Author Topic: Ashade  (Read 13180 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

One Shot

  • Guest
Ashade
« on: September 24, 2004, 03:32:32 PM »
Does anyone have a lisp routine that will kill the Ashade layer?

Keith™

  • Villiage Idiot
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 16899
  • Superior Stupidity at its best
Ashade
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2004, 04:06:48 PM »
Try this ....
Code: [Select]

(command "erase" (ssget "x" '((8 . "ASHADE"))))
Proud provider of opinion and arrogance since November 22, 2003 at 09:35:31 am
CadJockey Militia Field Marshal

Find me on https://parler.com @kblackie

CADaver

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2004, 05:22:08 PM »
Quote from: Keith
Try this ....
Code: [Select]

(command "erase" (ssget "x" '((8 . "ASHADE"))))


Add a purge to that:

Code: [Select]

(command "erase" (ssget "x" '((8 . "ASHADE")))
                "-purge" "la" "ashade" "n"
                "-purge" "bl" "ave_*" "n"
)
)


And bye-bye


(editted) make that a -purge

David Bethel

  • Swamp Rat
  • Posts: 656
Ashade
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2004, 06:26:01 PM »
ASHADE layer can be and is usually locked as well, so you need to unlock it.  -David
R12 Dos - A2K

One Shot

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2004, 02:59:17 PM »
Can't get it to work.  Is there anything else that goes with it?

Mark

  • Custom Title
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 28753
Ashade
« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2004, 03:47:47 PM »
What is it ?
TheSwamp.org  (serving the CAD community since 2003)

One Shot

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #6 on: September 28, 2004, 04:40:57 PM »
Quote from: Mark Thomas
What is it ?

The code that is listed above.

Mark

  • Custom Title
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 28753
Ashade
« Reply #7 on: September 28, 2004, 04:47:39 PM »
What is the error you get?
Is the ASHADE layer locked? as noted above by David.

Did you try something like this;

Code: [Select]

(sslength (ssget "x" '((8 . "ASHADE"))))
TheSwamp.org  (serving the CAD community since 2003)

One Shot

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2004, 04:56:48 PM »
Quote from: Mark Thomas
What is the error you get?
Is the ASHADE layer locked? as noted above by David.

Did you try something like this;

Code: [Select]

(sslength (ssget "x" '((8 . "ASHADE"))))



Is there anyother coding to go with this?

Mark

  • Custom Title
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 28753
Ashade
« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2004, 06:29:13 PM »
Quote from: One Shot
Is there anyother coding to go with this?

Nope! That's it. Have a look at C:\<AutoCAD Install>\Help\acad_dev.chm.
TheSwamp.org  (serving the CAD community since 2003)

CADaver

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2004, 06:40:46 PM »
You need to be aware that layer ASHADE will return every time you issue a RENDER command

Keith™

  • Villiage Idiot
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 16899
  • Superior Stupidity at its best
Ashade
« Reply #11 on: September 28, 2004, 08:23:06 PM »
CADaver that may indeed be the issue....
Proud provider of opinion and arrogance since November 22, 2003 at 09:35:31 am
CadJockey Militia Field Marshal

Find me on https://parler.com @kblackie

MP

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 17750
  • Have thousands of dwgs to process? Contact me.
Ashade
« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2004, 08:49:42 PM »
I'm confused, what's wrong with the presence of the ashade layer, or the defpoints layer for that matter? I could be bothered if one of our users wanted either deleted; hello, bigger fish to fry.

I welcome enlightenment though, I miss the salient point more frequently than I'd like to admit.
Engineering Technologist • CAD Automation Practitioner
Automation ▸ Design ▸ Drafting ▸ Document Control ▸ Client
cadanalyst@gmail.comhttp://cadanalyst.slack.comhttp://linkedin.com/in/cadanalyst

Keith™

  • Villiage Idiot
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 16899
  • Superior Stupidity at its best
Ashade
« Reply #13 on: September 28, 2004, 08:55:19 PM »
well.... for me it is not the issue of whether the layer should or should not be deleted, it is whether it can be. The answer of course is yes it can be and the code in this thread shows how....
I learned long ago, don't bother asking too many questions, just give the boss what he wants. In this case OneShot is the boss and I for one was merely attempting to answer the question at hand, not convolute it with more questions.
Proud provider of opinion and arrogance since November 22, 2003 at 09:35:31 am
CadJockey Militia Field Marshal

Find me on https://parler.com @kblackie

One Shot

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #14 on: September 28, 2004, 09:04:43 PM »
Quote from: Keith
well.... for me it is not the issue of whether the layer should or should not be deleted, it is whether it can be. The answer of course is yes it can be and the code in this thread shows how....
I learned long ago, don't bother asking too many questions, just give the boss what he wants. In this case OneShot is the boss and I for one was merely attempting to answer the question at hand, not convolute it with more questions.



I am aware that it will return when the Render command is used.  The reason that I want to delete is to ensure that no one puts anything on that layer.  I will never delete the defpoints layer.  

Keith, thank you for your response.

MP

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 17750
  • Have thousands of dwgs to process? Contact me.
Ashade
« Reply #15 on: September 28, 2004, 09:12:49 PM »
Quote from: Keith
well.... for me it is not the issue of whether the layer should or should not be deleted, it is whether it can be. The answer of course is yes it can be and the code in this thread shows how....
I learned long ago, don't bother asking too many questions, just give the boss what he wants. In this case OneShot is the boss and I for one was merely attempting to answer the question at hand, not convolute it with more questions.

Interesting answer. I don't fully agree with it but I like it just the same.

I guess it's all one's perspective.

Generally I've found that my opinion leans quite frequently in Cadaver's direction (I don't know who should be more frightened). I think that's because we have similar experience and in particular, because we manage, <cough> support very large CADD teams, like 250 seats. In that context there are "Way bigger fish to fry" when posed a question like "Can we get the ASHADE layer deleted" particularly because there is no tangible or lasting benefit (IMO).

Cheers. :)
Engineering Technologist • CAD Automation Practitioner
Automation ▸ Design ▸ Drafting ▸ Document Control ▸ Client
cadanalyst@gmail.comhttp://cadanalyst.slack.comhttp://linkedin.com/in/cadanalyst

Keith™

  • Villiage Idiot
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 16899
  • Superior Stupidity at its best
Ashade
« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2004, 09:54:34 PM »
While there may be no tangible or lasting benefit (in your opinion), I would note that it all boils down to what you find tangible and/or beneficial.
I am particularly anal concerning drawings and their presentation in DWG format. If you or anyone else were to send me a drawing with layers that are obviously not used for the purpose of the drawing, I would reject the drawing and require the extraneous data be removed. This is no different than you as a contractor with your client requiring that the drawings be accurate and precisely drawn.

Before this goes too far, let me state that if my standards do not include the layer ASHADE (and they do not) then if this layer is in the drawing, it will automatically be rejected for being out of compliance with the standard.

Yes I agree there are much bigger "fish to fry" than one errant layer, however that attitude is precisely the slippery slope that gets us all into trouble. Today an errant layer, tomorrow items on the wrong layer, next week no layers at all besides 0.
Aiming for perfection is noble, attaining perfection impossible, but as we strive to attain perfection, we improve our product and our productivity.

Consider this errant layer ASHADE ...
How did it get there?
Did someone use render?
Were they supposed to be rendering?
How many drawings are affected?
Will it affect any programming?

These are all valid questions...questions that will need to be answered if the solution to the problem is to be found.

Solutions?
No rendering?
Purge drawings?
Modify affected programming?

I would reject these "solutions" as foolhardy,  simply because you can never account for the actions of an individual save yourself.
My solution...
Place a housekeeping routine in the S::Startup routine that....
a) removes all ASHADE blocks from the drawing
b) move all remaining objects on the ASHADE layer to a new layer called TRASH ... if anything is on this layer it is trash anyway and must be fixed.
c) purge layer ASHADE

What we have done is ...
a) Eliminated the need for anyone to think about removing the errant layer, it will be automatic
b) identified potential problems with the layering schemata that must be fixed

Simple solution and effective....given enough time having to fix these entities on the TRASH layer, a user will learn that they should do it right the first time, then the problem will no longer exist.

At least that is my opinion....
Proud provider of opinion and arrogance since November 22, 2003 at 09:35:31 am
CadJockey Militia Field Marshal

Find me on https://parler.com @kblackie

CADaver

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #17 on: September 29, 2004, 07:14:31 AM »
Quote from: Keith
In this case OneShot is the boss and I for one was merely attempting to answer the question at hand, not convolute it with more questions.
There's a story of a small girl learning how to boil a ham from her mom.  

Mom said "The first thing you do is cut the "heel" (small end), off the ham and throw it away."  

The girl asked "Why?"

"I don't know" replied mom, "That's how my mom taught me, let's ask her"

So they walked over to Grandma house and asked, she replied "I don't know, That's how my mom taught me, let's ask her"

Off they went to "Mommaw", and asked. she replied "I don't know, That's how my mom taught me, let's ask her"

Off again to see "Old Mom", and asked. she replied "I had a small pot"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Very often a simple questiion will lead to a much greater understanding.

CADaver

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #18 on: September 29, 2004, 07:29:21 AM »
Quote from: Keith
I am particularly anal concerning drawings and their presentation in DWG format. If you or anyone else were to send me a drawing with layers that are obviously not used for the purpose of the drawing, I would reject the drawing and require the extraneous data be removed. This is no different than you as a contractor with your client requiring that the drawings be accurate and precisely drawn.

Before this goes too far, let me state that if my standards do not include the layer ASHADE (and they do not) then if this layer is in the drawing, it will automatically be rejected for being out of compliance with the standard.
Interesting, you expend manhours controlling the existence of a layer that is automatically created by the software??  Wish I had that kind of budget.


Quote from: Keith
Yes I agree there are much bigger "fish to fry" than one errant layer, however that attitude is precisely the slippery slope that gets us all into trouble. Today an errant layer, tomorrow items on the wrong layer, next week no layers at all besides 0.
Faulty extension of logic when applied to a layer that is created by the software.  It might be okay or the one man office with one product, but a poor choice of battles when managing multiple seats with a wide range of products.



Quote from: Keith
Aiming for perfection is noble, attaining perfection impossible, but as we strive to attain perfection, we improve our product and our productivity.
Epending manhours to control the ASHADE layer is "counter" productive.


Quote from: Keith
Consider this errant layer ASHADE ...
How did it get there?
Did someone use render?
Were they supposed to be rendering?
How many drawings are affected?
Will it affect any programming?
The correct answer of course is yes they were rendering, any drawing that inserts that file file will contain that layer, and no it will not have any effect on programming because we know the layer is created by the software and have allowed for it.  As to whether the individual should have been rendering, that is a management question that has nothing to do with the program.


Quote from: Keith
These are all valid questions...questions that will need to be answered if the solution to the problem is to be found.
There is no "problem", therefore a solution is not required.  You've only chosen to view it as a problem.


Quote from: Keith
My solution...
Place a housekeeping routine in the S::Startup routine that....
a) removes all ASHADE blocks from the drawing
b) move all remaining objects on the ASHADE layer to a new layer called TRASH ... if anything is on this layer it is trash anyway and must be fixed.
c) purge layer ASHADE
And the all the work the guy did on the other side of the building to get the presentation ready at the owner's request is lost by micro-managing a non-problem.


Quote from: Keith
What we have done is ...
Place unnecessary limits on a powerful tool.

At least that is my opinion...

CADaver

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #19 on: September 29, 2004, 07:30:22 AM »
Quote from: MP
Generally I've found that my opinion leans quite frequently in Cadaver's direction (I don't know who should be more frightened).
Dunno about anyone else, but that scares me.    :wink:

Keith™

  • Villiage Idiot
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 16899
  • Superior Stupidity at its best
Ashade
« Reply #20 on: September 29, 2004, 08:34:34 AM »
Quote from: CADaver
Quote from: Keith
In this case OneShot is the boss and I for one was merely attempting to answer the question at hand, not convolute it with more questions.
There's a story of a small girl learning how to boil a ham from her mom.  

Mom said "The first thing you do is cut the "heel" (small end), off the ham and throw it away."  

The girl asked "Why?"

"I don't know" replied mom, "That's how my mom taught me, let's ask her"

So they walked over to Grandma house and asked, she replied "I don't know, That's how my mom taught me, let's ask her"

Off they went to "Mommaw", and asked. she replied "I don't know, That's how my mom taught me, let's ask her"

Off again to see "Old Mom", and asked. she replied "I had a small pot"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Very often a simple questiion will lead to a much greater understanding.

This analagy as cute as it might be, is flawed... we must consider that the boss, while not always being right, is still always the boss. It could just as easily went like this....
Quote

Mom said "The first thing you do is cut the "heel" (small end), off the ham and throw it away."  

The girl asked "Why?"

"Because I said that is how to do it" replied mom.


Everything in this world is influenced by personal preferences, if I want something and I am willing to pay for it, neither you or anyone else has the right to tell me I cannot have it.
Proud provider of opinion and arrogance since November 22, 2003 at 09:35:31 am
CadJockey Militia Field Marshal

Find me on https://parler.com @kblackie

SMadsen

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #21 on: September 29, 2004, 08:44:10 AM »
Oh you guys want to turn anything into a discussion .. *cough*

I wouldn't say that no one doesn't have the right to deny you anything just because you can pay for it. On the contrary.
But besides legal issues in general I'd tend to agree .. umm .. with both?

CADaver

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #22 on: September 29, 2004, 08:47:50 AM »
Quote from: Keith
Everything in this world is influenced by personal preferences, if I want something and I am willing to pay for it, neither you or anyone else has the right to tell me I cannot have it.
Very true, but don't be surprised at the names you'll be called.  One can have it in crayon on a paper bag if one is willing to pay for it, but don't be shocked when I call one an idiot (for free) for wanting such.

BTW, "Because I said so" has always been a lame excuse for failure to think.

CADaver

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #23 on: September 29, 2004, 08:58:47 AM »
Quote from: SMadsen
Oh you guys want to turn anything into a discussion .. *cough*

But besides legal issues in general I'd tend to agree .. umm .. with both?
COP OUT ALERT  :wink:

Keith™

  • Villiage Idiot
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 16899
  • Superior Stupidity at its best
Ashade
« Reply #24 on: September 29, 2004, 09:16:16 AM »
Quote from: CADaver
Interesting, you expend manhours controlling the existence of a layer that is automatically created by the software??  Wish I had that kind of budget.

No....more like manseconds.... I spend 30 seconds to forever resolve an issue I feel is inappropriate. It is a small price to pay for my continued peace of mind.


Quote from: CADaver
Quote from: Keith
Yes I agree there are much bigger "fish to fry" than one errant layer, however that attitude is precisely the slippery slope that gets us all into trouble. Today an errant layer, tomorrow items on the wrong layer, next week no layers at all besides 0.
Faulty extension of logic when applied to a layer that is created by the software.  It might be okay or the one man office with one product, but a poor choice of battles when managing multiple seats with a wide range of products.

No... I beg to differ... your analagy automatically presumes that just because Autodesk saw fit to put that layer there, it MUST be ok. That is a faulty extension of logic! If that layer is so important, why doesn't AutoCAD put it in ALL drawings? The answer is that it is not important and not required, thereby it is not in all drawings, only those where rendering took place.  To effectively manage a large user base, one must know how to do things efficiently. As a manager of 5 or 500 users, one can easily, and quickly apply all of the changes to every system to prevent that problem (as I see it) from happening.




Quote from: CADaver
Quote from: Keith
Aiming for perfection is noble, attaining perfection impossible, but as we strive to attain perfection, we improve our product and our productivity.
Epending manhours to control the ASHADE layer is "counter" productive.

It is only counter productive in your opinion. If it neither costs manhours, (as described above) and it is seamless, i.e. the user does not even know it is happening, then it cannot be counter productive, because as far as the user is concerned, it does not exist.

Quote from: CADaver
Quote from: Keith
Consider this errant layer ASHADE ...
How did it get there?
Did someone use render?
Were they supposed to be rendering?
How many drawings are affected?
Will it affect any programming?
The correct answer of course is yes they were rendering, any drawing that inserts that file file will contain that layer, and no it will not have any effect on programming because we know the layer is created by the software and have allowed for it.  As to whether the individual should have been rendering, that is a management question that has nothing to do with the program.

On the contrary....unless we all have ESP and knowledge of future releases of AutoCAD, we cannot create our programming to automatically accomodate for a layer that we don't know exists. I suppose we could make our programming just ignore unknown layers....that should solve the problem.....NOT!...
And yes it is a management question about whether the individual(s) has been rendering when they should not have been.

Quote from: CADaver
Quote from: Keith
These are all valid questions...questions that will need to be answered if the solution to the problem is to be found.
There is no "problem", therefore a solution is not required.  You've only chosen to view it as a problem.

It is a problem if users are not following standards. The standards are clear, no layer ASHADE, you have only chosen to ignore the problem since you see no profit in it's resolution. I'll bet your attitude would be different if your client rejected his plans because of it.


Quote from: CADaver
And the all the work the guy did on the other side of the building to get the presentation ready at the owner's request is lost by micro-managing a non-problem.
You know sometimes you make really good arguments and just when I am about to see things your way, you go and say something really stupid. The work on a project by another user is irrelevant to the issue at hand. If the layer is not supposed to be there (i.e. we do no rendering period) it has no valid use.

Quote from: CADaver
Quote from: Keith
What we have done is ...
Place unnecessary limits on a powerful tool.
Quite the opposite...we have used the power of this tool to help enforce standards (i.e. putting limits on the user), even if those standards might be flawed....they are still the standards... and until the guy who pays us says it is ok, it will not be there. After all aren't standards by nature limiting what a user can and cannot do? You cannot have standards and allow free reign.

Quote from: CADaver
At least that is my opinion...

As is mine.
I still remember your comment about the crayons.....and if your stance was that the client who pays the bill, sets the standards for what is acceptable (as is the case in capitalism) then if the client insist that ASHADE (or any other layer for that matter) not exist in the drawing, you will comply or be unemployed...and where is the profit in that.

That is MY opinion
Proud provider of opinion and arrogance since November 22, 2003 at 09:35:31 am
CadJockey Militia Field Marshal

Find me on https://parler.com @kblackie

CADaver

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #25 on: September 29, 2004, 04:36:26 PM »
Quote from: Keith
No... I beg to differ... your analagy automatically presumes that just because Autodesk saw fit to put that layer there, it MUST be ok.
Wrong I have come to know that AutoCAD puts the layer there and it does no harm.  I choose to ignore it, it is a non-problem.  Someone else chooses to obsess over it.

Quote from: Keith
To effectively manage a large user base, one must know how to do things efficiently. As a manager of 5 or 500 users, one can easily, and quickly apply all of the changes to every system to prevent that problem (as I see it) from happening.
Obsession over a non-problem.

Quote from: Keith
It is only counter productive in your opinion. If it neither costs manhours, (as described above) and it is seamless, i.e. the user does not even know it is happening, then it cannot be counter productive, because as far as the user is concerned, it does not exist.
And each user and new user must be warned about the function to avoid putting something important on a layer that will be deleted. And they must be warned never to use RENDER, even though it is a powerful part of the program and has numerous extremely productive uses in the engineering world...  it's counter productive.

Quote from: Keith
On the contrary....unless we all have ESP and knowledge of future releases of AutoCAD, we cannot create our programming to automatically accomodate for a layer that we don't know exists.
And there is no NEED to accomodate layers we know exist that do no harm.  That will return, the very next time we issue.. oops, I forgot, you hamstrung that feature.

Quote from: Keith
I suppose we could make our programming just ignore unknown layers
Well if they're unknown, I'm at a loss as to how to make our programming do anything BUT ignore them.

Quote from: Keith
And yes it is a management question about whether the individual(s) has been rendering when they should not have been.
And you guys thought I was a micro-manager.  RENDER is a massively useful tool for the sharing of visual data during the design phase of the project.  What possible excuse is there for prohibiting the use of a tool that can quickly display the exact relationship of elements in a model?

Quote from: Keith
It is a problem if users are not following standards. The standards are clear, no layer ASHADE, you have only chosen to ignore the problem since you see no profit in it's resolution.
I choose to ignore it because it isn't a problem. Just as I choose to ignore the painted racing stripe on the side of my monitor.  I could get all huffy and rip it off, but it does no harm, it doesn't slow me down, it doesn't speed me up, it does nothing, so ignore it.

We have stringent standards, some would say excessive, and we "FORCE" compliance.  We don't, however, tilt at windmills that don't exist, especially if it reduces the usefullness of the tool.

Quote from: Keith
I'll bet your attitude would be different if your client rejected his plans because of it.
If that's what he wants he'll get it, along with a bill for for being stupid. A client will get what he is willing to pay for.  If a client makes a demand that the layer ASHADE will cause rejection of the drawings, I would be more than happy to oblige, as soon as he signs the change order for $50 a drawing.  No, it won't cost near that, but I believe (and it's proven out) that when a client trully understands what he's asking for and why it's unnecessary or counter-productive, he'll change his demands.  If he doesn't he needs to pay punitive damages.

We've had clients come back after contract and demand "No XREFs".  We said sure, as soon as you sign this change order for an additional 35% of the project costs, we'll get right on it.  No it wouldn't cost 35% but it would cost, and 35% got his attention.  After the discussion he realized the cad monkey he had in his office was an idiot and there was no intelligent reason to preclude the use of xrefs.

There is no reason for layer ASHADE to be a problem, unless you don't have enough and need to pick something.

Quote from: Keith
You know sometimes you make really good arguments and just when I am about to see things your way, you go and say something really stupid. The work on a project by another user is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Wait a minute, didn't you say that this was part of your standard setup for all your drafters?  It was invisible to them?  Are you not setting up a function that limits the use of the tool by "another user"?

Quote from: Keith
If the layer is not supposed to be there (i.e. we do no rendering period) it has no valid use.
Then you only draw charts and graphs or what?

Quote from: Keith
Quite the opposite...we have used the power of this tool to help enforce standards (i.e. putting limits on the user), even if those standards might be flawed....they are still the standards...
Hey I'm all for standards, but capricious and arbitrary standards, that limit productivity need to be avoided.

Quote from: Keith
After all aren't standards by nature limiting what a user can and cannot do? You cannot have standards and allow free reign.
NO, standards are in place not to limiit the user, but to insure consistant compliance with production requirements.

Quote from: Keith
I still remember your comment about the crayons.....and if your stance was that the client who pays the bill, sets the standards for what is acceptable (as is the case in capitalism) then if the client insist that ASHADE (or any other layer for that matter) not exist in the drawing, you will comply or be unemployed...and where is the profit in that.
Yes, I will comply, and yes he will pay for it.  If he doesn't wish to pay for it, I won't comply.

t-bear

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #26 on: September 29, 2004, 04:58:26 PM »
You two are ......... FUNNY!!!  Talk about "tilting at windmills....."   Rage on kids, I ain't had this much fun since Mrs. O'Leary's cow kicked the lantern!

CADaver

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #27 on: September 29, 2004, 05:24:50 PM »
Quote from: t-bear
You two are ......... FUNNY!!!  Talk about "tilting at windmills....."   Rage on kids, I ain't had this much fun since Mrs. O'Leary's cow kicked the lantern!
And just what were you doing to the cow that made her kick????  Bear needs to leave the domestics alone.   :D

Keith™

  • Villiage Idiot
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 16899
  • Superior Stupidity at its best
Ashade
« Reply #28 on: September 29, 2004, 05:50:33 PM »
What you are essentially saying then... which is my point ....if I am paying you (or anyone else for that matter) and I tell you that a specific layer is not to be used (it will be clear when we sign a contract) nad you provide me with drawings with the layer intact, you will have only a few options ...
a) provide me with the drawings in the manner we have previously agreed at the previously agreed contract price
b) supply drawings that are not according to our specification and be back charged for the cost of bringing drawings into compliance
c) face a judge in civil court
either way you lose...

The entire discussion is not about whether the layer (or anything for that matter) should or should not be in a drawing. The discussion hinges around "How do I" ....
It could have just as easily been a layer that the employee put in the drawing that was named smething like "My_boss_is_a_horses_ass_and_we_stole_most_of_these_drawings_from_someone_else" or "you_people_are_asswipes"

Then the disgruntled user proceeds to place information on that layer that will prevent it from being purged.

Is it then profitable to remove the layer... after all it doesn't "hurt" the drawing.. and it is counter productive to remove it and waste precious manhours.

My contention is ... and always will be....
If he does not want it htere then take it out ... it does not have to be a federal case... and if I wish to throw thousands of dollars at something that is not a problem then I will have to worry about that now won't I...if that makes me stupid so be it...I'm stupid ...
Proud provider of opinion and arrogance since November 22, 2003 at 09:35:31 am
CadJockey Militia Field Marshal

Find me on https://parler.com @kblackie

t-bear

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #29 on: September 29, 2004, 08:54:10 PM »
The "Great Chicago Fire", waaaay back when we was kids, was presumably started when an old dairy cow kicked over a lantern in its stall.  Back then lots of folks kept livestock out behind the house......

Keith™

  • Villiage Idiot
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 16899
  • Superior Stupidity at its best
Ashade
« Reply #30 on: September 29, 2004, 09:11:48 PM »
and then the story was born
Proud provider of opinion and arrogance since November 22, 2003 at 09:35:31 am
CadJockey Militia Field Marshal

Find me on https://parler.com @kblackie

CADaver

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #31 on: September 30, 2004, 07:01:46 AM »
Quote from: Keith
What you are essentially saying then... which is my point ....if I am paying you (or anyone else for that matter) and I tell you that a specific layer is not to be used (it will be clear when we sign a contract) nad you provide me with drawings with the layer intact, you will have only a few options ...
a) provide me with the drawings in the manner we have previously agreed at the previously agreed contract price
b) supply drawings that are not according to our specification and be back charged for the cost of bringing drawings into compliance
c) face a judge in civil court
either way you lose...
Not at all, with option A, you have agreed to pay me an inordinate amount of cash to do something of no worth.  In my dictionary that is not a loss, at least not for me.  You get a benign layer removed, I get a bunch of money for removing it, where do I sign?

Quote from: Keith
The entire discussion is not about whether the layer (or anything for that matter) should or should not be in a drawing. The discussion hinges around "How do I" ....
It could have just as easily been a layer that the employee put in the drawing that was named smething like "My_boss_is_a_horses_ass_and_we_stole_most_of_these_drawings_from_someone_else" or "you_people_are_asswipes"

Then the disgruntled user proceeds to place information on that layer that will prevent it from being purged.

Is it then profitable to remove the layer... after all it doesn't "hurt" the drawing.. and it is counter productive to remove it and waste precious manhours.

My contention is ... and always will be....
If he does not want it htere then take it out ... it does not have to be a federal case... and if I wish to throw thousands of dollars at something that is not a problem then I will have to worry about that now won't I...if that makes me stupid so be it...I'm stupid ...
The whole discussion was NOT about providing the client what he wants.  See the title of the thread, it was about the layer ASHADE.  A layer you have chosen to be "anal" over (your word).  But okay, if you want to switch the discussion just so I'll agree with then fine, I agree.  The client will get that for which the client is willing to pay.  While there is little I can do about a client's ignorance, I can penalize him for remaining so.

SMadsen

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #32 on: September 30, 2004, 07:21:50 AM »
Does anyone have the layer Defpoints in their standards?

*only asking*

CADaver

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #33 on: September 30, 2004, 08:11:31 AM »
Quote from: SMadsen
Does anyone have the layer Defpoints in their standards?

*only asking*
Only to note that nothing is to be drawn on that layer.

SMadsen

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #34 on: September 30, 2004, 08:13:35 AM »
Quote from: CADaver
Only to note that nothing is to be drawn on that layer.
.. except what the software puts on that layer, hopefully?

CADaver

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #35 on: September 30, 2004, 08:30:36 AM »
Quote from: SMadsen
Quote from: CADaver
Only to note that nothing is to be drawn on that layer.
.. except what the software puts on that layer, hopefully?
Certainly, there's little we could do to stop it and remain productive.  Our spec outlines the reason for the layer and how it reflects layer 0, and restricts using it for anything "other than" what the software creates.

One Shot

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #36 on: September 30, 2004, 08:46:07 AM »
Quote from: SMadsen
Does anyone have the layer Defpoints in their standards?

*only asking*


Yes, we use the Defpoints layer for the drawing limits that would represent the layout space on the TB.

SMadsen

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #37 on: September 30, 2004, 08:51:50 AM »
So, users are allowed to dimension the drawing (naturally) and thus drawings are allowed to contain a layer, which is created automatically for that purpose.

Turning this around with respect to the ASHADE layer could go like this: Drawings are not allowed to contain a layer, which is created automatically for the purpose of rendering. Thus users are not allowed to use rendering.

Solution: Remove acrender.arx from the installation.

Logical, huh?

whdjr

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #38 on: September 30, 2004, 09:11:08 AM »
Nah...Too easy

CADaver

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #39 on: September 30, 2004, 11:23:22 AM »
Quote from: SMadsen
So, users are allowed to dimension the drawing (naturally) and thus drawings are allowed to contain a layer, which is created automatically for that purpose.

Turning this around with respect to the ASHADE layer could go like this: Drawings are not allowed to contain a layer, which is created automatically for the purpose of rendering. Thus users are not allowed to use rendering.

Solution: Remove acrender.arx from the installation.

Logical, huh?
Sure that would "solve??" the NON-problem of the ASHADE layer by crippling an otherwise powerful tool.  But your post brings up a question that needs to be asked.

Would the same discussion be had over the layer DEFPOINTS??  To avoid layer defpoints in drawings DIMASSOC must be set to 0.  How productive would that arbitrary decision be??  I doubt many posting here would support such, including Keith.  And if the client required it, they would certainly have to be some adjustment in remuneration, for us a substantial adjustment.

Columbia

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #40 on: September 30, 2004, 11:24:28 AM »
Okay just to muddy the waters and maybe keep this incredibly entertaining diatribe going...

CADaver,
It's obvious that you use 3D modelling, am I right?  Then RENDER is indeed a powerful tool, in its native AutoCAD (limited) capacity.  But using SHADEMODE is actually a little more useful, in MY opinion.

Keith,
It sounds like you are providing 2D only drawings, is that right?  So RENDER is then null and void and consequently should be avoided.

So in essence here, you're both right.

With that asked/said/or commented.......
I think that anybody who tries to RENDER a 2D drawing should be fired, shot, hung, burnt at the stake, drawn and quartered, buried alive, stuck with needles like a pin cushion, suffer Chinese water toruture, starved, drowned, plagued with bad credit, made to watch 4 days of constant Partridge Family reruns (including the Anniverary Special), and last but not least tickled until they peed.

CADaver

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #41 on: September 30, 2004, 11:38:33 AM »
Quote from: Columbia
Okay just to muddy the waters and maybe keep this incredibly entertaining diatribe going...

CADaver,
It's obvious that you use 3D modelling, am I right?  Then RENDER is indeed a powerful tool, in its native AutoCAD (limited) capacity.  But using SHADEMODE is actually a little more useful, in MY opinion.

Keith,
It sounds like you are providing 2D only drawings, is that right?  So RENDER is then null and void and consequently should be avoided.

So in essence here, you're both right.

With that asked/said/or commented.......
I think that anybody who tries to RENDER a 2D drawing should be fired, shot, hung, burnt at the stake, drawn and quartered, buried alive, stuck with needles like a pin cushion, suffer Chinese water toruture, starved, drowned, plagued with bad credit, made to watch 4 days of constant Partridge Family reruns (including the Anniverary Special), and last but not least tickled until they peed.
It's not a problem, even on 2D drawings, unless someone chooses to make it so.  BTW, render works quite well on regions

Columbia

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #42 on: September 30, 2004, 11:52:02 AM »
I never meant to imply that it didn't.  I just meant to say for quickly determining interferences in a 3D model (solids or regions) I CHOOSE to you use SHADEMODE rather than RENDER.  Because I can then spin the model and see all of the intereference(s).  With a RENDERed view the view is static.

Again, this is the way I CHOOSE to use AutoCAD.  The beautiful and sometimes horrible thing about AutoCAD is that there is about 1 million different ways to do some of the simplest tasks.  We all have our ways, and no one will be able to convince us otherwise.  And you know what?  That's okay.

And what's more - although this thread has proven to be highly entertaining, I think it wandered off the useful path sometime yesterday.  It got hijacked into being less about a way to (code) the destruction of a layer created by AutoCAD and more about the philosophy of whether it should be destructed in the first place.  I'm not saying this is a bad thing, because everyone has brought valid points to the table.  I am of the opinion though, that this has gone on long enough and it should end or be moved to another Topic.  But again, that's just MY OPINION.  And opinions are like a$$holes, "Every one has one, and they all stink."  :)

t-bear

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #43 on: September 30, 2004, 12:10:29 PM »
Awww,c'mon Columbia!  They was just gettin good and het up.  These two have "done this" before (MANY times....) and, so far, I think they've all been draws.  After a while they just get tired of hitting each other. I used to worry about "internet violence" but any more, I just follow along for the entertainment value.  And y'know what? More often than not, I pick up something useful from one or the other.....

(Thought)  Can you imagine these two at our "Swampfest 2005" gathering?  Look out Vegas! :roll:

CADaver

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #44 on: September 30, 2004, 12:11:00 PM »
Quote from: Columbia
I never meant to imply that it didn't.  I just meant to say for quickly determining interferences in a 3D model (solids or regions) I CHOOSE to you use SHADEMODE rather than RENDER.  Because I can then spin the model and see all of the intereference(s).  With a RENDERed view the view is static.
Two different tools with radically different uses.  SHADEMODE is fine for flat shades to the drawing viewport and using 3DORBIT, but a PITB for getting a decent resolution jpeg of the view to a file, and utterly useless for material or lighting display.

Sure it wandered from the main topic, thread-jacking is what I do best.  I think Keith bailed on it several posts ago, and currently, I'm just responding to those responding to me.

As for usefullness, if we were all only concerned with "usefullness" the threead would never have been started.  But that's just my opinion.

True, opinions are like a___oles, everybody has one, some people are one.  :)

SMadsen

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #45 on: September 30, 2004, 03:36:40 PM »
CADaver, the "solution" was not to a problem (or non-problem) of getting rid of an automatically created layer but to a "solution" to keep the layer from appearing in the first place. A 'prevent instead of healing' kinda thing.

The standard shortcut for rendering is RR. The standard shortcut for editing text is DD. I can't count the times when I've hit RR instead of DD. Doing that creates the ASHADE layer, the ASHADE text style and the AVE_GLOBAL/AVE_RENDER blocks instantly.

Now, I'm as "anal" about clean drawings as the next guy and will spend the time it takes to clean out that stuff. However, I don't have 250 people to manage but I can imagine my time cleaning up multiplied with 250. Woow...

So if it's company standard to deliver drawings without the stuff, I see the reason for having an automated cleanup.
I just thought a decision that avoids the stuff from appearing in the first place, namely prohibiting render of company drawings by excluding the feature from company seats, must be a natural solution to the problem/non-problem.

Ok, so the solution was kindof ironic .. but anything to keep a debate going :)

CADaver

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #46 on: September 30, 2004, 04:49:32 PM »
Quote from: SMadsen
CADaver, the "solution" was not to a problem (or non-problem) of getting rid of an automatically created layer but to a "solution" to keep the layer from appearing in the first place. A 'prevent instead of healing' kinda thing.

The standard shortcut for rendering is RR. The standard shortcut for editing text is DD. I can't count the times when I've hit RR instead of DD. Doing that creates the ASHADE layer, the ASHADE text style and the AVE_GLOBAL/AVE_RENDER blocks instantly.

Now, I'm as "anal" about clean drawings as the next guy and will spend the time it takes to clean out that stuff. However, I don't have 250 people to manage but I can imagine my time cleaning up multiplied with 250. Woow...

So if it's company standard to deliver drawings without the stuff, I see the reason for having an automated cleanup.
I just thought a decision that avoids the stuff from appearing in the first place, namely prohibiting render of company drawings by excluding the feature from company seats, must be a natural solution to the problem/non-problem.

Ok, so the solution was kindof ironic .. but anything to keep a debate going :)
Blew off the standard PGP years ago, their choices never made any sense to me anyway.

If you arbitrarily decide that something needs a solution, then that one is as good as any I guess.  Just seems easier to me to decide it needs no solution.  

Then again it could be just my particular viewpoint in that I have plenty of real problems, I don't need to look for any more.  We've just hired about 40 new designers in the last 3 months boosting our count of seats to nearly 200.  Many of these guys are sharp, some aren't.  Some think they are sharper than they really are.  Some think they can run along doing it the same way they did at the last place.  Some are in the process of becoming re-educated, but old habits are hard to break.

BTW is RMAT part of the RENDER.arx?  If not you'll need to kill it as well.

Keith™

  • Villiage Idiot
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 16899
  • Superior Stupidity at its best
Ashade
« Reply #47 on: September 30, 2004, 11:49:53 PM »
I suppose before I retire this thread from my "required daily reading" I'll make one more comment and leave it at that.

In response to the original thread request ...

Quote

Does anyone have a lisp routine that will kill the Ashade layer?


There are some who believe this is non-issue, I have no problem with that, personally I have absolutely no feeling about whether it should be there or not... that discalimer being made ....

Code: [Select]

(defun C:KILLASHADE()
 (command "-layer" "U" "ASHADE" "")
 (command "_.erase" (ssget "x" '((8 . "ASHADE"))) "")
 (command "_.purge" "B" "AVE*" "N")
 (command "_.purge" "LA" "ASHADE" "N")
)


A simple solution to a non-problem (or is it?)
Proud provider of opinion and arrogance since November 22, 2003 at 09:35:31 am
CadJockey Militia Field Marshal

Find me on https://parler.com @kblackie

subbup

  • Guest
Ashade
« Reply #48 on: October 01, 2004, 01:04:51 AM »
forgot about all these things.
if you are unable to delete some layer even objects not available in the layer I follow this.
Create some object (line) in that layer.
then use command LAYDEL . It will ask you Delete the layer or not. if you say yes It will delete the layer instantly.