Christiaan

Can you elaborate Matt?

Try switching to a different Workspace (Tools > Workspaces) and then back again.

That doesn't sound normal, but I can't see that you're doing anything wrong. I think you might need some help from Vectorworks on this one. I would give VW support a call. Or maybe @Tolu can comment? When you clear the metadata, you need to make sure everybody else has refreshed their file first for them to carry on using their existing working file.

Ha, yeah, I think mine in 2007 is the oldest.

That's a new one for me, ta!

I would try reinstalling Vectorworks. I haven't experienced any issues like this with v2024 and Sonoma. But before reinstalling, you could try opening the Vectorworks 2024 Updater (inside the Vectorworks application folder) and clicking on Advanced, then Repair.

@jmhanby are you able to post a screen recording?

How would you want to see it work? Unlike Classes (which a self-organising based on the '-' divider) layers would need a new UI element that we can create and drop layers into it, manually grouping them.

Layer Filters is probably the answer to this problem. Would be good to have somebody at VW comment on this and put it to rest if that's the case.

For sure is the same wish as these: https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/42924-design-layer-and-sheet-layer-hierarchy/ https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/56819-organising-grouping-sheet-and-design-layers/ https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/106611-grouping-of-layers-please/ https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/55984-separate-sheet-layers-and-design-layers-in-pull-down-menus/ https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/102316-nested-layers-wanted/ https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/87753-group-layerssheets-and-viewports/ https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/66960-group-layers-like-in-photoshop/ https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/58271-organisation-design-layers-saved-views-sheet-layers-viewports/ https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/16256-ability-to-group-layerssheet-layers-like-classes/ https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/60380-collapsable-sheet-and-layer-folders/ https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/43404-better-layer-orginization/ https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/96185-design-layer-groups/

Same goes if you using other syncing services. Dropbox, iCloud, Google Drive etc. If you were using any of those services you might find they have your files. Sorry to hear that.

No, you need to either go into the symbol and edit separately or, as I generally do, convert the relevant symbols to groups, ungroup them. You can actually choose to import everything as 'exploded blocks' (DWG Import Options > Advanced > Blocks > Explode all blocks) when you import the DWG but I find this can result in loss of information such as drawing numbers.

Yeah, okay, separate layer is a good solutionmostly, but, for instance, add some car parks with the Park Spaces Tool and they will be located at z=0.

Added to list.

This is where I remember having an issue. 3D views of a site model with objects also at zero are not easy to navigate.

I'm in the habit of using a station point or a physical element on or near the site that I know is not going to change. So therefore never ends up being a nice round number like this. Why am I in the habit of doing this? It doesn't really matter to the builder what coordinates I use to define the internal origin does it.

Useful related comment on rotated setup: https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/109100-user-origin-marker/#comment-475503

But you can just copy paste the legend across layers.

This is to keep a list of impediments to working with building models in real-world orientation and elevation. One, to assess whether we keep working in this way, and two, to use it to create/keep track of related enhancement requests and/or bug reports. Working totally in rotated view, with building model placed at real-world orientation to North (and real-world elevation), is my preferred way of working because it means that once your files are initially set up there is no rotation or changing of z-height of anything copied and pasted or referenced across files (e.g. site mode file vs building model file). Elevation Benchmarks also work without needing to add offset figures. This reduces chances of errors, saves time for those working on the project, and is a more intuitive way of working (in terms of thinking about the building model). There are, however, a few impediments: Does it make it more difficult for other consultants using AutoCAD and Revit for example? I don't know. Somebody want to comment on this? Jeff seemed to think so. The cmd/ctrl-5 short-cut unrotates the view. (fix coming in 29.0.4) Editing a site modifier polyline unrotates the view. Editing a Space object boundary unrotates view. Fixed at some point, not sure when. Interior Elevations are spread far and wide beyond page boundaries when generated from a rotated view. Primary views (left, right, front, back) ignore rotation. This is resolved by Working Plane Views mode. Can’t use numeric keypad for front side views when editing 3D symbols 2D components. Putting this here temporarily. I need to retest this one using Working Plane Views mode. Working with building models at real-world elevation can cause issues with Working Planes, in that objects can end up being drawn at z=0 instead of at the height of your building model. Feel free to elaborate on this one and explain how this can/should be avoided. When you draw something in a front/side view + haven't set a working plane: then the object can end up hundreds of miles away from the internal origin with all the problems that creates i.e. it is drawn at 0 on the X or Y axis as determined by your georeferenced user origin. If there are any other problems you encounter please post them here.

Describe in more detail. We can then either help find a solution or use it to ask for improvements.

Great!

You're definitely right that it's the page setup that matters. Changing page setup to Arch D before importing changed the Viewport scale, but now it's 1:87.927! 🤣 I'll see if I can reverse engineer it in the morning and create a custom page size to pull it in at the right scale. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction Pat.

Their border, correctly scaled measures 804 x 580 mm (31.65 x 22.83 inches).

Must be right? But it can't be ASME D, that makes it even worse.

This seems related. That's their drawing border extending past an A1 page border.