Layer Scale question - why not just 1:1?

[yasin2ray]

Does anyone just set their layer scale to 1:1?

What does it impact? If I switch from 1:48 to 1:1, will it impact how hatches and line styles appear? For the better or worse?

Please explain, THANKS!

Anna

[Kevin Allen]

1 minute ago, yasin2ray said:

What does it impact? If I switch from 1:48 to 1:1, will it impact how hatches and line styles appear? For the better or worse?

 

I set the Design Layer Scale close to what my Sheet Layer scale will be, just so I can preview how sheets will look.

[markdd]

As @Kevin Allen said, the point of Layer Scale is to give you an accurate view of how your work will look when printed to a particular scale. Crucial to this is how you see the view in front of you with reference to the zoom value in the View Bar. if you select 100%, then that is exactly how the printed output will look to all your collaborators - Take a scale ruler and measure the geometry on your screen. It works - Pen thickness, Linetypes Hatches and all.... Even Text which you can enter at values that most people can relate to such as 12pt which most people know they can read with no problems.

 

My understanding has always been that it helps you design efficiently so that when you output to Viewports and Sheet Layers there are no nasty surprises. 

 

What many people don't realise is that Vectorworks is not scaling the geometry and is actually drawing at 1:1, its just that it is showing you what the geometry will look like when printed to scale. 

 

You can also print at a particular scale from a Design Layer and the Page Boundary tool is very useful for this. This makes it really easy to print off or generate pdf's to quickly send to colleagues during a design process without having to go through the steps involved with Viewports and Sheet Layers.

 

Problems come for many people when they import drawings from AutCAD which have crazy Pen Thicknesses which then look way too thick when viewed at a particular design Layer Scale. As long as you know this phenomenon exists then it is easily possible to scale the pen thickness in the Viewports, or change them to something suitable using classing in the usual way.

 

Hope that helps. Im sure other folk will add to this!

Edited December 16, 2022 by markdd

[Pat Stanford]

I think of the Layer Scale as more of a "preset zoom".  When you are in 1/4" scale, you don't have to think about it. The ruler bars, dimension objects, dimensions in the OIP, etc. are all the correct sizes for the objects. The same applied to a layer at 1:1 scale.

 

I agree with Kevin and Mark, the best option is to use a layer scale that is appropriate for the scale you are going to output at. That way you can WYSIWYG the font size, line weights, etc.

[zoomer]

54 minutes ago, yasin2ray said:

Does anyone just set their layer scale to 1:1?

 

No !

 

I tried hard, but VW will punish you for doing so all the time.

You need to constantly zoom back and forth when you switch

between drawing layers and sheet layers, your texts, dimensions

and everything annotations will look off and ugly.

 

Don't do it.

Submit to what VW forces you to do and set the most important

and most often used sheet layer scale to all your layers.

[line-weight]

I set all my design layers to 1:1 because otherwise I have problems using my 3d navigator device.

 

(Maybe I should review this, perhaps settings have changed since that was an issue)

 

I never put dimensions, text and so on in design layers - always in annotation space - and most of my editing time is spent in 3d views, so the downsides don't affect me too much.

 

These days most of my 2d drawing work is done within annotation space.

 

Have said it before, but "layer scale" should be renamed to stop confusing everyone - call it "preset zoom" as @Pat Stanford suggests. And have it as something that can be adjusted on the fly and applied to everything you're looking at at a certain point in time, rather than having to set it for multiple layers.]

 

It's a hangover from ancient 2d workflows, but I know it's hard to change these kinds of things without upsetting people who continue to use those workflows.

[line-weight]

1 hour ago, Pat Stanford said:

I agree with Kevin and Mark, the best option is to use a layer scale that is appropriate for the scale you are going to output at.

 

This just doesn't really work for projects where output drawings might range in scale from 1:5 to 1:100.

 

Not for 3d workflows anyway.

[Andy Broomell]

8 minutes ago, line-weight said:

This just doesn't really work for projects where output drawings might range in scale from 1:5 to 1:100.

 

You could still choose one of the most common scales and gain some advantage.

 

 

12 minutes ago, line-weight said:

I set all my design layers to 1:1 because otherwise I have problems using my 3d navigator device.

 

You might try turning down the "overall speed" within 3Dconnexion settings. For example, I default to 1/4"=1'-0" scale for my design layers, and have my overall speed setting like this:

 

 

[Scott C. Parker]

13 minutes ago, line-weight said:

I never put dimensions, text and so on in design layers - always in annotation space

I tend to do the exact opposite. Not right, not wrong. just differ for my needs. Except for section views. Those I dimension in the viewport annotations. 
Basic reason for me to add dimensions to design layers (and control via classes) is to maintain what viewports see when items on stage are updated. Since I may have several viewports on various sheet layers, it saves me from having to visit all the viewports when something changes in the design layer.
 

[line-weight]

12 minutes ago, Andy Broomell said:

You might try turning down the "overall speed" within 3Dconnexion settings. For example, I default to 1/4"=1'-0" scale for my design layers, and have my overall speed setting like this:

 

Yeah, last time I fiddled with things, this didn't turn it down slow enough. But that was a few VW versions ago, and probable a few 3dconnexion driver versions ago, so it might be worth revisiting.

[unearthed]

3 minutes ago, Scott C. Parker said:

I tend to do the exact opposite. Not right, not wrong. just differ for my needs. Except for section views. Those I dimension in the viewport annotations. 
Basic reason for me to add dimensions to design layers (and control via classes) is to maintain what viewports see when items on stage are updated. Since I may have several viewports on various sheet layers, it saves me from having to visit all the viewports when something changes in the design layer.
 

When I'm taking concepts to the first stage of Cadding I often drop dims. into the design space ()- by big peeve is that Dims are limited to 3276.7 points., so this becomes not very useful with very large sites.

[Tom W.]

26 minutes ago, Andy Broomell said:

 

 

Andy what exactly does enabling 'Dominant' do? I've never noticed any difference one way or the other...

[Scott C. Parker]

8 minutes ago, unearthed said:

big peeve is that Dims are limited to 3276.7 points.,

Can you expand on this? I've not run into a limit. 

[line-weight]

23 minutes ago, Scott C. Parker said:

I tend to do the exact opposite. Not right, not wrong. just differ for my needs. Except for section views. Those I dimension in the viewport annotations. 
Basic reason for me to add dimensions to design layers (and control via classes) is to maintain what viewports see when items on stage are updated. Since I may have several viewports on various sheet layers, it saves me from having to visit all the viewports when something changes in the design layer.
 

Sure. Everyone will have their own approaches.

 

I have a quite strict/minimalist philosophy when it comes to dimensioning. This means that there are only dimensions where there really needs to be dimensions, and in an ideal world the same dimension shouldn't appear in more than one viewport. Reference grids and height benchmarks appear in every drawing (and VW now finally gives us the tools to do this properly - hooray!) and dimensions generally refer back to them. I'll have a setting-out plan which will just be focused on setting out, and another plan that focuses on what's important at a later stage of construction.

 

The other thing is that to keep things graphically consistent and neat, I get much more control when things are in the annotation layer (rather than the compromises that tend to be needed when pulling certain things through from a design layer).

 

I feel that many architectural drawings are vastly over-dimensioned. This results in cluttered drawings but also often reveals a lack of thought about how things will get set out on site. And often leads to errors, because the critical dimension is not made clear to the builder.

 

Of course, that's architecture and I'm sure entertainment and other industries will have different needs and priorities.

[zoomer]

But don't you miss associated Dimensions ?

OK, they can fail too, but for me non associative Dimensions

would be too user error prone ...

 

I mostly do not need 2D, but I thought I should do my Dimensions

in DL as much as possible.

[line-weight]

14 minutes ago, zoomer said:

But don't you miss associated Dimensions ?

OK, they can fail too, but for me non associative Dimensions

would be too user error prone ...

 

I mostly do not need 2D, but I thought I should do my Dimensions

in DL as much as possible.

No, I've never used or wanted associative dimensions.

 

To me, they are more likely to cause errors. For example, one becomes un-associated but the user doesn't notice, and is not in the habit of re-checking viewports before publishing. For me it is a good discipline to make the change to the model geometry, then check the viewport and make adjustments and make sure they are correct. Also, there is the potential for it to appear in a design layer view that it is clear what a dimension is to or from, but then in a viewport it's not, because some components might be turned on or off, or a different scale means something is obscured by lineweights. You can see these kinds of things creep in when a dimension is intended for wall framing, for example, but then is present in some viewport where it appears it refers to the finished wall surface, this kind of thing.

[Andy Broomell]

51 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

Andy what exactly does enabling 'Dominant' do? I've never noticed any difference one way or the other...

 

I'm not sure either...

[line-weight]

Another thing that might be relevant to all this... 20 years ago I worked in a practice where we would routinely produce drawings at A1 size... they'd go to a commercial printer and big bundles of paper drawings would be taken off to site in the post or by a delivery driver...

 

That meant you could produce quite detailed general arrangement plans at fairly large scale even for quite big buildings. And put quite a lot of different types of info on them. They would be rolled out on a big table at site meetings.

 

Now, at least the way I work, for myself, I produce most of my construction drawings at A3 size, so I can print them myself on the printer by my desk, but in fact half the time they never exist on paper and everyone is looking at them on laptops or tablets or maybe even smartphones now. So this has implications for how it makes sense to set up drawings, and means more flipping between different scales for different bits of information. Typically my drawings sets now have a larger number of smaller viewports at a wider range of different scales. And of course the approach of extracting the 2D drawings from a 3D model makes this less labour intensive than it would have been in the past.

Edited December 16, 2022 by line-weight

[line-weight]

.

Edited December 16, 2022 by line-weight

[zoomer]

1 hour ago, line-weight said:

No, I've never used or wanted associative dimensions.

 

 

When I tested all Nemetschek CAD Apps in 2010 to find a CAD App for Mac .....

Editing associated Dimensions - to move Walls was one of the features to

take VW serious (?)

 

Honestly, I do not need 2D much for my work or Dimensions ....

I never used that in VW.

But in Bricscad .... selecting two objects, get a temporary Dimension between

showing the distance in between and being able to to edit that distance and

move the second selected Solid .... I use that all the time for modeling.

With this years release, I just need to select a single Solid and get two "DYNDIMS"

to edit distances between neighbors.

Means that I just have to select a single Solid (e.g. Wall) and can immediately

control/check my room dimensions for plausibility.

(Currently highly necessary for recreating a plausible model from an existing building)

 

So in this case I would also in VW make use and rely on associated dimensions that

follow my Wall movements and indicate my current dimensions ....

until I finally moved any Walls from Story to Story and Room to Room from my

measurements until it seems to make most sense.

(Existing Buildings can be a real pain)

 

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by zoomer

[unearthed]

2 hours ago, Scott C. Parker said:

Can you expand on this? I've not run into a limit. 

I can never make text larger than 3276.7 - say I enter 5000 - vw reverts it to 3276.7, am current on v2018 and it's been like this for me since whatever the current version was in 2004. Quite a pain when you just want to chuck a quick note next to an object.

[Andy Broomell]

@unearthed - what Design Layer scale are you using?

[Ben3B]

and dimensions

13 hours ago, Scott C. Parker said:

I tend to do the exact opposite. Not right, not wrong. just differ for my needs. Except for section views. Those I dimension in the viewport annotations. 
Basic reason for me to add dimensions to design layers (and control via classes) is to maintain what viewports see when items on stage are updated. Since I may have several viewports on various sheet layers, it saves me from having to visit all the viewports when something changes in the design layer.
 

also dimensions as annotations in sheet layer are anly true in 2d view , not in iso or perspective... for that kind of dimensions you need to do it in design layer ... 

[line-weight]

14 hours ago, zoomer said:

 

Editing associated Dimensions - to move Walls

 

 

Ah yes - I can see how this could be useful during the editing/drawing process.

[bcd]

22 hours ago, zoomer said:

 

No !

 

I tried hard, but VW will punish you for doing so all the time.

You need to constantly zoom back and forth when you switch

between drawing layers and sheet layers, your texts, dimensions

and everything annotations will look off and ugly.

 

Don't do it.

Submit to what VW forces you to do and set the most important

and most often used sheet layer scale to all your layers.

 

This is a fascinating discussion.

It's always been the dictum that you draw @ the relevant scale of the output so everything looks appropriate on export. This began in the days when folks were printing from Design Layers and using Layer Links and whatnot. Some still do. This is why it's possible to show the outline of the page & fit to page on the DL.

It makes sense to continue this now that we use SLVPs on SLs at and sometimes adjust lineweights/text sizes etc. via the Advanced button when the VP scale deviates greatly from the DL scale.

 

However as heretical as it sounds perhaps it's time to abandon the DL scale altogether. Perhaps it's time to have VW adjust lineweights / text / hatches... all Page Scale objects... on the fly. So, even on the DL when zomming in from 1:100  to 1:80 we would see those objects decrease in size, relative to the model, lineweights would increase as expected etc. This could be toggled on/off and could be set to rescale proportionally rather than absolutely to maintain on-screen legibility.

 

The same technology that adjusts sizing on the DL would be employed in the SLVP where everything would look beautiful, consistent and in true VW tradition still have the ability to be overridden, probably also moved like objects can now be moved using Edit Section in Place.

And for an added bonus (cake for all): In the VP Annotations simply Right Click any annotation,dimensions etc that has been placed on a DL and invoke the new >Convert to Annotation Object command moving it out of the Model and into the Annotations.