Jump to content

Worksheet / Design Layer Viewports / Framing Members

Recommended Posts

Im having a strange problem

I have approx 32 "framing members" on my drawing, I have assigned a record format to all framing members: "engineered beams"

I have created a worksheet and used the database feature

Under set criteria I have chosen:

"List objects whose is "

the worksheet says I have 224 members of this discription.

For each beamIn the OIP under Data I have assigned a name to each one: beam 01 etc

In the attache dimage you can see that the "names" are showing aprrox 9 times each which rules out the possibility of copies of the objects since two objects cant have the same name.

Can someone tell me whats going on.???

Link to comment

I think whats happening is if you have a design layer with say 10 of the above described objects, then you make a viewport of that design layer and insert on a design layer the worksheet will say you have 20 objects, if you make another copy it will say you have 30 objects etc etc.

Can anyone confirm this?

Link to comment
Is this how it is supposed to work?

I thought the database would work on actual information or objects, not how many times that object is shown.

It works this way to allow objects in references to be counted...such as doors in unit plans in a multi-family building.

Using two criteria, one for the object type and one for the source layer will allow you to select the items just once...alternatively you could add criteria to exclude all the layers you don't want, but then adding viewports requires adding criteria.

If the scheduled items appear on two layers, then I would recommend having two database rows within the worksheet -- one for each layer.

I found that after a few trys it was pretty easy...and useful.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

When I "set the criteria " I dont tick "including objects of > viewport"

But the worksheet is still giving me info of objects in viewports.

Im pretty sure this isnt supposed to happen?

Edited by CS1
Link to comment

I found that setting the criteria "layer"-->"is"-->"mod-floor1" worked best for me.

That way adding a DLVP doesn't require updatng the schedule criteria.

For a Multi-floor building, I have been using a database row for each floor.

While this makes changes to the schedule format a bit more cumbersome, that is an infrequent operation.

Separate rows for each floor also offers an opportunity to place subheaders (such as "second floor") within the schedule.

Edited by brudgers
Link to comment

Ok that works for one purpose but what if I dont know the layer that an object occurs on and I want my database to show me every occurance of that object and use the <=L> function to show me which layers they occur on.

The list would be extemely long due to the amount of viewports in some drawings.

What is the point of the <"including objects of > viewport"> if its going to do it whether I tick it or not?

Link to comment

If you wanted to retrieve all the "floor object" info for a 50 storey complex it would take for ever to keep adding each layer to the "set criteria" when you could just "set the criteria" to select all type>floors then just dont tick "from viewports".

Link to comment

Sometimes it will be easier to schedule things automatically, sometimes manually.

I would expect that properly scheduling any building will be proportional to the complexity of the building.

I would recommend schduling based upon organization of the BIM rather than the organization of the drawings....this is to say I recommend scheduling based upon design layers rather than viewports...

There's only one first floor, but there can be many viewports showing it.

Link to comment

Yeah I agree, but I think it would be so much easier if you could just set the criteria to the object you want. Not defining which layer it is on because it will only search design layers anyway. If you wanted it to search viewports as well, you would just tick "viewports".

Is it not a bug that it is still searching viewports even thou "viewports" is unticked?

It doesnt search "symbols" if "symbols" are not ticked, and it doesnt search "Plug-in Objects" if "Plug-in Objects" are not ticked. What does it do if you tick or untick "viewports"?

If you go Tool>Custom Modification> you dont have to tell it which layers to search. If you 3 specified objects which appear on 7 viewports, it says you have 3 objects unless you tick viewport and it says there are 24 occurances of that object (3 x on design layer, + 21 x on viewport)

Edited by CS1
Link to comment
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee

Hi Andre,

This is not a bug but rather a confusing design.

The "viewports" criteria is actually used to tell the engine to search into the annotation space of sheet layers viewports.

Note that if you create a sheet layer viewport your objects are not counted twice even though the "viewports" check box is checked.

Design layers viewports don't have an annotation space and this is the reason why the "viewports" check box has no effect.

I agree that we need a simple criteria to search design layers viewports. However this would have to be a new criteria since it doesn't make sense to tie it with the search into viewport annotations.



Link to comment

OK I see thanks Hugues.

Why is it set to automatically search design layer viewports?

I thought it would make more sense if you cant toggle on/off to juts set it to off, since a design layer viewport is never going to have info of its own, it is always going to just show info from another area.

Link to comment
since a design layer viewport is never going to have info of its own, it is always going to just show info from another area.

Wrong assumption. In the Ellicott Heights BIM in Practice Sample, I demonstrate a workflow in which a large project is made up of multiple files all referenced into a drawing. DLVPs are used to "construct" the model and drawings. Schedules are created in this file, so counting the Doors, for example, is done by searching the instances of the DLVPs.

Link to comment
  • 1 year later...

We're having issues with this, and reproduced the problem in a very simple test:

There are 3 files: A and B are referenced into C using DLVPs, 'constructing' the drawing in C's design layer, as Jeffrey indicates. The aim is to make a simple room schedule in C, listing room name, number, and area.

A and B's Record Format is simply "Room", with one field: "Number" (an integrer). The objects are named in the OIP.

Problem 1: Using "=N" for the room name in the worksheet produces "NNA#2_Living" instead of just "Living".

Problem 2: Using "=Room.Number" produces just a "0" in each cell.

However the area works fine using "=AREA".

Neither problem occurs if I create separate worksheets in A and then in B (but these are not very useful).

I've a deadline looming...any help appreciated!!

Link to comment
It would all be much easier if you used the Space object....

It would be great if you could expand on this Jeffrey.

I made the changes suggested, but still just get a column of "0"s.

There are no spaces in the record or field names, but I tried all these anyway: =Room.Name, ='Room.Name', =(Room.Name), =('Room.Name')...and all return a "0" in every cell as before.

The =AREA returns all the correct areas, and just the fact that sub-rows under the database header are being generated shows the worksheet is finding the objects without any problem. The worksheet is picking up the object attributes but not the data contained in the database record..I have no idea why. As I mentioned, if make identical worksheets in files A and B there is no problem, so I don't think I've made bad object records and fields. Clearly the aim however is to have the worksheet reside in the file with all the DVLPs (my file C), not the source files.

The Help notes do not give any advice about retrieving record information when using DLVPs. I looked at the Ellicott worksheet record retrieval syntax and it appears to be the same as I have it. I've made a number of searches through the Community Board but can't find advice for this problem; apologies in advance if there is an actual discussion of this.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...