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.

[Anonymous]

I'm still working out my layer system - at the moment I have about 60 layers - this includes landscape layers, mechanical, some demo and existing, as well as multiple wall layers to separate out core, cladding, sheathing, etc.

Some of those I expect to eliminate as I get out of my autocad mindset and use layers more efficiently. I will probably add layers as well to better accomodate demolition and existing plan needs.

[Anonymous]

There I work before, and there we use our own standard made for ArchiCad, we had about 15-design layers, about 15-3d constructionlayers and maybe 5-2d detail layers. I think we could have less, but we used favorites and a well prepared templatefile (that we updated continuosly as fast as we made some changes in our workflow) so it worked very good.

[__archiben]

TurboGlider wrote:
One interesting question I think is, how many layers do you need to make your work easy working with?

TurboGlider wrote:
... we had about 15-design layers, about 15-3d constructionlayers and maybe 5-2d detail layers. I think we could have less, ...

i don't necessarily think that it is about getting the least number of layers possible. it is more about establishing a system or framework that is scalable and based on something grounded in the construction industry's reality.

i've been pushing for a hierarchical layer system for a while now for this purpose: i set up my layers based on building element classifications. these types of systems are hierarchical and scalable which means that at the massing/sketch/preliminary design end of the work you can use a few basic layers, but as the work progresses those elements can be split down into more specific classes . . .

e.g. the UK's CI/SfB system starts with a few basic classes:

1. substructure
2. primary superstructure
3. secondary superstructure
4. finishes
5. services - mech
6. services - elec
7. fittings
8. external works

drilling down into the '2. primary superstructure' you can find the sub-classes ...

2. primary superstructure
2.1 external walls
2.2 internal walls
2.4 stairs
etc...

it may not be quite perfect . . . but it's a system that is in place and (should be) known by all UK construction professionals.

the screenshot below is based on the NZ masterspec system. take a look at all those wall layers . . . required for various different drawing types and scales. and this is why i would like a hierarchical system: so that i can place more the more detailed wall stuff within a main 'wall' class. i could then turn on the whole wall class in one go or choose the specific details that i want to show.

just one way of looking at it. there are others . . .

HTH
~/archiben

[__archiben]

(ps the excel file is out of date (way out of date!) but may prove food for thought for some . . .)

[Anonymous]

Yup, an hierarchical layersystem would be nice. More and more softwares use this type of layers instead of normal "2d" layers.

My anger about the Swedish standard is that it's build by AutoCad users for AutoCad users that work in an AutoCad 2d way and it's implemented in almost every project. Even if the new standard is better than the old. But still it's based on codes instead of names.
Why draw a wall in A-503B (not exactly that name) instead of Wall - Indoor. ?


So I'm not sure if I will build our new officestandard with the Swedish standard or make an officestandard and then use .dwg translator to rename layers and so on.

So that's why I want to discuss how other have thought about their layerstructure?

[__archiben]

TurboGlider wrote:
My anger about the Swedish standard is that it's build by AutoCad users for AutoCad users that work in an AutoCad 2d way and it's implemented in almost every project. Even if the new standard is better than the old. But still it's based on codes instead of names.

ignore the "swedish standard" layer system in archicad . . . use your translator to map layers when you communicate with consultants. incidentally - how many of your autocad-using consultants actually use the swewdish standard layer system?!

a layer system based on autocad is a layer system based on drawing conventions and as such has no relevance to building modelling. your layer names should reflect the classes of building element, be easy to understand and easy to use, adapt & expand.

find your swedish building element classification and work from that. (normally it is the method by which product literature is organised and not necessarily the your specification organisation - they are sometime two very different things.

~/archiben

[Thomas Holm]

The problem is that the Swedish official standard assumes Autocad. In our office, we don't use this standard at all unless some client forces it upon us (it happens). We prefer a very basic system with layer names in understandable language like Wall-Indoor etc. Most clients finally understand that this is better even for them, but some still don't.

But be aware that using layer mapping at each translation requires care. You usually need one translator for import and another for export, and you need them to be used consistently at all times, by all involved. This is no small task. Sometimes it's better to comply and agree on a common layering system with the consultants in the beginning of a project, because forcing your principles into your work costs too much.

The Swedish importer Lasercad's template is a good start, because it uses both the standard codes and plain-language in all layer names.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I want to use Wall - Indoor in our scenario here, but we are a very small group here in our office that use ArchiCad today, all the rest use AutoCad and their standard. I have a hard work to do here where I work since Januari.
First, make a nice fastworking template that all coworkers could accept, after that show everyone here that ArchiCad is sooo much better than AutoCad in almost all way.
Then again, make a new template optimized for ArchiCad with easy-to-understand names on layers so I don't need to have a book with alot of layercodes.

My experience from my old office where everyone use ArchiCad was that none of our contractors have any problems with our easy-to-understand names on layers, often we got "oh, what a nice layerstructure, could we use layers like this on our models too?"... But here it's the other more restricitive way and ArchiCad is the small software.

[Anonymous]

I have never been able to grasp the idea of working with a lot of layers. Just looking at the list Ben gave makes my head dizzy!

I try to use only the basic layers. Sometimes for specific projects I add some more. For example why should we use separate layers for External and Internal walls? We can draw different walls with different pens and fills and select them with Find&Select.

If there was a folder based layer structure in AC (like in Photoshop) I could use more layers, but at the moment it is too difficult to find the right layer in the list.

Just a tip: I always start the names of my layers with blank. In this way imported layers form Autocad always list after my layers, because Autocad cannot write blank as a first letter! Also names in Cyrillic list after the Latin ones.