive or a network drive) and when you make a change to the library just re-load it in Archicad.
With embedded libraries you will have to update each individual job separately.

Barry.