Wishes
Post your wishes about Graphisoft products: Archicad, BIMx, BIMcloud, and DDScad.

Hard scripting layers

Red
Advocate
Hard scripting layers

In my opinion I think this would come in handy for BOMs!
Thanks,
Red
i7 8700k
ROG Strix Z390-E MoBo
64gb RAM
EVGA GeForce GTX 2080
_______________________
http://www.facebook.com/flatcreekdesignstn
http://www.sraarchitects.biz
13 REPLIES 13
Anonymous
Not applicable
What do you mean by "Hard scripting layers"?
Red
Advocate
I guess I should have explained myself better

Predefining the object layer w/in GDL.

http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=2594
Thanks,
Red
i7 8700k
ROG Strix Z390-E MoBo
64gb RAM
EVGA GeForce GTX 2080
_______________________
http://www.facebook.com/flatcreekdesignstn
http://www.sraarchitects.biz
Anonymous
Not applicable
This is generally a very desirable feature but very difficult to work out in the particulars.

Layer names are not standardized among different users so it is not possible for the author of a library part to know what layer to use. If layers can be created by library parts this results in a nightmare for CAD management as layer names proliferate out of control. There is also the problem of how the new layers would relate to existing layer combinations.

Even if these problems could be overcome there is the problem of standardizing all the library parts so that they work consistently. I would hate to have to teach people to know which library parts set their own layer and which do not.

For now I think using templates, option/alt clicking, and (perhaps) favorites is the best workaround.

The best solution is probably to permit default layer assignments by library part sub-type. Different sets of defaults could be loaded according to the view, so, for example, when you switch to the electrical plan, electrical symbols are automatically directed to the proper layer.

This would also apply to all the other tools so that walls could default to the correct (demo, existing, new) layer; lines, text, labels and dimensions could be on the right annotation layers; and so on.
__archiben
Booster
Matthew wrote:
Layer names are not standardized among different users so it is not possible for the author of a library part to know what layer to use. If layers can be created by library parts this results in a nightmare for CAD management as layer names proliferate out of control. There is also the problem of how the new layers would relate to existing layer combinations.
or simply add a new parameter type: layers. that way we get user control based on our own layer set up. defaults are set to the archiCAD layer out-of-the-box, and combined with this wish . . .

http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?p=9984&#9984

. . . it could be quite useful, no?

~/archiben
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
Red
Advocate
I agree it would need to be an option w/in GDL as parameter (great idea archiben) to use it or not, because like you said Matt layers are not a standard among all Archicad users. Reason I like this is because we have several custom made part tat we use everyday that are always on the same layer, and by having it hard scripted in that would eliminate human error! That is always a plus!
Thanks,
Red
i7 8700k
ROG Strix Z390-E MoBo
64gb RAM
EVGA GeForce GTX 2080
_______________________
http://www.facebook.com/flatcreekdesignstn
http://www.sraarchitects.biz
Anonymous
Not applicable
~/archiben wrote:
...or simply add a new parameter type: layers. that way we get user control based on our own layer set up. defaults are set to the archiCAD layer out-of-the-box, and combined with this wish . . .

http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?p=9984&#9984

. . . it could be quite useful, no?

~/archiben
I have often wished for this, but I think there are still some complications. It wouldn't work as a standard since it depends on the individual library parts. Defaulting to the ArchiCAD layer can lead to some embarrassing moments (since newly added parts may appear in views where they are not intended, and not noticed until after they are printed for the client who is walking up the stairs).

There is also the larger issue of whether the layer metaphor is the correct way to organize a virtual building. Should we be looking for ways to tweak and tune and refine a system that may really need a fundamental reassessment? (I remember writing something about this before, but can't find the topic right now.)
Anonymous
Not applicable
Red wrote:
I agree it would need to be an option w/in GDL as parameter (great idea archiben) to use it or not, because like you said Matt layers are not a standard among all Archicad users. Reason I like this is because we have several custom made part tat we use everyday that are always on the same layer, and by having it hard scripted in that would eliminate human error! That is always a plus!
Naturally, if there were a layer type parameter it could be hard coded. I do this all the time for pens, text size and font, etc. to enforce office standards.
Red
Advocate
I going to keep my fingers crossed maybe something will come of this. Thanks for the input Matt and Archiben.
Thanks,
Red
i7 8700k
ROG Strix Z390-E MoBo
64gb RAM
EVGA GeForce GTX 2080
_______________________
http://www.facebook.com/flatcreekdesignstn
http://www.sraarchitects.biz
Karl Ottenstein
Moderator
Red wrote:
Predefining the object layer w/in GDL.
I think this would be a mistake. At present, object insertion behaves the same as toolbox (standard) element insertion and consistency of behavior is important IMHO. I agree with Matthew about the nightmare for document management that could result if objects could create their own layer.
Matthew wrote:
For now I think using templates, option/alt clicking, and (perhaps) favorites is the best workaround.
I agree.

Letting objects respond to the current layer settings or display options is a different matter that could take advantage of Ben's idea of a 'layer' parameter type ... and this can be done by an API programmer creating new REQUEST functions. But, I've never had a need for such a thing.

Red: Can you give an example of why hard-coding a layer inside an object would be useful? And, Matthew, can you explain why you think this is a "generally desirable feature"? I'm not 'getting it'. Holding off on my vote for now...

Thanks,
Karl
One of the forum moderators
AC 27 USA and earlier   •   macOS Ventura 13.6.6, MacBook Pro M2 Max 12CPU/30GPU cores, 32GB