CompuServe Messages

I have had a chance to read the article to which you referred. Unfortunately, I am not able to dedicate much time right now to the two great resources of Cadence and Cadalyst, and am sometimes operating in the dark about new developments. I would like to have the time to only 'play' around with my computer and ACAD without having to earn a living, but I haven't won the lottery yet. I notice that you can buy this setup from someone in Hawaii for, I think, about $30 which would give any of us a head start. I do have tow comments on the proposed system. First, and foremost, if you are using AEC and wish to continue to do so, you would have to edit most, if not all, of their lisp routines. This is an awesome task in itself. WE would therefore like to promote an exchange possibility, or the installation of a format that would allow layer naming along the lines of the proposed 'Hawaii' system. Secondly, their proposed method does not sufficiently address the aspect of extraction of base drawings by discipline. I have already been through an exercise similar to their results. For example, the text for masonry walls may, in some instances, be shared by the structural engineer and the architect, and in others, not. We want to separate, as in pin registered drawings, the combined uses from the discipline specific uses. Although their system would allow for this, the number of layers would be increased by about 25-30%. If, however, the drawings are separated by type (elevations, plans, sections, etc.) and the 0100 section is used more intelligently, we think a relatively simple set of lisp routines would extract discipline backgrounds more effectively. My only question is, can we make a standard work that is obvious in and of itself? The wide variation I have seen just in the use of the setup drawing leads me to believe that this type of system could get polluted beyond recognition by all of the 'individualists' out there. I could forsee consultants with as many ACAD configurations as they have architects as clients. Ah well. Any ideas?