Viewport Referencing vs Design Layer Viewport Reference

[JanezicDesign]

Hello!

 

Working with referencing viewports and am frustrated by something. So wanted to put a feature request, and also ask for a reason as to why Vectorworks acts like this.

 

The Request:

Simple; I'd love to see the ability to reference viewports directly from another file, OR reference the geometry (like we do now in a design layer viewport) while being able to control the visibilities in the sheet layer viewports individually.

 

At the moment, the process of viewport referencing is:

• Create a new viewport ( View > Create New Viewport... )
• Designate the viewport to a design layer (i.e. Design Layer-1 )
• Set the source to be another file
• Select all design layers in the file you want in the viewport
• EITHER:
  • Copy a viewport from the file you are referencing
  • OR
  • Create new sheet layer viewports from the reference design layer viewport
• Make the one design layer with the design layer viewport in it visible to see the architecture being referenced
• The Problem:
  • If you want to hide any design layers from the referenced file you need to show/hide/gray them in the design layer viewport, meaning if you want different visibilities in other sheet layer viewports you need to:
    • Create a separate design layer with that same referenced viewport in it
    • Show/hide/gray each referenced design layer in each design layer viewport
    • Show/hide/gray the active file design layers (the ones holding the design layer viewports in the active file) in each sheet layer viewport

 

That's the request, either managing the referenced design layers from each sheet layer viewport directly or referencing viewports directly from another file.

 

 

My question is:

 

What's the point of the current workflow? Why would it make more sense to have this seemingly roundabout way of achieving this vs a more direct link with more management of the visibilities? Genuinely curious as to the thought process behind this decision and why we haven't see this evolve to be more flexible within viewports in a file referencing another.

 

 

Thanks for any support or input!

 

 

[C. Andrew Dunning]

You already have what you're wanting if you use the Design Layer Referencing approach instead of ViewPort Referencing.  By using the former, you have full control over Class and Design Layer visibilities - both, on-the-fly (and, leveraging Saved Views) and via Sheet Layer ViewPorts.  The catch is that the Referenced file's Class list then gets added to your working file's - thus, one of the main "points" if using ViewPort Referencing.

[JanezicDesign]

3 minutes ago, C. Andrew Dunning said:

You already have what you're wanting if you use the Design Layer Referencing approach instead of ViewPort Referencing.  By using the former, you have full control over Class and Design Layer visibilities - both, on-the-fly (and, leveraging Saved Views) and via Sheet Layer ViewPorts.  The catch is that the Referenced file's Class list then gets added to your working file's - thus, one of the main "points" if using ViewPort Referencing.

I must be missing something then, as I have only seen and read about importing design layers, and referencing them means doing so in a design layer viewport, not referencing the design layers directly. Is there another way to reference design layers directly so that when the geometry changes in the source file it updates in the active file? From what I gathered, it was only possible in a design layer viewport referencing a source file.

[bcd]

Controlling a DLVP's visibillites in SLVPs would add yet another level of complexity. However, with a nice UI it could be handled elegantly and would definitely be both useful & welcomed. As you say a single DLVP would then serve the entire drawing across all SLs

[JanezicDesign]

31 minutes ago, C. Andrew Dunning said:

Design Layer Referencing approach instead of ViewPort Referencing

I see it now in settings! Thank you for making me check this again.

 

I like the Design Layer Viewport approach, except for the ability to control design layer visibility from the source file. The purpose of my referencing is to make multiple sheet layers of different sizes and have the page counts be individual, which another solution to this; packages of sheet layers to count independently from one another so you can have Arch D plates counting 1-4 in the source file lets say, and letter size sheets counting 1-10 after splitting up across more sheets. 

 

All in all, the design layer reference via the organization references settings is another solution I missed. Maybe because it's considered "old-style", but is a solution to this nonetheless. Thank you again!

[JanezicDesign]

Just now, bcd said:

Controlling a DLVP's visibillites in SLVPs would add yet another level of complexity. However, with a nice UI it could be handled elegantly and would definitely be both useful & welcomed. As you say a single DLVP would then serve the entire drawing across all SLs

Yes, and as @C. Andrew Dunning put it, the "old-style" design layer referencing option DOES fix part of this issue and serves as a workaround to the design layer viewport reference. Having it streamlined to be more direct seems possible in concept though, and I think would make for a better workflow when it comes to simply being able to have one file for geometry and a single set of plates, while another can reference it and make a new set of plates in new sizes with sheet/page counts that don't add them all together. Multiple solutions to that specific need, but this referencing suggestion was my first go at it since it's how I'm working with it at the moment.

[C. Andrew Dunning]

1 hour ago, JanezicDesign said:

All in all, the design layer reference via the organization references settings is another solution I missed. Maybe because it's considered "old-style", but is a solution to this nonetheless.

 

I actually take strong exception to the "old style" label as this approach has its clear strengths.  I teach both methods - along with pros and cons of each.

 

[JanezicDesign]

21 hours ago, C. Andrew Dunning said:

 

I actually take strong exception to the "old style" label as this approach has its clear strengths.  I teach both methods - along with pros and cons of each.

 

It's great that you teach both. Without the ability to control visibilities per viewport with the DLVP approach, I prefer the DL reference approach. The ONLY thing I am having any sort of annoyance with is the idea of template files. Updating the reference to a new file when using the DLVP approach puts all referenced DLs in the DLVP in the proper stacking order. Not a huge deal, but if I update the reference to a new file then any additional DLs not in the new file will be put to the bottom of the stacking order after I check them off. They both have their pros and cons as you said. I wonder if those pros and cons could be combined to make for one approach to referencing DLs and/or VPs.

 

Again, thank you for pointing me in that direction! It's definitely doing what I was wanting now after updating the stacking orders of newly imported/referenced DLs. 

[C. Andrew Dunning]

8 hours ago, JanezicDesign said:

any additional DLs not in the new file will be put to the bottom of the stacking order after I check them off.

 

Can you just rearrange the stacking order of the Design Layers?

 

8 hours ago, JanezicDesign said:

Again, thank you for pointing me in that direction! It's definitely doing what I was wanting now after updating the stacking orders of newly imported/referenced DLs. 

 

100% my pleasure.  Happy to be able to help.

[JanezicDesign]

1 hour ago, C. Andrew Dunning said:

Can you just rearrange the stacking order of the Design Layers?

Yup, again not that big of a deal, but if I were to add another layer into the source file it'd be nice to have the ability to just reference all design layers and have that update everything from that source the way the DLVP does, with the added ability to individually toggle visibility in those layers. But not a make or break, this solution is hands down the way to go for what I'm doing. Wish I had asked this before I did have the venues I'm working on!

 

Thank you!