How many layers do you use?

[Anonymous]

Hi!

One interesting question I think is, how many layers do you need to make your work easy working with? And too communicate with other contractors.

Here in Sweden we have a standard made with a thought that everyone using AutoCad and because of that we need to use this standard even if it's not made for objectthinking software. And this makes our work more complexed than it has too be, specially when our office has most AutoCad freaks that like to work with this standard and it's hard to explain that I don't want all this unessesary layers.

[KeesW]

Some other layer issues. We tend not to have 'annotation' layers for each drawing type. Instead, we assume that a floor plan will have annotation and put this on the floor plan layer. This was based on the NZ 'Framework' layers approach and made sense to me.

And what about joinery? I see suggested layer layouts with only one 'joinery' layer. Surely, if you are doing sketch plans, you might only want to see the shape of a bench in plan, and not it's opening doors? We therefore have a separate layer for underbench cupboards and another for overhead cupboards that can be rurned of for sketch drawings. I'd be interested tio hear how others handle this.

[Anonymous]

I've started with about 60 layers but find that I've had to add layers here and there as I find circumstances where I need to turn elements on and off. For instance, I found that I wanted to have baseboard and wall panelling on separate layers so I can show only the former on plans.

Has anyone found an efficient way to deal with existing, demo, and new elements? Right now, I have to have a separate layer for each element type (wall-new, wall-existing, trim-new, trim-existing, etc.). Everything that's demoed goes on a single demo layer so at least that's easy. This is workable, but makes for a lot of layers and I've wondered if there is a better way.

[Ignacio Azpiazu]

Chris wrote:
Right now, I have to have a separate layer for each element type (wall-new, wall-existing, trim-new, trim-existing, etc.). Everything that's demoed goes on a single demo layer so at least that's easy. This is workable, but makes for a lot of layers and I've wondered if there is a better way.

I think that is the only way of doing it. Demo, Exst, New layers for construction elements be them modeled or 2D, Demo and New for annotations and dimensions --results in a lot of layers but if your layer combos are right that is not much of a problem, and makes it easy to switch elements to demo and back during the design process.

You can find-select select the walls and windows in demo layers and override the 2D representation to show dotted lines, keeping their 3D settings intact. All through the process you have a model of the existing and the new situations.

[Laura Yanoviak]

Chris wrote:
Has anyone found an efficient way to deal with existing, demo, and new elements? Right now, I have to have a separate layer for each element type (wall-new, wall-existing, trim-new, trim-existing, etc.). Everything that's demoed goes on a single demo layer so at least that's easy. This is workable, but makes for a lot of layers and I've wondered if there is a better way.

This is generally the way to do it; however I don't create a layer for individual existing elements. For instance, if it is to appear on the floor plan, it goes on A-Flor.EXST, if it is to appear on the RCP it goes on A-Clng.EXST, and if is to appear on both it's on A-Wall.EXST.

Also: Don't name anything "new" -- it should be assumed to be new construction unless indicated by EXST or DEMO.

[Anonymous]

Chris wrote:
Has anyone found an efficient way to deal with existing, demo, and new elements?...

I use the mark-up layers... You can choose a color (red/yellow) for the layer, and create model view options to show them in the layouts.

[Anonymous]

For US federal agencies you typically have to submit the final digital documents in AutoCad format with NCS layers. It makes things difficult. Is there anyone else out there that has to do this?

[Steve Jepson]

mc0m wrote:
For US federal agencies you typically have to submit the final digital documents in AutoCad format with NCS layers. It makes things difficult. Is there anyone else out there that has to do this?

Why would that be difficult?

[Anonymous]

Steve wrote:

mc0m wrote:
For US federal agencies you typically have to submit the final digital documents in AutoCad format with NCS layers. It makes things difficult. Is there anyone else out there that has to do this?

Why would that be difficult?

Well, first of all you have to start with their drawings - which already have umpteen thousand layers, i.e., the building is already drawn, so you need to go on a fishing expedition to figure out what is where. So far, I've never received a set of drawings that actually complies with their own standards. (That's another challenge.)

The biggest challenge for me is getting the final documents with all line weights, pen settings, layer settings, paper space, and model space settings to be as they wish.

Are you saying you think this would be easy? If so, could I send you some stuff to translate to Autocad?

[Steve Jepson]

I didn't’ know how to spell facetious.

I have been curious about the new BIM standards too.
http://www.nationalcadstandard.org/pdf/autodesk_ncs_session.pdf

http://www.facilityinformationcouncil.org/bim/publications.php

http://www.csinet.org/s_csi/sec_expand.asp?CID=http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/channelView.do?pageT...

What is the specific CAD Standard you need to use?

NCS version 3.1 or 4.0 ?
GSA ?

What AutoCAD version ?

I would like have a go at a file you need translated in to a perfect AutoCAD® Architecture file configured for NCS version 4.0 or AIA CAD standards file.

[Anonymous]

Aw, geez ... there's a NEW one?

Is there no end to the torture?

For GSA drawings, the standards are here:

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/programView.do?pageTypeId=8195&ooid=12330&programPage=%2Fep%2Fprogr...

See 3.1 Drawing Formats and 3.3 Third Party Software.

They're calling for NCS 2.0.