Topic: Civil 3D Styles and Layers

[jstathem]

My company is trying to develop a sound standard for styles. Some want more style control, and some want more layer control.

I am trying to bring them together on the topic, and am looking for some best practices to appease the masses. Anything would be helpful.

Thanks.

[BlackBox]

Welcome to TheSwamp.


Have you considered having your Styles use 0 layer, and placing the resultant C3D Objects on the desired layers?

This would allow you to continue to control what is, or is not displayed using traditional commands, layer states, etc. without the additional burden of managing each-and-every-single component of each-and-every-single Style, and its myriad creation Command's default layer(s) as well... There may be a few, more complex C3D Objects that do require such level of detail, but much less work seemingly.

Cheers

[mjfarrell]

The short answer is YES!

The complicated answer is a good combination of Styles and Layers embedded within the styles will offer the most flexibility. 

If you set the command settings to default to the desired layers it makes it easier to adopt.

[mjfarrell]

and now it seems you have both schools of thought

[BlackBox]

If you set the command settings to default to the desired layers it makes it easier to adopt.

... And easier to maintain, following DREF sync.

[BlackBox]

and now it seems you have both schools of thought

FWIW -

I don't believe the 'start on 0' methodology to be the end result... It is however, far simpler to implement, and allows for user to clearly identify what commands, objects, etc. they do want more specificity, at which point they should enact that level of detail to streamline their workflow(s). Resulting in only enough Style management to suite their needs.

To start from the outset that each-and-every-single aspect of all potential Styles must be accounted for is unrealistic in a production environment that does not have full-time CAD Admin (where the Admin also has to produce), or hire someone for same which I'm sure you'll get to.

This is just my $0.02 having dealt with multiple migrations from Land Desktop to Civil 3D working for design firms... Take from it what you like.

Cheers

[jstathem]

Have you considered having your Styles use 0 layer, and placing the resultant C3D Objects on the desired layers?

This is what I want to implement, and then let it grow and evolve progressively.

The thing I see being the issue is a proliferation of layers and/or styles. The Style camp wants to keep layers to a minimum, and the Layer camp wants to keep styles to a minimum.

To start from the outset that each-and-every-single aspect of all potential Styles must be accounted for is unrealistic in a production environment that does not have full-time CAD Admin (where the Admin also has to produce), or hire someone for same which I'm sure you'll get to.

That's me!

[BlackBox]

Have you considered having your Styles use 0 layer, and placing the resultant C3D Objects on the desired layers?

This is what I want to implement, and then let it grow and evolve progressively.

The thing I see being the issue is a proliferation of layers and/or styles. The Style camp wants to keep layers to a minimum, and the Layer camp wants to keep styles to a minimum.

To start from the outset that each-and-every-single aspect of all potential Styles must be accounted for is unrealistic in a production environment that does not have full-time CAD Admin (where the Admin also has to produce), or hire someone for same which I'm sure you'll get to.

That's me!

Sounds like we're in similar situations; only difference being my two camps are 1) let's implement Civil 3D, and 2) let's stick with using Land Desktop 2005 like vanilla AutoCAD. 


The thing is, by definition you're not going to get away from the need for myriad layers. Period. No matter which methodology you go with... The issue ultimately becomes do you make your Styles dependent on said layers or not.


Not sure what discipline you're in, but using a basic pipe network as example....

If you make your pipe Styles dependent on layers, then expect to have additional styles to account for presumably an Existing, Proposed, and Future version of said Style, and in order to change a future pipe to a proposed pipe, you will have to both change the style and move the pipe(s) to the new layer.

Whereas if your pipe's Style is set to 0, then you simply change the pipe to the new layer, and that inherits the appropriate layer properties.

Now, as I mentioned above, you should anticipate progressing to some yet unknown level of complexity... In my real-world projects, my pipe Style's for-plot components are set to 0 layer, and my non-plot components are set to a pre-defined no-plot layer (i.e., O.D. of pipe, etc.), as this is a component that I use for design purposes, but do not need plotted in the resultant hardcopies, PDF, etc.

Hope that makes (more?) sense.

[mjfarrell]

FULLY AGREE using layer 0 as a starting point is a good as any

In fact in the early days of C3D, I told people just run with Layer Zero, and configure your styles with no consideration of layers at all.

The downside WHEN no IF you export to autocad for someone NOT using Civil 3D and EVERYTHING falls onto Layer 0.
funny enough, some said "why is that a problem most of what we draw is already on layer 0"

OK



moving right along

[BlackBox]

FULLY AGREE using layer 0 as a starting point is a good as any

Cheers, Michael. 

In fact in the early days of C3D, I told people just run with Layer Zero, and configure your styles with no consideration of layers at all.

The downside WHEN no IF you export to autocad for someone NOT using Civil 3D and EVERYTHING falls onto Layer 0.
funny enough, some said "why is that a problem most of what we draw is already on layer 0"

When we distribute C3D to others not using C3D I simply apply the desired Styles that I want shown in the resultant file, and use AECEXPORTTOAUTOCAD Command. 

[alanjt]

@Michael: I'm curious about your thoughts on instances where you have phases. For pipe networks, you may have multiple phases within a subdivision, but need all pipes shown accordingly. The issue lies in that you want to be able to show all phases, but alter the display differently per sheet, which you cannot do at the style level.
I've been toying with setting the layers in the style at 0, then using the object layer with a network name multiplier, then just setting the that layer color accordingly. From there, I can have viewport 1 show phase 1 as blue and phase 2 as grey, but then viewport 2 can show the opposite.
I wasn't big on setting my styles to be on layer 0, but I couldn't come up with a better way to deal with phases and viewports without fooling with multiple files and shortcuts, which just seemed convoluted.
I still set the linetype in the style (that will never change), but the color is determined by the object layer, which you just change the layer color after network creation.

[mjfarrell]

that works for me....
the weird part about C3D it just goes opposite to normal autoad thinking
about the use of , or NOT using layer 0 for everything.

[jstathem]

that works for me....
the weird part about C3D it just goes opposite to normal autoad thinking
about the use of , or NOT using layer 0 for everything.

Would you please explain this statement?

[Jeff_M]

Of course, to throw another idea out there, we can still use layers in the styles AND have them on different layers to display differently as Alan describes. Do this by setting the color property in the style to ByBlock. This will force the C3D object to behave as if it is defined on Layer 0, but you can now freeze the C-STRC layer in Layer Manager and all of the structures will no longer be displayed even when they are on layers C-STRC-EXST, C-STRC-DEMO, C-SOMEOTHERLAYER, etc. Or, when not frozen or off, the structures will display per the individual layers they are placed on.

[mjfarrell]

that works for me....
the weird part about C3D it just goes opposite to normal autoad thinking
about the use of , or NOT using layer 0 for everything.

Would you please explain this statement?

Explanation by means of a question:

Where you taught, that everything belongs on layer zero?
Or were you taught otherwise?