Hi Stuart
Yes, everything has an extension. All the better for spotting layer pollution.
We use layout layers for all drawings, amendments, titleblock info and unfortunately some rare masking. I've set up titleblocks for past clients that show different logos and indeed completely different titleblock arrangements and styles using different layer combos. Eg. going from a 'budget look' to a 'premium look'. Just switch the layer combo before printing and voila, you have a smarter and more comprehensive set of documents. Sky's the limit, and I did discuss with GS saving layout views, but it would be too complex.
As for your Z-prefix + demo/extg extension, personally I like to see all the Existing items in one group and the Demolition items in another group. It's intuitive too especially for multiple users. (I actually have a rather complex intersection priority matrix I use to group similar building elements together, but that's another level on top of this one).
One of the real 'life-simplifying' tips (for lack of a better term) in using layers is hitting or holding down the key of the first letter of the layer to race to that part of the layer list. I like to hit E - to get to Existing and D to get to Demo.
IME it's also easy to manage and more consistent for the user if these layers are in the file at all times (as you've done), but another method is to save existing & demo layer combos, and all their layers, set with visibility, IPNs, locking, etc. Then save an aat file of them (both layers & combos in the same file) and delete them from your template. Then whenever you need them, first load (overwrite) the layers, then load (overwrite) the layer combos back into the current file and whooshka, they're there. Of course this takes plenty of consideration and is not without flaws, (eg. you should set your layer IDs for those layers to start at say 500 so as not to overwrite exisitng layers, but then any new layers will assume numbers higher than those, if they are indeed the highest, and merged layers will fill the holes).
It's similar to what you're doing now, but instead of being at the bottom of the list, they are simply not there at all. Having said all that, I eliminated this practice here, mainly because everything is pre-linked but also because I have a 'holeless' attribute ID structure to help manage attributes over multiple hotlinked linked files. but it could work for some people and/or simple projects.
So back to the original topic, why use extensions to do what good naming is meant to do? Maybe we're just over-thinking it all? It's probably why I decided to use them for non-display related purposes.
Cheers,
Link.
Yes, everything has an extension. All the better for spotting layer pollution.
We use layout layers for all drawings, amendments, titleblock info and unfortunately some rare masking. I've set up titleblocks for past clients that show different logos and indeed completely different titleblock arrangements and styles using different layer combos. Eg. going from a 'budget look' to a 'premium look'. Just switch the layer combo before printing and voila, you have a smarter and more comprehensive set of documents. Sky's the limit, and I did discuss with GS saving layout views, but it would be too complex.
As for your Z-prefix + demo/extg extension, personally I like to see all the Existing items in one group and the Demolition items in another group. It's intuitive too especially for multiple users. (I actually have a rather complex intersection priority matrix I use to group similar building elements together, but that's another level on top of this one).
One of the real 'life-simplifying' tips (for lack of a better term) in using layers is hitting or holding down the key of the first letter of the layer to race to that part of the layer list. I like to hit E - to get to Existing and D to get to Demo.
IME it's also easy to manage and more consistent for the user if these layers are in the file at all times (as you've done), but another method is to save existing & demo layer combos, and all their layers, set with visibility, IPNs, locking, etc. Then save an aat file of them (both layers & combos in the same file) and delete them from your template. Then whenever you need them, first load (overwrite) the layers, then load (overwrite) the layer combos back into the current file and whooshka, they're there. Of course this takes plenty of consideration and is not without flaws, (eg. you should set your layer IDs for those layers to start at say 500 so as not to overwrite exisitng layers, but then any new layers will assume numbers higher than those, if they are indeed the highest, and merged layers will fill the holes).
It's similar to what you're doing now, but instead of being at the bottom of the list, they are simply not there at all. Having said all that, I eliminated this practice here, mainly because everything is pre-linked but also because I have a 'holeless' attribute ID structure to help manage attributes over multiple hotlinked linked files. but it could work for some people and/or simple projects.
So back to the original topic, why use extensions to do what good naming is meant to do? Maybe we're just over-thinking it all? It's probably why I decided to use them for non-display related purposes.
Cheers,
Link.
Hey Stuart
I'm not criticizing your method at all, just shedding light on various methods.
Usually Masters are enough to switch the titleboick info. The method I mentioned is actually designed for stock plans. Layer combo 1 was the budget set with drawings arranged differently on a particular style of master and layer combo 2 was for the premium set with different drawings (that were also on their own specific layers) arranged differently using another style of master. The client wanted to switch between the two with the click of a button and we achieved that. And since layer combos were specific for the layout book, switching them never interfered with the model. It may have limited use for custom house plans, but the possibilities to imagine something from the same idea is there!
So, what about if you don't want those things for a certain printout?
It is a valid question, and it's not just visibility that is my concern it's 'reservability'. When a project is teamworked amongst 10 people, one of them may want to reserve all the amendment notes (by layer) and another one the logos. We may not have that many layout book layers now, but who knows what might happen in the future, so I wanted to set the methodologies right from the start.
I doub there's a right or wrong answer, and like pensets, they work best when they work for you. It is good to hear and see different approaches though. Do you often sort by extension?
Cheers,
Link.
I'm not criticizing your method at all, just shedding light on various methods.
Usually Masters are enough to switch the titleboick info. The method I mentioned is actually designed for stock plans. Layer combo 1 was the budget set with drawings arranged differently on a particular style of master and layer combo 2 was for the premium set with different drawings (that were also on their own specific layers) arranged differently using another style of master. The client wanted to switch between the two with the click of a button and we achieved that. And since layer combos were specific for the layout book, switching them never interfered with the model. It may have limited use for custom house plans, but the possibilities to imagine something from the same idea is there!
So, what about if you don't want those things for a certain printout?
It is a valid question, and it's not just visibility that is my concern it's 'reservability'. When a project is teamworked amongst 10 people, one of them may want to reserve all the amendment notes (by layer) and another one the logos. We may not have that many layout book layers now, but who knows what might happen in the future, so I wanted to set the methodologies right from the start.
I doub there's a right or wrong answer, and like pensets, they work best when they work for you. It is good to hear and see different approaches though. Do you often sort by extension?
Cheers,
Link.
Link wrote:Not seen as criticism, all good advice (which is why I asked the question).
Hey Stuart
I'm not criticizing your method at all, just shedding light on various methods.
.....
I doub there's a right or wrong answer, and like pensets, they work best when they work for you. It is good to hear and see different approaches though. Do you often sort by extension?
Cheers,
Link.
And as we all know, with Archicad there are many ways to skin a cat. Meow.
I don't sort by extension very often, partly because our current template does not use them, which is why I was trying to come up with another method. In these tough times we seem to be doing more renovation work than new builds, so it becomes more relevant. I've only done a couple of projects with EXTG, DEMO and PROP extensions, and it has worked reasonably well, so wanted to incorporate into our template in a one-size-fits-all scenario (hoping its easier to maintain than different templates). But still a work in progress.
@ Barry - the Z just keeps them out of the way at the bottom of the list when you don't want them, such as when changing layer in the tool itself or the Edit Selection Set layer drop-down, when not sorted by extension.
Link wrote:Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make to Barry, not very clearly.
Hey Stuart
Just keep in mind that you can only sort and filter by extension in the Layer Settings dialog box, nowhere else. Hence my initial comment about extensions not being a replacement for good layer naming conventions.
Cheers,
Link.
Monday morning, pre-coffee.
Do layers sometimes automatically give themselves extensions? I've got a bunch of layers with the "3D" or "mark" extension after them, and nobody is "fessing up" to giving them that extension... 
Didn't find the answer?
Check other topics in this Forum
Back to ForumRead the latest accepted solutions!
Accepted SolutionsStart a new conversation!
