Question: layers and new objects

[TiTaNiuM sAMuRai]

If you offset an object that is in an inactive layer, the newly created object assumes the current, active layer.However, if you duplicate the first object, the copy remains in that same, inactive layer.

Is this inconsistency by design, or did it just happen that way? I don't care which way it goes, but it would help quite a bit if I knew whether or not I need to adjust a new object's layer, without having to think of whether I had duplicated it or offset it.

[Guest]

It makes sense that a duplicate - identical copy including layer and class settings - of an object would remain on the layer it was created on.

It also makes sense to me that an offset object - a new, independant object with no relationship to the primary object- would go into the current, active class.

I will see if I can track down an engineer to get a detailed response to this.

[ 08-21-2002: Message edited by: Katie ]

[Guest]

Okay ... This took a while for me to get an official response. I wasn't quite sure which engineer to go to for this.

Here's the facts - When using a duplicate feature, it puts things onthe original layer to give the user maximum flexibility. If you want things to be placed on the active layer, use copy and paste. This does not keep the class and layer information, only the object itself. If you want things to go on the original layer, use duplicate.

Im still working on the offset part

[TiTaNiuM sAMuRai]

You've just found out what I originally stated. What I want to know is why it's done that way.

[Guest]

Someone made a decision to do it that way I presume.

To me, it makes sense the way it is. It makes sense to a number of engineers I've talked to about it as well.

[TiTaNiuM sAMuRai]

Good, BUT

Have you talked to draftspersons about it? What do THEY think?