Jump to content

DLVP and SLVP confusion


Recommended Posts

I'm confused about the way that design layer viewport and sheet layer viewports are designed to work together. Here is my situation, I have a DLVP on the site layer, and I have adjusted the class visibilities and opacity to get the DLVP to show the info I want on that layer. I then created a SLVP of that layer, and all the classes in the DLVP are now reflecting the class visibilities of the SLVP, but the opacities set in the DLVP. Confused? I am.

It seems to me that the default should be for a DLVP to retain it's visual properties when it is use in a SLVP on a sheet layer. There should be an option to either retain it's properties, or use the the SLVP's.

Anyone else confused by this, or am I just approaching this in the wrong way?

Link to comment

SLVP's are the final control for graphic output and should be capable of overriding other graphic settings.

The opacity should be handled similarly in my opinion...and I haven't confirmed personally that it isn't.

Graphic DLVP settings should probably be made with an eye toward production considerations rather than output...although that's hard to do many times.

But in any event an inconsistency wouldn't surprise me.

Link to comment

I see the logic to the SLVP being the final control to graphical attributes. I guess I am getting a little muddled by what gets controlled where. I am however, a novice and I'm sure a lot of my problems lie with lack of experience. Getting plans ready to be printed is by far the most unpleasant part of the design process, in my opinion. (Plus dealing with the printers themselves can be... frustrating.)

Link to comment

Both of the DLVP will go with SLVP class overrides. So if you have 2 DLVPs that are identical you can give them a different look (from each other) on a design layer, but not when you port them into a SLVP.

As an aside, I think I found a bug. If you take a circle with a solid fill (controlled by a class), and make a DLVP or SLVP of it. Then override the class in the VP with a hatch, what do you get? I don't get a hatch, I get a pattern.

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...

It wouldn't have been so confusing if the terminology had been clearer. Using Viewports for references, design layers and sheet layers was not a wise decision. It would have been better if:

- External Design Layer Viewports had stayed as References (and it had included the ability to have both types in the one document).

- Internal Design Layer Viewports had remained as Layer Links (because that is essentially what they are with management controls added).

- Sheet Layer Viewports had remained as output to Sheet Layers.

The whole matrix was then made even more confusing by not having Sheet Layer Section Viewports and Internal Design Layer Viewports in Fundamentals. Most users would consider these to be basic needs in a modelling program.

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.

Guest
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...