Layer combination ordering in AC26 vs AC27

[rm]

I am creating a new AC27 template, using my AC26 template as a starting point. 

In the Layer Combinations, up to AC26, when adding a layer combination, you could add a "prefix" number to have your combinations show up in the order you wanted them to show up in the list. See the attached sample of my AC26 Layer Combinations.

However in AC27, when creating a new layer combination, no matter what numeric "prefix" I add to the name of the Layer Combination, the new combination gets moved way down the list, with no ability to order it or group it with other Layer Combinations.

Is this a new "Feature" of AC27 Layer Combinations? I hope I am just missing how to get the same type of results in ordering Layer Combinations in AC27 as was available in previous versions.

Any help or suggestions appreciated.

---

Operating system used: Mac Apple Silicon 14.2.1

 

[Xandros]

The difference in v26 and v27 is, that in 26 there was new dialog popping up. After naming your layer combination it was put in the right place (alphabetically sorted).

In 27 this new dialog is skipped and the new unnamed layer combination appears in the end of the list until it's named. Afterwards it'll be sorted the same way it did before. I just tried it in 27.2.0 Preview Version (Build 5001)

[Barry Kelly]

---

@Xandros wrote:

Afterwards it'll be sorted the same way it did before. I just tried it in 27.2.0 Preview Version (Build 5001)

---

No, the ordering is definitely different in 27.

And I just install build 5003 and that made no difference.

I guess it is going to be a case of re-naming the combinations.

Which is fine for my template and moving forward with new jobs.

But a pain when I open old files.

Barry.

[rm]

Barry -

If you looked at my upload, I use numbering concept somewhat like yours for layer combinations.  I agree going back to older files, it will get messy and ultimately time consuming.

I never understand why software companies insist on making "improvements" that don't improve anything, and usually break previous workflows. This is a perfect example of that type of decision. Absolutely maddening.

[Barry Kelly]

Technically now it is correct - but yes it is annoying when things like this change.

1, 2, 3, 4 should all come before 100.

It should not be 1, 100, 2, 200, 3 as it was before.

If we want it correct now we need to use 001, 002, 003, ..., 100, 101, 102, ..., 200, 201

Actually that changes nothing as 001, 002, 003, still comes before 100.

In my case, I need to change the 1 to 100, 2 to 200, etc.

So really, it is not broken now, it was actually broken before, and has now been fixed.

Barry.

[rm]

While you think it was  broken, I believe It worked perfectly fine up to AC26 and had been working fine for at least 10 years. 

The fact is, they changed the numbering ordering, which was my original point. If this new numbering works well for your process, great for you. But I'm guessing this is causing a lot of firms to redo their numbering system, at the cost of time. 

From my perspective, the change improved nothing significant.

[Barry Kelly]

I don't think it was broken, I know it was broken.

I just didn't realise at the time, and worked with what we had - assuming that was just the way it worked.

Looking back at it now, it makes absolutely no sense to have a list that goes 1, 100, 101, 2, 201, 202, 3, 301,....

I wish it hadn't changed because it is going to be an inconvenience now moving forward.

So long as this order is consistent in all lists (including schedules - which I just checked and it is the same), then I think it is a good thing, and will adjust my template and carry on.

Fortunately for me, it will not be hard to manually adjust the few layer combination names that need to be fixed, or I can set up an attribute file that I can import to change the names.

Barry.

[rm]

You believe it was "broken" because of how you set up your previous numbering system. If you look at how my numbering was, it worked fine for my practice, no issues at all! Despite your strong opinion on the matter, I doubt GS had it set up the way they did for as long as they did thinking they were wrong. Some of us figured out how to use it properly for our use.

But the current change in AC27 is requiring a massive time suck to change in my practice and I suspect for many others. You have made it clear you prefer the new number system. 

[Barry Kelly]

OK, so now I am a bit confused.

The image you attached to your original post is for version 26?

What is different now in 27?

I replicated your layers and got exactly the same result - except you can no longer start a name with a space.

When I add a new combination following your naming procedure, it slots in exactly where I would expect it.

Can you post another image of the problem please?

Ideally, paste the image directly in the reply rather than attaching in the box below the reply.

Then the image will show directly in the post.

Barry.

[rm]

I understand why it is working for you from a NEW AC27 file. But, I took my AC26 template and imported it into AC27.  Unfortunately, every time I created a new layer combination matching the same numbering convention I previously used,  the new numbers would be inserted at the bottom of the list instead of where it should be numerically. And as you noticed, you can't have a space in-front of the numbering anymore. Again, that created more issues for our current numbering system. Now we have adapted a new numbering system that works with AC27.

I imported my AC26 file into AC27 instead of starting from scratch because there was just too much to redo, especially given how busy my workload is right now.

I appreciate you trying to help figure this out. But I have already started renumbering our layer combinations. 

My gut feeling is the reason this all popped up is because I imported an AC26 file into AC27. My hope is when AC28 gets released, the numbering system remains the same.

As a side note, life would be so much easier for all of us if we went back to a longer update interval. But then they couldn't justify subscriptions to the software.

Thanks again!