Importing a VW file into my Template

[brents]

If I have created a template file, with layers and classes set just the way I like them. What is the easiest way to get another VW file into my template. Do I have to open the file and copy and paste everything or is there a simpler way?

[Guest]

Once you've saved the file as a template (File > Save as Template), creating a new project from this file is simple.

Go to File > New and choose "From Document Template" (2nd radio button) and locate the newly saved template file.

[PeterT]

Do you instead mean you want to modify a template after it has already been created? If so, just open the template to a new untitled document, paste in your items, and save the document with the same name and in the same location as the template and replace it. Your new template will now contain these new items.

Alternatively, you can navigate to the template file on your computer, delete the .sta from the end of the file name, open the file and make your changes, close the file saving the changes and add the .sta back to the file name.

A template file is really just a normal VectorWorks file with a .sta file extension. The .sta just forces VectorWorks to open the file as a new untitled document. If you remove this file extension, it will just be a regular file again.

I work on a Mac though, so I am not sure, but I think you have to add a .mcd file extension to get the file to open as a normal VectorWorks file on a PC.

[brents]

I have the template just the way I want it, but then say I am sent theatre plans that I want to open up and have my template layout applied to that file. So instead of the Layers and Classes that are contained within that file, I essentially create a new file with Layer and Class structure that I have defined. Kind of like when you import an AutoCAD drafting and then shuffle all the various parts away into their own Layers and Classes.

[Petri]

Copy and paste (in place) is just fine*. Workgroup referencing too.

In VW 2008 you should also be able to Import Drawing Structure. Presumably that brings in eg. class attributes.

However, for restucturing (remapping of classes) you need to use the Class and Layer Mapping command.

In VW 2008, we are also supposed to have "Easier management of imported AutoCAD layers" but so far I've nor found any evidence on this. At least there's nothing relevant in the Import dialog that I can see.

EDIT

*) Actually, not necessarily. If you Copy with Show/Snap/Modify Other Layers option, everything will be pasted on the active layer.

Edited September 21, 2007 by Petri

[Guest]

VW 2008 allows you to import classes (and thier attributes), layers, and sheet layers to any other file - which would be a classic case of use in Brents case.

[Guest]

Petri - when importing a dxf/dwg, go to the Graphic Attributes tab. There's an option to add a prefix to all imported layers, grouping these layers together in the class drop down. This way, the class list isn't cluttered with an abundance of classes.

[Petri]

A prefix is not the same as merging. The 200+ classes will still be there...

[Guest]

But they are grouped under the parent class named whatever the prefix is named.

From there you could delete them or whatever you want to do with them.

The idea is they are centralized and not mixed up and/or scattered with your current class structure.

It's especially useful if you are using a central file as a shuttle file to manage AutoCAD docs and their updates, while referencing the data into a project file.

[Petri]

This is just cosmetic surgery. Nothing to do with making importing easier, not even in the (extremely unlikely) "shuttle file" situation.

Well, OK - maybe there. So perhaps this option is a lever to get people to be more organized, to start to use WGR for their eternal benefit. But you don't know Jack, my eternal client!

[Petri]

On second thoughts: this new scheme may be entirely counter-productive! Totally anti-PRECISION*. Against all good CAD-management principles in the context & workings of VW!

It promotes a scheme that leads to literally endless lists of classes, instead of concise, logical classification. Cosmetically, their names may be grouped, but conceptually the idea is plain & simply wrong.

It's been a long day. I'll continue the rant tomorrow.

*)PRECISION: Petrifying Rules of Efficient CAD Interchange Systematisation

[Guest]

If the list is long one way or the other, you can't control that during the import. What you can do, is add a prefix to group them together - formerly impossible to do without renaming every single dwg layer.

How does this feature lead to a longer class list? Or are we talking about the use of a Shuttle file.

Perhaps in your line of work, a shuttle file is not appropriate. But there are many users who do use shuttle files, especially when the AutoCAD document is still being updated. The shuttle file keeps a centralized storage of the file structure, which is then referenced into a working document. 1) This eliminates any dashed line issues, corruptions phobias, and the like. 2) As the AutoCAD project is rountinely updated, you don't have to worry about importing the doc and replacing newly drawn objects with another import. You simply replace the objects in the shuttle file, and the reference is updated in the working document.

Is this not a logical application?

[Guest]

Try this - import a dxf/dwg without using a prefix, and go to the class drop down box in the View Bar.

Now import the same file into a new document, using a prefix, and go to the class drop down box.

The second method is less cluttered.

[Petri]

If the list is long one way or the other, you can't control that during the import. What you can do, is add a prefix to group them together - formerly impossible to do without renaming every single dwg layer.

I realize this. So, importing AutoCAD files is not at all easier than it was.

How does this feature lead to a longer class list? Or are we talking about the use of a Shuttle file.

Let's just for a moment consider a CAD-management/collaboration system based on PRECISION. I know it is not a realistic concept, but nevertheless.

For each Discipline, there are shared "layers" such as Existing, Proposed & Demolished or Construction, Fixtures & Devices etc.

In VW, the Disciplines are more than amply handled with Layers (which can and should be WGR-based.)

What useful purpose does it serve to have classes based on BOTH the discipline AND the "operative term"? Why can't everything "To Be Demolished" be in one class?

Perhaps in your line of work, a shuttle file is not appropriate. But there are many users who do use shuttle files, especially when the AutoCAD document is still being updated. The shuttle file keeps a centralized storage of the file structure, which is then referenced into a working document. 1) This eliminates any dashed line issues, corruptions phobias, and the like. 2) As the AutoCAD project is rountinely updated, you don't have to worry about importing the doc and replacing newly drawn objects with another import. You simply replace the objects in the shuttle file, and the reference is updated in the working document.

Is this not a logical application?

It is not. While my main point of reference is recycling/refurbishment etc (we don't do McMansions here), the "improved AutoCAD import" feature is anything but.

EDIT

"Your line of work." "Shuttle files." Please read my chapter about Workgroup Referencing in Janis Kent's "VW 8.5 Manual".

Edited September 22, 2007 by Petri

[Guest]

The first thing to keep in mind is that your way is not the only way in VectorWorks. Just because it doesn't work for you, doesn't mean someone else cannot take advantage of it.

Workgroup Referencing comments of previous versions do not apply to VW 2008.

In my opinion, classes would be used to classify demo, proposed, and construction objects. The layers store the same storey information, the class groups the disciplines.