Grouping of Layers - PLEASE

[bjoerka]

Please add the ability to group layers in the layer tab!

Please let layers be linked to others with drag & drop.

Please do not implement a grouping like it is done with classes to sort them by a prefix.

This would be to complicated to have a flexible layer structure.

[line-weight]

27 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

 

I don't really have a suitable file to send you but I think this post sets out fairly comprehensively the returns (in my case at least) you get on using Materials:

 

 

I think I'm going to implement a similar approach as you describe & start using materials in my next project.

As of VW2025, do we have any object types that still can't accept materials? Looking into this a couple of years back, it seemed there were a few things where this was the case.

[Tom Klaber]

34 minutes ago, line-weight said:

 

 

You can sort-of do this using "saved sets" within the "Publish" command.

 

Unfortunately it's very difficult to get a clear overview of what's actually in all of your saved sets because all you have is this tiny dialogue... and if you want to see what's in one of those sets you have to recall it.

 

Even just having an improved "Saved Sets" interface would go a long way to providing what's described above.

 

And then, being able to access those "saved sets" as part of the sheet layers navigation dialogue. That would make it quite a bit easier to keep on top of things when there are large numbers of sheet layers.

Yes.  Saved sets are OK - I wish it would not ask me EVERYTIME I exported anything if I wanted to save it as a set - but it does not solve the fundamental issue of long term project organization - its like a little time saver at the very last step - a seat warmer in a jalopy.   

[Tom W.]

38 minutes ago, line-weight said:

do we have any object types that still can't accept materials?

 

Yes probably. But for me it's really only in Components that I use them so doesn't affect me one way or the other.

[E|FA]

2 hours ago, line-weight said:

do we have any object types that still can't accept materials? Looking into this a couple of years back, it seemed there were a few things where this was the case.

This was what stopped me from trying to use Materials when first introduced - in particular they couldn't be used on doors & windows.  I believe that Materials are now universal, but someone may need to correct me.  I am planning on switching to Materials when I switch to VW2025.

[Tom W.]

1 hour ago, E|FA said:

I believe that Materials are now universal, but someone may need to correct me.

 

I had a quick look + the only objects I could find that don't accept Materials were WinDoor, Massing Model, Floor, Pillar, Roadway, Ramp + Chain Extrude...

[Matt Overton]

On 8/18/2024 at 6:09 PM, Tom W. said:

OK got it:

 

Materials allow you to turn a model that looks like it is made from certain products/materials into one which is made from those products/materials.

Did I miss some massive upgrade to how materials work because they don’t actually create a model that looks right unless the material is uniform. 

[Tom W.]

6 hours ago, Matt Overton said:

Did I miss some massive upgrade to how materials work because they don’t actually create a model that looks right unless the material is uniform. 

 

What do you mean 'material is uniform'...? The model will look the same whether the attributes/textures are applied by object, by class or by Material.

[Matt Overton]

On 11/21/2024 at 5:20 PM, Tom W. said:

 

What do you mean 'material is uniform'...? The model will look the same whether the attributes/textures are applied by object, by class or by Material.

Take timber, which has a direction that works effectively in structures and different appearances along the structural line verse across the structure. Your brain understands this even if you don't and flags it as an oddity or worse as a sign the structure is unsafe. 

 

If you want a render to be well received you either have to get that right or make it more sketchy. 

 

Materials offer no benefits to classes because they don't expand on the classes' ability. 

 

To bring it back to topic.

What would have really helped reduce class complexity is layer grouping and viewport styles that understood layers that repeat within different groups, because materials didn't. 

[Tom W.]

1 hour ago, Matt Overton said:

Take timber, which has a direction that works effectively in structures and different appearances along the structural line verse across the structure. Your brain understands this even if you don't and flags it as an oddity or worse as a sign the structure is unsafe. 

 

If you want a render to be well received you either have to get that right or make it more sketchy. 

 

Materials offer no benefits to classes because they don't expand on the classes' ability. 

 

Correct. Materials do not have built-in UV mapping or the ability to change how textures are handled by PIOs like Doors/Windows. They are just a different way of applying textures + whether they offer benefits in that respect over classes is subjective. The advantage is that you can have one Material per material/product in the model rather than multiple classes + because you are controlling textures/attributes independently of classes that frees up classes to be used solely for visibility or organisational purposes. But Materials are only 50% about appearance. The rest is about data.

[Matt Overton]

14 hours ago, Tom W. said:

 

Correct. Materials do not have built-in UV mapping or the ability to change how textures are handled by PIOs like Doors/Windows. They are just a different way of applying textures + whether they offer benefits in that respect over classes is subjective. The advantage is that you can have one Material per material/product in the model rather than multiple classes + because you are controlling textures/attributes independently of classes that frees up classes to be used solely for visibility or organisational purposes. But Materials are only 50% about appearance. The rest is about data.

I still content better layers and layers groups would do more to allow effective management of complexity and would have allowed materials to do the job well. 

[Tom W.]

10 hours ago, Matt Overton said:

I still content better layers and layers groups would do more to allow effective management of complexity and would have allowed materials to do the job well. 

 

I don't see that Materials are relevant to the OP at all to be honest.