This wish implies a big step in AC philosophy, but I think it is definitely a needed step, especially in its fight against REVIT. The big, and only, advantage I see in Revit is that for example you don't have layers. And that's right: we don't need layers!. That's a typical old minded way of thinking.
A good example:
Why should we have three layers for exterior walls to define the Existing, the New and the Deleted. We could just one category "Exterior Wall" and then check wether it is demolished or not as a property. Or Wall and then a property "exterior", and another "new".
Or if you have different variants check for which variants it exists and for which it does not.
Then all the views instead of layers combinations are different database queries, which means in other words checking properties that have to be seen in this view, in an Excel like table. (like checking Variant 1 will show all objects that have there Variant 1 properties activated. Unchecking furnitures will not show object belonging to category furnitures.
Layers are just a way to make things illogical (unlogical?) in a computer world. Something which should be left to AutoCADers who like to feel the pain in every movements they do.
I think such a step would make things much easier, and prove that Archicad is looking forward.
And it would eliminate the step forward that has Revit which is 100%database.
What do you say? Let's do it?
I'm not sure your solution is the best one in the near future, it sounds like even more problems than with layers. Layer is so simple to use when combine different softwares. But layer is old and not optimized for todays work.
But, I think a tree-system (that are discussed sometimes here in this forum) would be a next natural step in cad-software. There are already alot of software in cad and 3d that using this type, and it's compatible with old layersystem.
TurboGlider wrote: But, I think a tree-system (that are discussed sometimes here in this forum) would be a next natural step in cad-software. There are already alot of software in cad and 3d that using this type, and it's compatible with old layersystem.
the terminology might be a little awry, but i think what olivier is talking about is a more non-linear 'tag' system rather than a hierarchical/class-subclass (tree) system. and i totally agree with him. i would love to see the current layer system extended into a class/sub-class system as the primary model organisation with a tagging mechanism alongside. think iPhoto/Aperture.
b e n f r o s t
b f [a t ] p l a n b a r c h i t e c t u r e [d o t] n z
archicad | sketchup! | coffeecup
sure it would be nice, but I guess it would give us alot of problem, should we have locked tags or should every (in ArchiCad) GDL have possibility to have their own tags? Think how that "SQL" query would look like after a while.
We do have something like this today i ArchiCad, "Display options"
Maybe locked tags would work, but then you sit there and think, I will add more tags, dubidoooh..
But could Graphisoft set up a standard with tags for all kind of structures / objects in archicad and that are reachable within an GDL object, then I'm with you. But in that case it should work like display options. Not instead of layers.
Yes Archiben I think you understood better what I meant. But I recognize I'm not very clear;). A 'Tag" system a bit like iPhoto is nearer than the tree system which sounds a bit complicated.
But to see how simple and effective it is take a look at how it is in Revit: no layers and still no problem to exchange and work professionnaly. No need to multiply layers or duplicate elements. That is the only thing I really like in this program.