Folders & Sub-Folders at the Sheet Layers

[Ricasha]

Please I would like to organize my work at the sheet layers with folders abd subfolders.

My goal is classify the architectural plans in a folder, Structural Plans in a Folder , MEP Plans in another folder and by this way make shortly lthe long list of plans.

Thanks.

Rico2

[Petri]

(Maybe this could be moved to "Wish List"?)

Indeed. Why can't we have "layer folders"? Layers are considered to be "containers", so conceptually they could be treated the same way as symbols.

However, a hierarchical system like classes would probably serve the purpose. Can we have that, please?

(I've been told that NNA implements only wishes that are submitted & expressed in a polite tone. The usefulness or relevance of the wish are insignificant. Groveling is definitely encouraged.)

[Ricasha]

It is true , but I didn't say layers folders.

I have said Sheet Layers Folders ( that is different) The sheet layers through Vector 11 allow us make viewports like a paperspace of a cad drawing.

So, it is very important classify our works as the kind like architectural, mechanical, electricals, etc.

Thanks

[Petri]

like a paperspace of a cad drawing.

???

One would think that VW documents are CAD-drawings.

Well, obviously I don't understand what you are after.

[Ricasha]

The VW documents are not Cad Drawings, but this is the unique way to undersatnd the concept of viewports in VW.

Excuse me but you are totally lost , because you are confused with the design layers with the sheets layer. That are different.

[Petri]

I believe I understand the difference pretty well, but I can't follow your thinking.

Viewports are just a way to look at the model/design data and I fail to understand how the folder paradigm would apply to them.

In what way VW documents are not CAD-drawings? How do you define the term "CAD drawing"?

[Don@Black Dog]

I think that what he wants is a way to further sub-divide the myriad of Sheet Layers one can end up with into more managable groups, especially useful for a large project with many types of drawings, Arch, Mech, Structural, Elec, etc.

[Petri]

Fine. Then what's wrong with the hierarchical naming I proposed?

The last thing we need, to be honest, is another file structuring system.

Besides, I have no idea why and how a "large project with many types of drawings, Arch, Mech, Structural, Elec" should or could be kept in a single VW file. There are folders available in all applicable operating systems and Workgroup Referencing to link appropriate components within VW.

[Ricasha]

I am totally agree with you . Finally I found compression and a person who understood me. That's is. May be a project must keep the architectural plans, mechanical , electrical, structural, landscaping in a single file, using a single and common plan generical in order to low the file size.

Thank you.

[Petri]

So, we are getting somewhere? With Workgroup Referencing, all "disciplines" have their own files and "working documents" are assembled from selected components (layers) of them.

[islandmon]

Listings of Classes, Layers , and Sheets become quite cumbersome depending on the situation.

Indeed, WGR does solve the 'long list' problem but at the cost of adding considerable complexity by

using the OS native file directories instead of the application internal database structure.

Implementation of OS like nested directories would be a vast improvement to the current "flat" method of presenting long lists of Classes,Layers, and Sheets.

[Ricasha]

yes, but when the project is short I wouldn't use workgroup referencing.

Beside, sometime a person wants to do all in one file due the maneagibilities of a project,

[Petri]

There are CAD-programs that use the "project" paradigm in the sense I believe some here refer to "folders" or "internal database". Users of those talk about a "single file" and consider that as an advantage, even a benchmark.

It may well be an advantage in some situations, but a perhaps a disadvantage in some others. If that would be the only way to work, then we would be eternally locked to the "scheme of things" devised by the dreaded Programmers.

If I'd be forced to use something like the VWA project set-up process & accept the underlying assumptions, I'd start to look for a new CAD-program.

Moreover, I want to be able to take one or more files of a project with me, do bits of work elsewhere and then just put the revised version in its place.

The two approaches may perhaps be able to be used in combo - but then you need to know in advance which parts will be used "elsewehere".

As an example, FileMaker Pro used to have separate, independent tables that together formed the database. It was quite possible to use (mostly in a limited fashion but nevertheless) any table at home or on the road or get an external contractor to do work in it. Now, all tables are in a single file and cannot be used independently. There are definite advantages, but in a system I'm developing, serious problems are arising, too. The necessary workaround reduce the advantages considerably.

[Ricasha]

I never have attempted to the freedom of VWA , by the opposite, the folder and sub folder at the sheetlayer is a way to look more alternative for more people who like us the software.

In other way if we are using this software is because it is confortable, consecuently noboby must not order use a cad program.

Thanks.