Option to Project Sharing users to check out full layers

[DianaK]

An optinal admin toggle to force users to checkout full layers only, and not individual items.  It would really help me prevent my @$%#^ teammates breaking files!!!!!!!!!

[Matt Overton]

Agree fully anyone using Project sharing probably worked or still works with Workgroup referencing.

We are very much geared to dividing layer (which are free after all) to allow more people to work in files without tripping over each other. 

 

Checking out a full layer is faster. as you only need to do it once per layer. 

 

Not sure I've seen any advantage all all to per object check outs.

[designit]

I agree also, would be much better if you edited anything on a layer for this layer to be checked out without even having to select it as an option. 

[gguerriero]

Totally agree @DianaK ! We need to be able to disable the object checkout feature. Not useful. And it really doesn't work well!

Everyone project sharing should be forced to check out design layers or sheets only.

 

Please make this feature for us collaborative folks.

[spettitt]

I am 1000% behind this!

[Stefan B.]

Not sure this will help in the spotlight version of Vectorworks. As I might checkout my layer of the day, items on all the other layers are connected to the objects I need to work on. Leaving me no other choose than to check out every layer leaving everyone out. For spotlight it works best(by my personal experience) to checkout one truss as a whole at a time and having exceptional good communication with the ones I collaborating with.

 

I absolutely agree that the checkout system could need improments, but disbling item checkout disables the spotlight module from project sharing.

[spettitt]

11 minutes ago, Stefan B. said:

Not sure this will help in the spotlight version of Vectorworks. As I might checkout my layer of the day, items on all the other layers are connected to the objects I need to work on. Leaving me no other choose than to check out every layer leaving everyone out. For spotlight it works best(by my personal experience) to checkout one truss as a whole at a time and having exceptional good communication with the ones I collaborating with.

 

I absolutely agree that the checkout system could need improments, but disbling item checkout disables the spotlight module from project sharing.

That depends on your layer structure. For us in our template, every truss is a layer, and hoists for every truss are a layer. LX1,  LX1 Hoists, LX2, LX2 Hoists etc. Our current preferred working is to check out LX2 and LX2 hoists if you're doing any work on LX2. If mothergrid MG1 suspends LX2, then the weights of MG1 will be affected by your work, so also check out MG1 and MG1 Hoists.

 

It wouldn't work for every company and every show - hence why it would be an admin pref that could be enabled by someone with knowledge of the file structure.

[Stefan B.]

9 hours ago, spettitt said:

For us in our template, every truss is a layer, and hoists for every truss are a layer.

I do not see how this is either practical or efficient.

What do you do for all the other stuff that goes in LX1? Do you have a separate layer for Scenic, Lights, Audio, Video, Pyro, data tags for all categories, notes, and scribbles? As this gives a HUGE amount of layers. I'm not against having plenty of layers, I just don't think the workflow of VW is intended like this. Then I would assume one could make layer hierarchy like with classes.

 

How do you administrate what to see or not with this system? If you end up with hundreds of layers and only want to see hoists and trusses or "The rigging".

 

 I don't see how this helps in regard to what to check out or not. If you do it your way, and there only is a truss and hoists in the drawing, you would need to select both layers for checkout. Since you cannot work on the truss without checking out the hoists. Likewise, you cannot work on the truss without checking out everything else connected to that particular truss.

 

What is the trouble of selecting system objects and checking that one truss with all systems out? This spares you of a lot of layer handling, and a lot of checkouts(since your suggestion of method requires you to select many layers for checkout).

 

[spettitt]

16 hours ago, Stefan B. said:

I do not see how this is either practical or efficient.

What do you do for all the other stuff that goes in LX1? Do you have a separate layer for Scenic, Lights, Audio, Video, Pyro, data tags for all categories, notes, and scribbles? As this gives a HUGE amount of layers. I'm not against having plenty of layers, I just don't think the workflow of VW is intended like this. Then I would assume one could make layer hierarchy like with classes.

All loads on LX1 goes on layer LX1. There are not hundreds of layers, just two for each truss.

 

We often produce a detail sheet of each truss for prep - showing dims between fixtures, all forms of patch data etc. So each truss is easily isolated for producing each prep sheet. Also, we do lots of systems with lighting trusses below other lighting trusses, and we often need to selectively turn off, i.e., LX3, 4, 7 and 8 to be able to draw 5, 6, 9 and 10. Of course, for turning off video vs fixtures vs audio vs truss, we naturally use classes.

 

16 hours ago, Stefan B. said:

 

How do you administrate what to see or not with this system? If you end up with hundreds of layers and only want to see hoists and trusses or "The rigging".

 

 I don't see how this helps in regard to what to check out or not. If you do it your way, and there only is a truss and hoists in the drawing, you would need to select both layers for checkout. Since you cannot work on the truss without checking out the hoists. Likewise, you cannot work on the truss without checking out everything else connected to that particular truss.

There aren't really that many layers, and we have scripts that read the Position Name of a truss and can automatically move all of the connected loads, hoists, data tags etc to the LX1 layer.

 

However, it's probably not worth having a separate hoist layer. People like the system we have now and are used to it, but I will probably raise the posibility of just having LX1, LX2 etc, with every layer having the truss, loads, data tags and hoists.

 

16 hours ago, Stefan B. said:

 

What is the trouble of selecting system objects and checking that one truss with all systems out? This spares you of a lot of layer handling, and a lot of checkouts(since your suggestion of method requires you to select many layers for checkout).

 

I'm not suggesting anyone does this method - just that the proposed request of this thread would be beneficial to us. For us, it's less about managing truss systems and more because people tend to leave random objects checked out, probably without realising - a Graphic Legend here, a few data tags there, a scenic thing, some fixtures on the floor etc, and it seems cleaner to make it whole layers.

Edited November 13, 2023 by spettitt

[Stefan B.]

@spettitt this is interesting way of doing it, and it has been a recommended method by @TomWhiteLight if I'm not mistaken. I refused the method at that time, but It might not be the stupidest way of solving some project sharing challenges. If one structure the classes better(I need to) it might be worth a try. 🤔

 

What do you do for other stuff like stage, scaffolding, scenic, Audio, venue, site, etc?

 

The vectorworks way is all the layers are where, but I see a long list of where's in a big show. Not having the layers as organized as classes(hierarchy structure) it might be a bit messy.

 

By the way, check out https://layerstructure.com/ .

 

But again, how long time do you spend working on one position at a time? For one simple truss, it is a matter of building the truss, setting trim, attaching hoists, naming the truss and hoist and adding data tags. All is done in what, 5min? Some positions require more work of they are more complex or mother positions requiring load spreding, one position can require hours of work. But working 5min on one position and moving on to the next layer leaves more time for handling the software(committing, checking out new layer, communicating you are coming closer to the light, video or audio guys) than actually solving the task at hand.

 

I feel like just plowing trough and adding data tags to all trusses, then committing to release might be the best way to go. Woops, on truss is checked out by a light guy, then I come back to that later. Then you also isolate your checkouts to only that particular truss you are adding hoist, datatag or lights for that matter. And others can work on the neighboring truss piece.

 

What I do agree upon, is Vectorworks stating how this should be done, properly. Not you could du it like this and like this and like this. This clearly does not work as good for people, making wishes and complaining about project sharing struggles or challenges. Then making the vectorworks functions accordingly. If that is locking to only do full layer checkouts then so be it. 😊

 

[TomWhiteLight]

The other thing to consider is if Project sharing could be developed to all check out objects by class. Wondering if you all think that would be better?

[Stefan B.]

How would this work, as symbols often has objects in multiple classes?

[TomWhiteLight]

In that situation it would only check out the parent (container) class.

Unless you are editing symbols. Then you would need to check them all out.

It needs some thought but could it be a solution?

 

[Stefan B.]

Well in general and to work in the Vectorworks way, it does not really makes sense to checkout the where's(layers), since my expertise is in what(rigging). In that way in makes more sense checking out classes, but!

 

This requires Vectorworks to solve how stuff is bind together. A single 3m truss with fixtures and hoists, only one can work on any of those three at a time.

 

If in the future three people can work on a truss, fixture and hoist on the same piece of truss at the same time. Then yes, class checkout makes more sense.

 

And with this said, this is stricly speaking from an entertainment perspective. I do not know how the other industries and their expertise vary. For them it might be better to work on the where's (layers).

[TomWhiteLight]

"This requires Vectorworks to solve how stuff is bind together. A single 3m truss with fixtures and hoists, only one can work on any of those three at a time."

Sounds like a kinematic chain organisational structure, this has been requested before but would require a lot of work but certainly food for thought. 

[Stefan B.]

9 hours ago, TomWhiteLight said:

Sounds like a kinematic chain organisational structure, this has been requested before but would require a lot of work but certainly food for thought.

 

A lot of work tends to give great results.

 

This goes further, as noted in my other post "Project Charing - No Collaboration", it is not possible to draw a single new truss without Vectorworks requiring you to check out some random data tag, hoist, and truss. I'm sure they are not random from a software development perspective, but highly unnecessary for me who just wants to insert a new truss. I just want to make a new sheet layer, but I have to stop all others from working on their sheet layer to do so.

 

I do understand that my insertion of a truss, data tag, and sheet layers in certain positions requires other stuff to change. Either way, I'm not placing symbols at random, they do have a function, and even if Vectorworks tells me I need to check out something, or it is impossible since something is already checked out, I still want this symbol in place at the exact position I tried to place it. I can only assume symbols work a bit as sheet layers(in the background), but let's take sheet layers as an example. I duplicated a sheet layer, and tried to give it a Stacking order(I have never understood the stacking order of sheet layers, but that is another story) 5. This requires the sheet layers with stacking order of 5 and above to change stacking order to +1 and I must check them all out. If this is successful then great, but if someone has checked out a sheet layer with stacking order 6, it makes my operation fail. I still want what I tried to do. I still want my sheet layer duplicated. Would it therefore not make more sense to just give it a new stacking order number that does not require anything other to change, e.g. the highest stacking order +1? And maybe give a warning that my operation was successful but with the wrong stacking order. Then I can actually get on with my work, and if needed change the stacking order at a later possibility.

 

Less time handling the software, more time handling what pays the bills.