Best Practice for Model Setup(s)

[Ryan Russell]

All,

 

I am aware that Wes Gardner started the post on model setups, but I am looking for more specifics, as in Layer and Class conventions that one would consider important or best practice as a default originating point to incorporate into their workflow(s).

 

Any help, advice, or contributions would be greatly appreciated.

 

- Ryan

[shorter]

How long have you got?!

[Ryan Russell]

I am all ears!

[Kevin K]

Ryan

This subject varies a LOT I am quite sure.

Kind of tantamount to who is better...Joni Mitchell or Sheryl Crow...they are both very talented 🙂

Everyone, including myself, has developed, over the years,  a system that works for them...Hence Shorter's comment about 'how long have you got! 🙂

I really don't imagine there is one tried and true methodology, whatsoever. 

I will say, after working with and assisting many clients over the years, and receiving files from them for me to work on, etc...that their layers and classes setups were pretty over done, in my opinion....looking like something that came from frightening Autocad standards !  

Or, others that did not have enough thought that went into using layers and classes efficiently.

 

Not sure what to suggest, other than perhaps some of us here could send you a blank file with our layer and classes setups as examples, and food for thought ?

[shorter]

You are in the US, so the stock AIA classes that ship with Vectorworks should be your go-to, although not sure how up to date they are.

 

A lot depends on whether you need to be 'compliant' or not.

 

There are loads of CAD Standards out there, including but not limited to

 

AIA

AEK UK CAD Standrads

BS1192 (now defunct)

ISO13567

 

the latter being a very old standard, but the one in vogue again now.  All come with and without CiSFb, Uniclass 1.4, Uniclass 2015, Uniformat classification, and that depends on your or your client's requirements.

 

A wall class could be

 

A-WALL

A-G25-M-Wall

A-EF_25_10-M_Wall

A-EF2510E-Wall

etc

 

using each of these standards.

 

So much for 'standards'!

 

If you are anticipating being told to adopt a CAD standard, I would suggest you find out what that might be and set things up in that standard, but given in the UK, the standards have changed 5 times in the last 20 years or so, I would also suggest adopting a system that works for you, and use mapping tables and the class/layer mapping/ batch rename commands to map from your standards and whatever standard you are asked to use.

 

The default standard in Vectorworks Architect is actually 'VW-Arch' where classes are created by Vectorworks and cover things like 'Glazing-Clear' etc.  You can see the full gamut of classes when you use the Standard Naming command.  One option is to use that system, if it works for you and map that instead.  We have a number of mapping tables to map from AIA, VW-Arch, 'Shorter System', AEC, BS1192, to ISO13567 and back again.

 

In short(er) we recommend building a class system that works for you first, and then using mapping.

 

If mapping sounds like too much management and too much like things will go wrong, then the only option is to adopt an industry standard system as the practiuce standard, and then say 'We are compliant' and hope you pick the right one!

 

I recently uploaded a load of different class libraries in BS1192 and ISO13567 format but judging by the number of downloads VW users are keen on either!

 

If you want to start from scratch I would suggest looking at the AEC UK CAD Standards and the principles behind that system.  It is not totally industry standard but the idea behind it is sound.  Classes are divided by tables, and also by thick, thin, dotted and dashed which relate to where the object is in relation to the cut plane.

 

A-G25-M-Wall-FWD for example is a thin line, denoting a wall in elevation.

 

That's classes...  Next installment, Layers...

[shorter]

ps

 

I have been building class systems for my clients since the mid-90s.  Every time we started with the question 'what line weights do I need' and 'how do i want to turn things on and off'.  Later it became, 'how do I identify something?' and 'how can i use the class when scheduling'.

 

We would always start with thick, thin, dotted, dashed.

 

Then we said what if someone else has 'Thick', 'Thin', 'Dotted', 'Dashed', so we added an author code, so they became 'A-Thick', 'A-Thin', 'A-Dotted', 'A-Dashed'.  Then we needed to turn things off, and on, so we had 'A-Wall-Thick', 'A-Door-Thin', 'A-Floor-Dotted', 'A-Ceiling-Dashed'.  And then we needed classes for 1:200, and classes for 1:50 and classes for 1:5 and we arrived at something identical to the AEC CAD Standards, except without the numbers.  This is the 'Shorter System'.

 

It is based on level of detail, and industry standards, but makes better use of them in our humble opinion.

 

Ironically, the 'Shorter System' is based on BS8541, the content naming standard.  We simply map from it to ISO13567 or BS1192 when required, otherwise we don't bother because absolutely no-one has asked us to adopt any class naming standard since 2002!

[shorter]

Now Layers...

 

Layers are odd.

 

They have no comparables in other softwares so there are no 'standards' as such for layer naming.

 

AutoCAD has one modelspace inspiringly called 'Model'.  Bentley Microstation had multiple models but I don't think anyone uses them except within Cell libraries, and then they were named after the cell (a cell is a symbol).  Things may have moved on from when I last used Microstation in anger.

 

The closest in Revit is probably worksets.  In IFC, it would be storeys, so if a storey naming standard has been defined, that may be a good place to start.

 

Of course, we have our system, but it is built with lots of things in mind, such as model segregation (useful for project sharing, referencing and your sanity), scheduling where we get use the layer name in the 'floor' coumn, for example, and transparency, and by this I mean identifying what it is you have drawn or modelled.  It works well and have never seen a better system for what we need the software to do.

 

Layers have to do lots of things in order to avoid conflict when referenced 'old school', for example.

 

They may have to define discipline, building or zone, location, projection, content... all in order to allow us to segregate the data by any of these categories.  They might then also be amalgamated in order to create the 'model'.

 

So, again, think about how best to split a building or your model.  Think 'layer' rather than 'group' too.  A layer containing the ground floor structure is better than a group, since a group is next to useless at anything other than being a group.

 

Ultimately in both class and layer naming think 'keyword' and use filters.

 

[zoomer]

16 minutes ago, Kevin K said:

This subject varies a LOT I am quite sure.

 

Yes.

 

 

15 minutes ago, shorter said:

A lot depends on whether you need to be 'compliant' or not.

 

There are loads of CAD Standards out there

 

Yes.

 

If you are free in official Class Standards,

many here in the European region agreed that a combination of :

"Container Classes" (A_WALL, A_DOOR, A_SLAB, A_SYMBOLS....)

and

"Material Classes" (M_CONCRETE_CIP, M_PLASTER, M_WOOD_BIRCH, M_WOOD_MAPLE

(and

a few Classes for 2D things)

 

Help to Organize things and switch Visibilities.

The Container Classes contain "grouped" overall things like PIOs, Symbols, .....

(like All Walls, All Slabs, all Windows, ...)

while

the Material Classes are mostly for "sub" or detail Components ....

(like Wall Components, Floor Components, ....)

 

 

This way you are pretty universal in switching Visibilities.

Like show all Walls and Slabs but only made of Concrete

vs

Show all Elements made of Concrete and Wood

 

 

28 minutes ago, shorter said:

That's classes...  Next installment, Layers...

 

 

Layers are also very individual and dependent on Project.

So just a hint.

- uses as few as possible, to make switching between Stories as easy as possible

 

For more complex projects that will not work anymore though.

 

[E|FA]

32 minutes ago, zoomer said:

The Container Classes contain "grouped" overall things like PIOs, Symbols, .....

(like All Walls, All Slabs, all Windows, ...)

Somewhere along the way I picked up the convention of using square brackets (e.g. [Wall],[Door],[Slab] ) to designate container classes, and find it useful.

[zoomer]

29 minutes ago, E|FA said:

using square brackets (e.g. [Wall],[Door],[Slab] ) to designate container classes,

 

That makes a lot of sense UI wise.

 

But I still feel not comfortable to use any special characters on a Computer 🙂

 

[Christiaan]

Great stuff Steven, thanks. I've often wondered about bending to Vectorworks' will and using the VW-Arch standard just so I don't have to worry about self-generating Classes!

[zoomer]

1 minute ago, Christiaan said:

I've often wondered about bending to Vectorworks' will and using the VW-Arch standard just so I don't have to worry about self-generating Classes!

 

That would be absolutely great !

 

Years ago I asked if we could have a simple XML or text file that lists

Auto Generated Classes in Column A, and a Column B where we

can enter our conception of Class naming.

And VW would just read the table and adapt its Class generation.

 

I think that might be similar like how VW localization works !?

 

Maybe it is already (or half way) possible with Data Manager or similar

but I was always overburdened with its UI/UX.

 

 

(No more "Sills" and "Glazing Clear" etc. in my upper case Class Naming Standard woohooo .....)

[shorter]

Oh yes.  I forgot to add...

 

No illegal characters.

 

Only A to Z (and a to z), 0 to 9, and the hyphen.

 

Under ISO19650 UK version... even the underscore is illegal.

 

This way the separator can be predicted, great for =SUBSTRING calculations.

[zoomer]

1 hour ago, shorter said:

Under ISO19650 UK version... even the underscore is illegal.

 

Ohhh,

 

I would be lost ....

But I also do not feel very comfortable about my underscores ...

Or more by even forced "-" by VW's Class Hierarchy Standards.

 

Oh wait,

after multiple years of denying and not using VW's Hierarchical Display

anywhere, I should rethink that "-" and finally just use my "_" everywhere.

Hope I will not run into a "this name is already in use ... "Warning that way !?

 

 

1 hour ago, shorter said:

Under ISO19650 UK version... even the underscore is illegal.

 

 

Oh,

the only non-conformance, after all tose years I feel comfortable today,

at least as a Mac User, is that I allow to use Paths and File Names,

outside of the limit the 8+3 scheme !

(But still ran into issues about too long Paths on Windows !?

Unreal Engine Installation anyone ?)

 

And it still really hurts to have to write "Buero", instead our "Büro",

or Waende instead of Wände !

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by zoomer

[Christiaan]

On 1/9/2023 at 4:59 PM, shorter said:

Then we said what if someone else has 'Thick', 'Thin', 'Dotted', 'Dashed', so we added an author code, so they became 'A-Thick', 'A-Thin', 'A-Dotted', 'A-Dashed'.  Then we needed to turn things off, and on, so we had 'A-Wall-Thick', 'A-Door-Thin', 'A-Floor-Dotted', 'A-Ceiling-Dashed'.  And then we needed classes for 1:200, and classes for 1:50 and classes for 1:5 and we arrived at something identical to the AEC CAD Standards, except without the numbers.  This is the 'Shorter System'.

You don't mean the AEC UK CAD Standard, do you? Or do you?

[shorter]

I do indeed.

[Christiaan]

They don't subdivide their classes (layers) into line type, pen thickness and drawing scale though. Do you?

[shorter]

Yes they do, and so do we, or rather ours are split by line type, pen thickness, and level of detail.

[shorter]

The Vectorworks appendix to the last issue of the AEC UK CAD Standards for layer naming under Uniclass 2015 - and where the AEC UK CAD Standard class libraries I supplied to Vectorworks in 2016 come from - used the hyphen to separate the field in the class name, rathger than the underscore in the Uniclass coding.  I explained why I chose to do this at the time, but now we finally (!) have filters, the hyphen is no longer so useful, or rather filtering can accomodate the use of the underscore or hyphen, and why I refuse to use the ISO13567 variant...

 

The structure of an AEC class is

 

A-B-C-D-E

 

where -E is an optional 'presentation' field, e.g. 'CUT, FWD, HID, RFL

 

So a typical Wall class is

 

A-EF-25-10-M-Wall in AEC parlance

 

A being the author code

B being the uniclass code

C being the object type

D being the description

 

but could also be

 

A-EF-25-10-M-Wall-CUT ie. Thick

A-EF-25-10-M-Wall-FWD i.e. Thin

A-EF-25-10-M-Wall-HID i.e. Thin Dotted

A-EF-25-10-M-Wall-RFL i.e. Thin Dashed

 

This sometimes gets bastardised as

 

A-EF-25-10-MC-Wall

A-EF-25-10-MF-Wall

A-EF-25-10-MH-Wall

A-EF-25-10-MR-Wall

 

rather than adding the -E suffix.

 

Level of Detail or Drawing Scale is taken from the tables themselves

 

EF > Ss > Pr

 

ie. You use EF classes for planning, Ss for GAs, and Pr for details.

 

Of course, you all know this already but in order to remove any doubt... 😉

Edited February 23, 2023 by shorter

[Christiaan]

Top man, thank you. I'll say I knew but forgot 😀

The last bit about LOD being implicit in the tables themselves is something I'd let slip my mind, because, if I'm honest, we haven't implemented LOD very well into our CAD standards and we've simply used the same class structure as our GAs for details, but in a separate file with different attributes. 

 

I've recently started using VW Detail Callouts on a project (which means details are in the same file at everything else), so I need to build LOD into our class structure to make it more efficient.