Grouping of Layers - PLEASE

It's maddening that there is no way of doing it. But to be fair even if we could add a "-" to allow a heirachy system like the classes use, it would be an improvement. Being able to link them though would be great too, although I guess that is mostly done through saved views and editing from within the viewports?

This is our current work around to try and keep files organised. We would welcome any tips on improving this?

image.png.371e05e52e9d9f12f59d634d3045f954.png

bjoerka · April 5, 2023

yes - that is the way we actually do it too.

but we are missing the rectangle to collapse these groups...

E|FA · April 5, 2023

I do something similar, with the workaround (welcome to VW...) of setting up saved views for groups of layers.

bjoerka · April 6, 2023

Exactly. Everyone has a workaround, but vectorworks has not improved the structuring of the layers for daily use for years. Instead, complex new features come along, but they also need one or two versions until they really work (groundsupport calculation in braceworks as an example). and small things like layer groups have been on the wish list of many users for many years. and these are certainly not only those who write in forums.

DankBruce · May 16

On 4/5/2023 at 5:23 PM, Josh S said:

It's maddening that there is no way of doing it. But to be fair even if we could add a "-" to allow a heirachy system like the classes use, it would be an improvement. Being able to link them though would be great too, although I guess that is mostly done through saved views and editing from within the viewports?

This is our current work around to try and keep files organised. We would welcome any tips on improving this?

Hello,

I am new to VW, coming from a decade of using revit which i've quickly realised, had it all. One of my biggest bugbears is the navigation/browser organisation of "plans" which VW calls layers. I can see there has been multiple requests about a collapsable, 2-tier system which exists in classes, but for the meantime im interested in how you've structured your project browser here. Are these just false layers you've arranged into Subheadings?

bjoerka · May 16

Pushing this feature request again to the top of the list .-)

Attached a screenshot from the layer palette inside Form-Z

There you can easily create a group and drag and drop other layers into this.

Also a nice feature in Form-Z is the small icon to lock a layer .-)

Bildschirmfoto2024-05-16um09_00_02.png.c3f1e3042500044890be77ed06bfa297.png

_James · May 16

A feature request from 2007 - is this the oldest feature request on the forum? 17 years!

Tom Klaber · May 21

I think we have all taken turns asking for this...

Its another one of those super frustrating ones - because the technical challenge is not obvious.

You tell me you need a few years to develop a new stair tool to work with the new modeling engine blah blah... I understand - that sounds more difficult. Instituting a folder system for classes, layers, and sheets - its just a organizational overlay.... Should not take 20 years to get that working.

Josh S · July 2

On 5/16/2024 at 3:59 AM, DankBruce said:

Hello,

I am new to VW, coming from a decade of using revit which i've quickly realised, had it all. One of my biggest bugbears is the navigation/browser organisation of "plans" which VW calls layers. I can see there has been multiple requests about a collapsable, 2-tier system which exists in classes, but for the meantime im interested in how you've structured your project browser here. Are these just false layers you've arranged into Subheadings?

Hi DankBruce,

Welcome to VW! I only ever learned the basics in Vectorworks, I would be interested to hear how you find this in comparison (May be drop me a message?).

To answer your question - Yes. I just create additional false layers to break the drawing down. I have even started adding them to help manage my sheet layers on projects multiple users are working on (In progress, Issued, etc...). It does work, but a little plus and stackable symbol would make it all so much more manageable!

bcd · July 2

Maybe a Filter could have a little Group UI icon in the Navigation Palette - so you would see said icons all at once:

So Groups basically become another & quicker Filter.

Simple Icon - Group1

Simple Icon - Group2 ....

'nother icon - 'Grouped' via Filter 1

'nother icon - 'Grouped' via a Filter 2 etc.

Edited July 2 by bcd

bjoerka · August 15

When i read the actual announcements for the upcoming version 25, this wish has still be ignored.

Instead of this really usefull feature we are getting a visual pimped Autocad 3d navigation feature.

grant_PD · August 15

-grouping of layers

-layer locks

-sometimes I wish for "layer move" where I can just move the entire layer like you can with the pan tool. I know you can select all and then move, but I always feel like if I do that and then drag I'm at risk of losing my selection on the next click....

mjm · August 15

7 hours ago, grant_PD said:

-grouping of layers

-layer locks

-sometimes I wish for "layer move" where I can just move the entire layer like you can with the pan tool. I know you can select all and then move, but I always feel like if I do that and then drag I'm at risk of losing my selection on the next click....

wkarnd: Select / group / move / ungroup - it's the only way I feel safe in these instances

Edited August 15 by mjm

bcd · August 15

yes - here too.

and I often select all and use Shift+M move by points

taoist · August 15

What does it take to have one wake up and smell the coffee?

There is no excuse for this in my opinion.

Why so many of us end users have asked for years, for many things, and nothing has changed.

I for one, am not interested in your "reasons".

There are multiple core tools, that is they have been with VW (MiniCad) for many years, yet no progress has been made.

I think, partially that they view VW as a designer tool not as an Architect tool.

Not all of us are Designers. Some of us, are actual builders. We have the real world experience on what it takes to build the design.

The tools, many have been here since Minicad, why not keep them up to date.

If not kept up to date, then create new or delete the old.

I do not want to hear about "coding" issues.

Your competition is dealing with it, why not you?

Do any of the software engineers have any real world experience, or they just do what they are told?

I am sorry if I appear to harsh, but the kids gloves need to come off.

FWIW

IMHO

Ross Harris · August 16

When you look at this announcement, the amount of spotlight features in the road map, seconded by landmark features it's clear that the ship is being steered into areas where it has a foothold. Architectural features are few and vaguely outlined, and is clearly a lower priority. There hasn't been anything meaningful released for architecture in years, and even then...

Walls - where are the Improvements promised from the ground up rebuild of the tool. Are closures all we get? What about stacked and slanting walls? 🦗 Try moving walls with multiple junctions... you have to disconnect them, or use the move by points tool to force a move and have to rejoin every wall that becomes disconnected. You can move any wall regardless of junctions in revit... And they all stay connected.
Windows and doors - so many documented issues and wish lists. 🦗
Roofs - skylights are a joke, forget about complex roofs or the arcane steps to 'join' multiple roof objects. Soffit, gutters, fascias or downpipes? 🦗
Every annotation tool has inconsistent style functions and leader options. Obvious lack of quality control.
Styles! Why is only half the program styled? Text callouts? Dimensions? Two of the glaring omissions that make the program inconsistent. There was a stated push to get everything over to styles a few versions back. It seems like these things run out of steam and get dropped before they are fully implemented, like the...
Structural member tool - a tentpole feature release (in vw 2018 - 7 years!) left to rot, with only a few fixes recently. Compared to other softwares, a fairly useless tool. But a good weathervane to the attitude to architecture...
Railing tool - it's total junk and just looks erm... nasty.. In any presentation. The promo and training vids show are very disingenuous and only show examples where it doesn't go completely janky.
The University... Coffee break vids are almost comedic. There are many Instances where where the speakers don't know the software. Watch the one on annotations where a question is asked if the callous can easily be aligned... The speaker states no! But the other speaker tries to steer him to the the command, then just has to throw him under the bus and go 'it's here'. It's total cringe in an official video. There are also landmark site modelling vid on vw YouTube that is more useful than any in the uni. If it's there I can't find it... Which is a other issue... Its slow and search is rubbish.

If they want architecture customers to stump up a subscription and start pumping up service select costs for existing users they need to deliver, but I fear they don't really care.

Edited August 16 by Ross Harris

Ross Harris · August 16

How could I forget materials! Another feature half baked on release with promised development left to rot.. Which I was reminded of after a user got a smacked hand in the ai visualiser forum for daring to question it's existence in lieu of... Actual enhancements to neglected tools.

Dev time wasted in an ai visualiser... A curiosity... In lieu of actual enhancements. No doubt this tool will also suffer the same fate as others...

Marionette - let's reinvent the wheel! There was lots of big talk on collaboration with other vendors and being ahem... 'open'... Grasshopper and Rhino? No? OK!

Edited August 16 by Ross Harris

Tom W. · August 16

42 minutes ago, Ross Harris said:

How could I forget materials! Another feature half baked on release with promised development left to rot..

Just to offer an alternative perspective I think Materials are fantastic + use them day in day out. They are a game-changer as far as I'm concerned + a very welcome development. Many of the original complaints were to do with not being able to use them with Doors + Windows but this functionality has now been added (not that I've ever needed to apply a Material to a Door or a Window..).

This is not to say I don't agree with the OP + haven't voted it up. Given the strength of feeling + number of wishes about this it would be great to get some feedback from VW on the matter. Has it been discussed internally? Is it very challenging to implement? Is there any likelihood of it ever happening? I can't remember if VW has commented on any of the other threads.

taoist · August 17

Why do we get the feeling that they are ignoring us?

Too long for user requests, and nothing to show for it.

I love Vectorworks for it's flexibility, and dislike it for it's inherit limitations.

Great ideas on some tools, but absolute rookie implementations, or updates.

Some of these tools have been with us since MiniCad.

I feel as though we have a process of Designers vs Real World Builders.

Why have a tool if it is truly not real world functioning?

Just to say you have it, albeit lackluster.

If any CAD software company has a tool or tools that do not make the cut, either get rid of them or bring them up to speed.

I am not interested in hearing about coding issues.

That is no excuse.

That is your responsibility as CAD software company.

We will keep asking and pushing to get what should be there.

After all, you do say Architectural (in my case).

FWIW

cberg · August 17

@Tom W. Just curious. How do you use materials, and exactly how do you consider them to be a game changer? I know they exist but I certainly do not make much use of them.

When they came out I thought that the materials container would allow you to separate fill attributes from section cut graphics. For example you could have a steel piece cut in section with a hatch but showing solid in plan. When I realized that’s not how materials worked, I sort of lost interest…

Tom W. · August 18

1 hour ago, cberg said:

@Tom W. Just curious. How do you use materials, and exactly how do you consider them to be a game changer? I know they exist but I certainly do not make much use of them.

When they came out I thought that the materials container would allow you to separate fill attributes from section cut graphics. For example you could have a steel piece cut in section with a hatch but showing solid in plan. When I realized that’s not how materials worked, I sort of lost interest…

Materials allow me to quickly, easy, accurately + reliably construct my models as they would be built in real life using the actual materials/products involved. Previously all I had to work with were Components (of Walls, Slabs, Roofs, etc) but these only had the potential to contain a very limited amount of information (a Name, R-value + thickness + nothing else) + they weren't transferable across styles or tools so it was a real pain maintaining consistency. Plus there was no link between them + textures/attributes so this had to be maintained manually as well. It was a really clunky + error-prone workflow + prior to Materials I even posted a wish for Components to be importable/exportably/transferable to help improve things.

Materials changed all this. They basically had the effect of turbo charging Components: the two go hand in hand. So I have built a library of all the building materials/products I commonly use e.g.:

Sheet materials like OSB, PIR insulation, plasterboard + woodwool board: specific sizes/thicknesses/manufacturers.
Membranes (DPM, VCL, AVCL, breather membrane, geotextile membrane).
Various timber framing combinations (different sized studs at different centres with or without insulation + different types of insulation: Compound Materials allow you take a timber Material + an insulation Material + combine them at an appropriate ratio).
Wet materials like concrete, render, mortar, plaster: specific mixes.
Various masonry combinations where different bricks/blocks are combined with different mortars (Compound Materials again).
etc etc etc

These Materials contain the texture + section fill obviously but also all the info about that material/product: description, mark, product name, product code, manufacturer, cost, lambda, embodied carbon, etc plus I can attach my own Custom Record should I want to include anything else (quantity per pack, area/volume per pack, lead-in time, etc).

And then these are what I use to build my Wall/Roofs/Slabs/Hardscapes/Landscape Area styles: I create a Material once then can use it across multiple different objects multiple times + be confident the same attributes + data are populating the entire model. It is very powerful. I get a big return for a small amount of work + genuinely enjoy creating new Materials when I start a new project that uses a new product/material. All that data is there to be reported on + used in tags. If I need to change one material/product for another it's a couple of clicks + the whole model's affected + all the reports/tags follow suit. I know that the texture + section fill I am using for a particular material/product is controlled from a single point + will be consistent throughout the model + across all files. I have worksheets that tell me how much of all those products/materials I'm using across the whole model in real time: I mean the actual number of a specific type of brick or specific sheet of insulation or whatever. This is important to me because I am designing buildings that I am then going on to build so it tells me what I need to order + in what quantity. But even if someone else was building it it's good to be able to say in detail how you expect it to be constructed: those details are built into the model + don't have to be added manually via written callouts/specs. If you change a product in the model then the specification updates automatically via the worksheets/tags (enter caveat here re difficulty of tagging components in section however...).

I don't use Energos but I am concerned about thermal performance + Materials allow me to easily monitor the impact of different products/materials + different build-ups.

For those not so concerned about the nitty gritty of construction + the practicalities of building it in real life - who are interested solely with the design/aesthetics - then Materials are going to be of less interest, but even so I think just from an organisation-of-attributes point of view they are useful. For example I have multiple galvanised steel, stainless steel, etc textures + previously could never remember which ones were the 'right' ones to use + what section fill to go with them: Materials make life easier because I now have definitive 'Galvanised Steel', 'Brushed Stainless Steel', 'Polished Stainless Steel' etc Materials that I know to use each time + I can ignore my vast collection of textures... In these cases I am just using Materials to assign attributes + nothing else. It means I can use Classes solely for controlling visibility + don't end up with multiple classes using the same attributes + having to ensure they are consistent.

As a bonus I like the way I can tell at a glance whether the Texture a Material uses has a Surface Hatch or not. Previously the only way to tell (unless you included 'Surf Hatch' in the name, VW-style) was to edit the texture which was a real bore.

There you go! Sorry to blab on but I do genuinely think VW have done a good job with Materials + should get some credit for that.

Grouping of Layers - PLEASE

Question

Link to comment

43 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation