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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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"?
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?
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.
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.
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.
