confusion with class naming

[Heather S]

I am developing class standards for our office. My question is, if I have compounded my classes (i.e. New-Wall-Int) with the first compound designating a main group, the second the object and so on. What is the best way to organize the embedded VW classes? (i.e. Sills, Ceiling Main, etc)

[dcont]

I don't think you can change these. If you rename these classes, I think they just end up recreated themselves. I have just let them coexist with our office standard classes.

[Heather S]

Ya, I think your right. Thanks

[Jonathan Pickup]

instead of New-Wall-Int, why not:

Wall-Proposed

Wall-Demo

Wall-Ext New

I find too many levels of groups annoying.

If you have my Architect tutorial manual, you will find instructions on making your class and layer standard, where to store it and on the CD at the back you will find a class and layer standard you can use to get started.

[brudgers]

The Alexandria Laundry Lofts sample project is worth looking at for a method of organizing a renovation project without creating additional classes.

http://www.nemetschek.net/bim/projects.php

I found that learning new ways of using vectorworks was far more productive than trying to customize it in this regard.

[Heather S]

My thought is, that the first compound be either new, existing, Demo, component, etc. The reason is, when you are turning classes on and off, all you have to do is shift then select the classes which are all together in the navigation palette. This way you dont have to scroll down the entire list.

[brudgers]

The Alexandria Laundry Lofts uses only standard layers and classes.

The key is to create cospatial layers for new and existing at each level.

Demo is handled by class and placed on the layer for existing conditions.

It works pretty easily and allows for greying existing construction in a viewport by toggling the layer rather than adjusting an unkown number of class settings.

[billtheia]

I considered making separate classes for new and existing but, in the end, wound up using the approach shown in the Alexandria Lofts example.

This does require some minor gymnastics when a new window is placed in an existing wall but saves having to create and manage many "duplicate" layers (1 for new, 1 for existing.)

The only other problem with the layer-based method (as opposed to the class-based method) is that exporting to dwg can be a bit confusing for consultants receiving the files. If you choose to export new and existing layers separately, the consultants then need to xref 2 files for each floor of a building. If you export both new and existing at the same time, the only way for consultants to determine what is new and what is existing is by wall poche.

The layer-based method just seemed like the way VW was set up to work and allowed easier use of the built-in model setup and standard viewport tools.

Unfortunately, none of VW's tools really deal with new vs existing. They all seem to presume a new building.

It would be great if we could choose between layer-based and class-based methods by using a check-box (or other widget) when using the model-setup and standard viewport tools.

It would also be great if it was easier to create your own layer and class schemes.

I think that ultimately, most people wind up creating a template file and using it instead of VW's productivity tools. Seems like such a waste to me that VW spends a bunch of effort developing these tools only to have them fall short - then no one uses them.

Just my 2c.

[brudgers]

In my opinion, the layer based approach is so much more efficient than the class based approach that its drawbacks hardly matter.

I've yet to see (in my admittedly limited experience) a thread asking how to systematically set up new and existing layers...though new and existing class questions come up all the time.

The translation to acad is somewhat minor in my opinion, since getting consultants to use any xrefs has always been an obsticle since 1991...if I can get them to committ to using one xref, two xrefs will be a piece of cake.

[Heather S]

Well, it seems to me that if you were to have more of a layer based drawing. Then your classes would mainly consist of components, such as wall sheathing, wall frame, etc. Maybe?

[brudgers]

I think I agree...classes differentiate items by their type.

Layers by their location...in the case of new and existing that location includes time as well as space.

Another way of looking at it is that layers group objects which tend to appear together...such as everything on the first floor...and classes differentiate objects which tend to appear together...such as walls and doors.

Edited June 10, 2008 by brudgers

[Heather S]

So if the above is the case, then doors, windows, walls, could just go in the class of "none" and the smaller components could go in there own specific classes. Is that right? BTW Thanks for your help.

[billtheia]

So if the above is the case, then doors, windows, walls, could just go in the class of "none" and the smaller components could go in there own specific classes. Is that right? BTW Thanks for your help.

I don't think that I'd go quite that far.

I'd put doors in the doors in the doors-main class, the windows in windows-main, and the walls in walls-ext or walls-int.