Simplicity

[Anonymous]

I would like to suggest that objects be assigned a category that they are associated with (such as a sink with the plumbing category). We could then eliminate the layers to great degree and these items could be turned on/off in the necessary views with the display options. It would be a big benefit in simplifying the whole process of drawing and production. I could envision placing a sink in a project and not having to worry if it is going on the correct layer.

Any other thoughts on this?

Mark

[Anonymous]

I have also considered layers and display options a bit redundant. Both could be improved and merged. This also would greatly simplify things.

Mark

[Geoff Briggs]

I think abetter approach than complicating DOs would be to introduce a layer hierarchy so a master layer could control all of it’s sub-layers. This would also come in handy when importing or merging files especially if the translator were equipped to make all the imported layers sub-layers of a single new master.

[Anonymous]

There is definitely a need for better model organization than is afforded by the present layering setup. It seems a bit anachronistic to be using a pin board and onionskin analogy from manual drafting days to organize a virtual building.

I have long tried to come up with a better term than layers for the units of organization. Perhaps "sets" would do.

If annotations were segregated to their respective drawings/views, the "layer" analogy could be abandoned altogether and the Sets would serve to organize all the building elements. I think this idea holds some promise by analogy to mathematical set theory and being able to organize things according to sets, subsets and supersets.

The complex possibilities of this exceed the present limits of my tired mind, and considering the parallel with my wish for assemblies (and subassemblies?) by associating multiple library parts to individual building elements is crushing any further will to proceed. So I leave this for other brave souls to ponder for now.

[Eduardo Rolon]

Would'nt a solution for this be a redesigned/mature view set where you can specify what you need by right clicking the view and then having tabs for the layers, display settings and scale. It is there, i can see the info when i select redefine i just need to edit it instead of having to select all the individual choices first and then redefine the views

BTW I would love to have nested layers much like in Photoshop

[Anonymous]

ejrolon wrote:
BTW I would love to have nested layers much like in Photoshop

I think that layers are not appropriate for BIM organization and they are remains of hand drafting methodology. It's OK in Photoshop as it is still 2D but we are in 3D long time ago.

I'm intrigued by Matthew's "tired mind" and it's idea of having organization of assemblies (and most definitely subassemblies).

If I understood correctly, it is like drawing scale, but in 3D. If we combine "assemblies" with sets (or categorys) we can eliminate need for layers and we able to change view scope in BIM manner.


As architecture is just a piece in great puzzle of building industry I think we should wait for IFC standards to see what other disciplines may require. Sets, supersets and subsets might be a great replacement for layers but I wish everybody else get rid of them too (and hopefully join big happy family called IFC ).

[Eduardo Rolon]

Change "layers" to "construct" in my post. it should say that i love the way Photoshop lets you organize your "images objects". AC has something like that but it could be improved.

Basically project view is organized in folders but you cannot edit or reorganize them, and the view tab lets you do all the organization but not click to change layer sets, display or scale. I think all the pieces are there to have this wish it just needs a good clear concept that will help GS organize the tools in a logical way.

One of the things i have noticed in my usage of AC is that as a project progresses AC forces you to be more organized, and the more organized you are in your approach to building your model the faster you work. This does not limit creativity it just simplifies the way to solve a project. It is very different from 2D drafting (CAD or Otherwise) where you just start making drawings of the project and the only step that saves you time is the use of previous details in either "stickyback" or "blocks".

So the concept for this wish could be that AC should have a logical, organized, interactive, way to define the "flatland" snapshots of the project. Also this would mean that there should be a way to create the project in 3D that is not solely based on the 2D drafting analogy method which implies that the stories should behave more like Sections/Elevations. The 3D solution might be solved by updating the "3D cutaway" command and linking it to the S/E and to a new floorplan view tool. A good example of how this could work is the page concept in Sketch-Up, where you define views and layers on different pages.

[__archiben]

see mr lohden's grand plans at:
http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=864



~/archiben