Templates with style layer = 0

[tim_newsome]

Does anyone favor templates with style layers set to 0 so they can be defined by user for there ability to change layers in the layer manager as well as there own layer logic?

[Ed Jobe]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Can you give an example?

[Opie]

I believe he is referring to the Civil 3D styles. The layers within each style can be set to any available layer. Setting the layer properties within the style to layer 0 could allow the object assigned to the style to inherit the layer properties the object is placed on. However, some styles have multiple properties that can reside on different layers.

[Ed Jobe]

Oh, ok thanks Opie.

[tim_newsome]

That is the realm of the question. There are so many users that are not Civil 3D users that assign layers as they would in AutoCAD and so many intermediate users that will define hundreds of embed layers in the styles. Not only the styles but in the files feature settings too. this is really creating havoc once you have a couple of base files referenced to sheet files with layers managed through viewports.

My personal experience has shown me that I would prefer to keep the styles function as they blocks. Layer = 0 with the block settings "by layer" & "Byblock" assigned as function of style dictated.

[Opie]

That is the realm of the question. There are so many users that are not Civil 3D users that assign layers as they would in AutoCAD and so many intermediate users that will define hundreds of embed layers in the styles. Not only the styles but in the files feature settings too. this is really creating havoc once you have a couple of base files referenced to sheet files with layers managed through viewports.

My personal experience has shown me that I would prefer to keep the styles function as they blocks. Layer = 0 with the block settings "by layer" & "Byblock" assigned as function of style dictated.

Placing everything in the style to layer 0 may sound easy, but there are several styles that contain many different elements. Would you want the hatch pattern in pipe styles to look exactly like the center of the pipe or the wall lines?

You could use Reference Styles from template drawings. This would help provide a more uniform look between drawings.

[tim_newsome]

I get that, There are a handful of scenarios to establish a specific layer. You pointed out one that I do when you mentioned pipe shading.

For me though, I think that is the beauty of being able to create a new or copy a current style for when its needed.

[CCarleton]

In some situations yes, in other situations no. It's not really clear-cut and somewhat subjective.

I like to avoid assigning layers in a style until a reason becomes apparent. The problem, as people have noted, is that you have the object in modelspace with the Autocad layer and then embedded layers in the style. Surfaces would be a good example. You can grab the actual surface item inside of the modelspace which can be on layer SURFACE, and then the contours, border, TIN, etc inside the style can all be on specific layers. The problem that arises is if a user wants to isolate the surface which tells CAD to isolate the SURFACE layer and since all those objects inside the style are assigned to something else...blank drawing. Can drive people up a wall.

Over time my two rules tend to be that if it has multiple uses (ergo it could be assigned to multiple autocad layers) not to embed a layer within it, especially if it's a one component type of style (like a bearing/distance label), and/or if the item cannot be individually selected it probably warrants having a layer embedded to give users more control over it. I can make a parcel, but still grab the parcel segment to assign the layer to it so there's no reason to define the parcel segment layer within the parcel style, and a parcel can be used to define the overall boundary of a site, individual lots, or an easement. However, hatch feature of a parcel style is an embedded feature that cannot be interacted with in modelspace so it has an embedded layer in to control its display which allows a user to build up a parcel to show a hatch area, and another user to freeze the hatch area if he doesn't want to see it. Same thing with a point label style; it is attached to the point itself and you cannot grab it to assign it an autocad layer so it has an embedded layer within it. The only issue is there is still no click freeze capabilities (and I have gotten calls over this), but it's worth being able to autogenerate some features at the sacrifice of click freeze than build everything from scratch so some users can click freeze them off.

[remi678731]

I would have to agree. It was hammered into us every in CAD class (long before Civil3d) do not make blocks with nested layers, except for very special limited cases. Civil3D violates this simple concept and makes layiso command virtually useless.
At least they could do is make a layiso command that would include all the layers in a civil3D object. but then I'm not holding my breathe Jsut another fine example of how far short Civil3D is of its promises

[tim_newsome]

In some situations yes, in other situations no. It's not really clear-cut and somewhat subjective.

I like to avoid assigning layers in a style until a reason becomes apparent. The problem, as people have noted, is that you have the object in modelspace with the Autocad layer and then embedded layers in the style. Surfaces would be a good example. You can grab the actual surface item inside of the modelspace which can be on layer SURFACE, and then the contours, border, TIN, etc inside the style can all be on specific layers. The problem that arises is if a user wants to isolate the surface which tells CAD to isolate the SURFACE layer and since all those objects inside the style are assigned to something else...blank drawing. Can drive people up a wall.

Over time my two rules tend to be that if it has multiple uses (ergo it could be assigned to multiple autocad layers) not to embed a layer within it, especially if it's a one component type of style (like a bearing/distance label), and/or if the item cannot be individually selected it probably warrants having a layer embedded to give users more control over it. I can make a parcel, but still grab the parcel segment to assign the layer to it so there's no reason to define the parcel segment layer within the parcel style, and a parcel can be used to define the overall boundary of a site, individual lots, or an easement. However, hatch feature of a parcel style is an embedded feature that cannot be interacted with in modelspace so it has an embedded layer in to control its display which allows a user to build up a parcel to show a hatch area, and another user to freeze the hatch area if he doesn't want to see it. Same thing with a point label style; it is attached to the point itself and you cannot grab it to assign it an autocad layer so it has an embedded layer within it. The only issue is there is still no click freeze capabilities (and I have gotten calls over this), but it's worth being able to autogenerate some features at the sacrifice of click freeze than build everything from scratch so some users can click freeze them off.

Precisely what my experience has been. I REALLY appreciate that you actually typed it to such detail.

I am at a company that wants me to teach Civil 3D to all new comers but am so tired the intermediate and even beginners taking over with what they think Civil 3D does. Over and over when projects reach 50% they are unmanageable and crash very often. this is one of a handful of reasons.

Thanks for all the comments on this post!