A basic functionality for attribute management is the ability to propagate settings downwards in a structure. Given how GS boast the new feature "hierarchically structured attributes" with the implication that it should give us more time to design one certainly think that this should be in place, at least in some form.
But alas! All we can do is put things in folders.
So the most basic thing that could be propagated downwards is the name (reflecting its position in the structure). But we don't even get that - instead the template suggest that we should manually add the name of the folder to the attribute...
It gets worse. Attribute search only return a list view and not a tree view. So if there is a mistake when naming the attribute there is a high risk that it won't show up in searches, "Brik - Red" won't show up in a search for all brick surfaces although it is put in a folder named "Brick". This also means that there is no way to overview where the search results are positioned in the structure. Why don't attribute search have the same tree view functionality as navigator search?
So what do we get by the introduction of folders that naming and search doesn't do better?
Do GS actually think that this is good application development and an acceptable outcome or do they fail to see the mess that they create?
Sadly, we have to live yet another version with layers and although the new search functionality makes that life bearable its still awfully meager and folders as implemented is to no avail.
Why are we not able to to control layers at folder level and have any subfolders and layers inherit the settings from top and then just override at subfolders and individual layers as needed?
Since the infobox layer popup now is the same as the settings dialog - why not give us the ability to control layers there. It is by far the shortest way between the model space elements and their settings thus it's bottom line intuitiveness to be able to control it there.
I think they should have focused on the more important things than layers (not sure if there's an urgent need to revamp the layering system) then how would it react when your exporting to other software? 🤔
In the end what is your Objective? ArchiCAD 9 onwards
It's not about layers as such but the fact that so crucial functionality as visibility and edibility is tied to them. Layers can continue to exist for compatibility but I see no reason why they should have such a prominent role in AC.
Yes, there are certainly more important things to focus on if AC is to remain relevant (typing, grouping and a more general approach to geometries). A switch to a criteria based approach would have put AC in front of the competition. As that don't seem to happen any time soon layers definitely needed a revamp (the search functionality justifies the upgrade for me). Too bad that GS seem satisfied to keep lagging behind due to the lack of simple stuff as sub-layers and easy control in the main interface.