2022-07-14 03:02 PM - edited 2022-07-14 03:51 PM
Customer Engagement Expert, Community Admin
2022-07-14 04:48 PM
Wait until you use it. It does not work hierarchally.
2022-07-14 04:52 PM
I've used it in the beta stage. I'm quite happy with it. Perhaps hierarchal was the wrong word. But I can definitely arrange things in a much more ordered way.
2022-07-14 05:08 PM
That is true but it is slower to navigate and manage.
Right now if you use prefixes for your layers (as I was taught in AC8) you type the first letter and click and edit the layer name.
Now you need to scroll or type for the folder, then click to select folder, then click to select the layer, then right click to get to "rename" then edit the name.
On another note if you place a Layer inside a folder the only way to see what is inside is to click the folder. There is no folder view that lets you see what is "hiding" inside each one. At a minimum this will cause users to create multiple layers with almost the same name.
And for a final note you cannot use folders to globally control any layer within it.
And for the Final Final Note: GS removed the Select/UnSelect All, On/Off buttons.
2022-07-15 01:04 PM
Surfaces work OK with folders because a folder structure easily works with the previous naming structure. Layers IMHO don't. For 2 reasons 1) because lots of time layers need appear in more than one folder and 2) because I can never remember which folder I had placed a specific layer (because of 1). I tried really hard with this during beta but found that I always used the "all layers option" because it was faster and I could never remember which folder I'd placed the layer. Now if a (multiple) shortcuts for layer names could have been used so a specific layer could appear in many folders then.......
2022-07-15 03:05 PM
@David Shorter wrote:
Now if a (multiple) shortcuts for layer names could have been used so a specific layer could appear in many folders then.......
Just like layer combinations.
One layer can appear in many different combinations.
So it can be done.
Why couldn't they make the folders like that?
2022-07-17 06:02 AM
@David Shorter Your point is very interesting, but I think there are some standards to create layers, as supported by AIA in the U.S. for example. If we respect such standards that require ordered classifications of layers, we should be able to remember in which folder each layer is classified.
2022-07-17 07:29 AM
That doesn't answer my first point. Very often a layer is shared through a number of 'combinations' (this is why we have layer combinations) and without this ability folders do not work. In addition folders should work with any layering system. The current system deployed in the 26 INT template is a case in point. Why would Stair and railing appear in the Structure folder and not in the Architectural folder, don't architects design stairs. Now I can understand showing that layer under structure but it also needs to be in the architecture group folder. This illustrates my second point that without that layer being in both folders how do I know which folder to look in because the logic is wrong. I would instinctively look in the architecture folder for stairs (because the architect designs stairs) NOT in the Structure folder.
Folders should work with any layering system.
The system I have used for a number of years 'Hide locked layers in Pop Up pallets' This system allows only the current working layers (say walls) to to be shown to the exclusion of all the other layers (which I'm not working on)
The first image shows this compared to the second image which shows all the layers.
I would expect folders to at least allow this.
To seperate all Architectural and all Structure layers is ridiculous, sure there will be some unique layers but a lot are shared and 'Layer Folders' do not allow for this
2022-07-17 06:34 AM
@David Shorter There is a list view as well that can guide you:
2022-07-14 07:13 PM
Ya, I just noticed the buttons are gone, which is strange. Ctrl-A works, but might not be obvious to newer users. Some of the issues you're describing above aren't issues if you've got layer combos and favorites setup. I think the folder/subfolder structure is great. You aren't required to use it if you don't want. <shrug>
2022-07-14 10:13 PM - edited 2022-07-14 10:21 PM
Those buttons help when you are setting up the combos but yep.
I am not using the folders, I really tried since the Beta started but they are worthless.
But the folders created other problems that marketing presents as solutions.
Just compare how much info you have on 25 when you click the BMats:
2022-07-14 04:48 PM
It´s really a very nice feature. I can think of using it also when importing dwgs: you can send all its layers to a folder so you can keep them if needed, but not see them all around.
Too bad that this is basically the only new interesting feature. It seems very little for a version change 😥 I don´t know if I´ll come to love some other changes, but they seem very little ones,at least right now.
2022-07-14 05:07 PM
I think it's partly about expectations. You're not going to get much on a yearly update cycle. I like having small incremental improvements. People might be less underwhelmed if it was called 25.2 or something. For me, $100/mo (or whatever) is a reasonable price to pay for the primary software of my office.
2022-07-14 06:23 PM
This would be a fair argument if this wasn't the third disappointing and underwhelming version in a row that they've released.
Someone in another thread had it right.
This isn't Archicad version 26
This is a Archicad version 23.2,.......at best.
2022-07-14 06:50 PM
I would say 22.3 …
2022-07-14 04:52 PM - edited 2022-07-14 07:59 PM
I liked that too. Now give me color coding ability for all plans and layouts in the navigator and the ability to hide unused plans in cloned folders and we might be on to something.
Also, maybe i got it wrong, but i could create some 3d documents that looked exaclty like in the 3d window, which is very nice.
Unfortunately thats it 😞
2022-07-14 04:44 PM - edited 2022-07-14 04:48 PM
Feels like Graphisoft understood absolutely nothing from the drama of last year's launch.
While i get the direction of adding multidisciplinary features in order to better compete with Revit, it should have been obvious that taking development time from the Architecture side of AC will alienate the paying customers of today.
I am willing to pay for upgrades to what i bought, a tool to help me as an architect, i am not willing to pay for Graphisoft's custom aquistion of structural engineers.
Graphisoft, if you can see this, the frustration grows within the ranks of your current customers, stop being deaf and blind.
PS: Many AC firms are using macs, how do you think you can market DDSCAD, windows only, to us?
PPS: I wish you could have delivered at least what you told us you would (Native ARM support)
2022-07-14 06:28 PM
As it stands, if you're an architect, your licensing and subscription fees are being used to subsidize the development of Structural Analysis tools that most architects don't even use.
And the things that .we as architects do use and continue to clamor for Graphisoft to fix or improve continue to get ignored year after year after year, while they chase this mythical magical customer of a structural engineer that will love to use Archicad.
At least you Mac users already have dark mode and true multi-monitor support
(not much, but at least it's something.)
2022-07-14 06:36 PM
Is very funny all that. Here in Spain we architects make the structural analysis of all our buildings... and we have ZERO interest in doing that with Archicad, we use specialized software for our local practize and regulations
2022-07-14 06:45 PM
And now MEP is coming too somehow into Archicad. I don´t like where this seems to be going...
2022-07-14 07:04 PM
I can't really find any utility for MEP, more than draw fancy random tubes