.lcf files

[Anonymous]

Is there an advantage to putting all your frequently used library parts into a container as opposed to just in a folder? Does it load parts faster or save disk space or anything like that?

Thanks,
Rick

[Erika Epstein]

Yes, library container files load faster.

[Anonymous]

Unless there are a lot of them you probably won't notice the difference though.

[rocorona]

And YES, it takes less disk space.

[Ignacio]

Main difference is that with a container file nobody can modify the file structure of the library, add or remove objects, edit the object scripts, or modify the object parameter default values. So some libraries (ArchiCAD typically, third party, office standards only if you are a huge office perhaps) you may want to keep as lcf and some (project library, office standards perhaps) you may want to keep flexible.

[Anonymous]

Ignacio wrote:
Main difference is that with a container file nobody can modify the file structure of the library, add or remove objects, edit the object scripts, or modify the object parameter default values. So some libraries (ArchiCAD typically, third party, office standards only if you are a huge office perhaps) you may want to keep as lcf and some (project library, office standards perhaps) you may want to keep flexible.

Not an issue for me as I'm a one man operation but what's to keep someone from opening the container, modifying what they want then making it into a new container?

[vistasp]

Wrathchild wrote:
Not an issue for me as I'm a one man operation but what's to keep someone from opening the container, modifying what they want then making it into a new container?

Nothing!

However, remember that if you modify the default library, your modifications will be overwritten the next time there's an update from GS. If you want to have your own office library as an lcf, you'd be better off keeping it separate.

I'm head-cook-and-bottle-washer too, BTW & I keep the default library intact and have a folder (loaded automatically by library manager) where I keep my personal objects and regularly-used ones that I've downloaded over time. Project specific objects are stored in that project's folder.

Hope this helps.

[Anonymous]

I agree with Ignacio.

We found LCF:s too stiff for working. It is impossible to edit/move/delete the container file during office hours because the file is locked if someone has it loaded.

Not sure about gaining speed advantage either- we measured and the LCF:s did not have any better results at all (AC11 / OSX10.4 / WIN server).

--
Regards, Juha

[James Murray]

I can't observe any consistent loading-speed advantage to LCF files as opposed to extracted folders. Testing the AC library, loading times vary by up to 40%, with the extracted folders sometimes beating the containers.

An LCF is good for enforcing standards. As for the person who might modify an LCF against policy, that's a people problem, not a tech issue.

An LCF is also good if you have to copy a library with a lot of parts, e.g. to take it off network. Our office library is only 25MB and a Finder-reported 1300 items, but it can take ten minutes to copy to a USB flash device. The LCF takes a couple seconds.

We use the office library in extracted form (so it can be modified, mostly by me, so it's really for my convenience), and keep a current LCF on hand for outside use, re-saving it as needed.

We never mess with the AC library. We would never containerize a project library.

[cremsberg]

So how does one open an .lcf container and then make a new .lcf file container?