Layer intersection numbers

[Steve Jepson]

from another conversation about this...

I find it very frustrating that you have to create a Layer Combo in order to save the way you have changed the layer intersection numbers.

You change the numbers (presumably) in order to clean up some graphic anomaly in the 3D Window. There may not be any problem at all in the 2D View maps, Floor Plans, Sections, ect... only in the 3D Window.

And there is no specific Layer Combo or View map to save them in.

This is not like using Junction Order, Display Order, Material Priority, ect...that you need to adjust for some specific View that is controlled with a Layer Combo.

Layer Combos should control only which layers will be in the view, not how the layers in that View are intersecting.

The reason not to have the intersections controlled with Layer Combos is because what your changing should not be restricted to just one View. It is something that should be universal and not automatically revert to a default. There is no reason to do that. ( that I know of that is )

What else are the layer intersect numbers good for that you would not want to be very where the same ?

Perhaps with BMP's ?

[Barry Kelly]

Here is an example for you Steve.

Walls will interact with other walls in different layers (when the priority numbers are the same) whether the layers are on or off (not sure exactly why they interact still when the layer is off but they do).

I stack walls one on top of the other to make the type of wall I want (i.e. thickness and sometimes even materials of the wall change at different heights) - (I know I could be using complex profiles but I am not).

In plan I will only want to see one wall - not all of them stacked on top of each other (I could place them on other storeys but I am not doing so) - so I turn layers off.
However in elevation (3D) I want to see all the walls so I turn all layers on.
Using layer combinations of course.

In plan I don't want the walls to interact with each other to avoid gaps and funny trims in the walls I can see - so I give the layers different priority numbers and save that in the layer combination.
In elevation I do want them to interact with each other so I see a 'true' interactive 3D view - so I give the layers all the same priority number and save that as a layer combination.

Should I happen to be looking at the model in 3D or in another view I can change the layer priority number if I want to but I wouldn't want that to affect my plan or elevations - which it won't if I don't update their layer combinations.
If I simply change a layer priority then I will now have a 'Custom' layer combination.

If I now use a view to open the plan or elevation the relevant layer combination kicks in and resets the layer priority numbers to suit.
If I go back to the 3D view it will have changed because I didn't save the priority numbers in a layer combination - that was 'Custom' and so won't stay fixed to any particular settings.

I wouldn't want any interaction changes I make in 3D to affect any of my other views as they may need their own specific settings.
If the 3D view was important to me and I needed it for documentation then I would make sure it is saved with the appropriate settings so will always stay as I want it.
If I am just viewing the 3D to see the model I will generally use an appropriate layer combination so I see the model as I want it - even if it is simply ' all layers on'.

I hope my explanation is clear enough and not too confusing.
I know what I mean at least!
Barry.

[Steve Jepson]

It is a difficult thing to put in words because there are so many related issues and functions that share similar terms. Also there is the distinction of how this relates to 3D vs 2D views.
I am familiar enough with the program to achieve any visual result I want.
And I know how to use the layer intersect numbers to assist me in doing that.

One solution is to save a 3D View and assign a Layer Combination to it that has the layer intersect numbers you need for correct 3D display.

But this is not satisfactory to me because anytime you decide to view the model you must enter the 3D Window via that saved 3D View, otherwise the layer intersect numbers are not the same.

That is my specific complaint about layer intersect numbers. In order to preserve them, you have to save them in a Layer Combo and this is not compatible with the reality of viewing the model in thousands of different ways over the course of the project.

However, by creating a 3D View with a Layer Combo which is independent of the 2D views ( which is what I am forced to do) it does allow me to manipulate the layer intersect numbers in other View Combos to achieve the display I need for those Views.
I do not think it is ok to have to make a special 3D View and Layer Combo for every 3D View I want. If the layer intersect numbers work in one 3D View they should work in every 3D View.

As it is, there are essentially (2) ways the layer combinations can be used.

#1 - correcting 3D anomalies that should not be there in the first place and are the kind of thing you would always want to be correctly displayed in any possible 3D view.

#2- correcting a wider range of display issues with 2D Views. These, in combination with Display Order, Skin Priorities, Layer Combos, Model View Options, etc... can be configured to just about any possible view that is needed.

The problem, as I see it, is that these should not both be controlled by the same thing.

Perhaps a solution would be to have a setting that would apply the current layer intersect numbers to all 3D views, or to all 2D views, or to all Sections, or to all Floor Plans, or to all Layer Combos... or something like that, rather than to only one Layer Combo.

[Steve Jepson]

Barry wrote:
...
I hope my explanation is clear enough and not too confusing.
I know what I mean at least!
Barry.

I know exactly what you mean. I am doing the same things. But this is a matter of compensation for things that shouldn't be necessary.

The reason they are necessary is what I find frustrating.

The same thing is true of Floor Plan views and Section Views of the same wall. Yes, we can use all kinds of things to get the view we want but the essential problem is that two kinds of views are being controlled by one setting, and this is what generates the need for so many compensations.

Not that the compensations are not useful for unique situations, and I am glad to have them, but why not just add settings in the Floor Plan and Section dialog box that are for Floor Plan AND Section? As it is, the menu says Floor Plan and Section, but the settings are actually only for the Floor Plan. If there was a menu for how you want it to look in Floor Plan and also a menu for how you want it to look in Section, all in that same place, it would eliminate a good deal of the compensations that are necessary to make it look like you need it. This sort of thing never seems to be on the agenda for new versions. Instead, it seems to always be about how to invent another compensation. This may not be the case, but it does seem that way to me.

Which would be easier? To add some settings for how a wall will look in Section, or to compensate for it with several other tools because there is only one place to control two different kinds of views? It depends on what the difference in the display you need is. But it can be very time consuming even for expert users to achieve exactly the display they need for one wall in several kings of views.

What I appreciate about ArchiCAD is that some solution is always possible. What I do not appreciate is how much time it may take to produce that solution.

[Steve Jepson]

Barry wrote:
...
I hope my explanation is clear enough and not too confusing.
I know what I mean at least!
Barry.

I know exactly what you mean. I am doing the same things. But this is a matter of compensation for things that shouldn't be necessary.

The reason they are necessary is what I find frustrating.

The same thing is true of Floor Plan and Section views of the same wall. Yes, we can use all kinds of things to get the view we want but the essential problem is that two kinds of views are being controlled by one set of configurations, and this is what generates the need for so many compensations.

It's not that the compensations are not useful for unique situations, and I am glad to have them, but why not just add settings for how it will look in Section there as well?

What I appreciate about ArchiCAD is that some solution is always possible. What I do not always appreciate is how much time it may take to produce that solution.

[Scott Bulmer]

Hey All, I believe this is related to this topic:
I have set the layer intersection group number for a layer so that elements on that layer would not interact with other layers of different intersection values. In the attached image one layer is set to wireframe with a different intersection value, however the layers are still interacting. I can delete or move the interfering elements but prefer to keep them. Shouldn't this work as described?
Thank you, Scott

[Barry Kelly]

Rather than layer intersection priority this could be a Building Material strength problem.
What happens if you set your wire frame roof to have a weaker BM?

Barry.

[Scott Bulmer]

Hi Barry, currently the building materials are identical on identical roofs, with one roof on a wireframe layer set to priority 100 and the other roof on a separate and solid layer with a priority of 1. I had hoped that layer setting would prevent an interaction, but clearly it does not. Your suggestion most certainly should work, just another step I was hoping to avoid. Thank you, Scott