CompuServe Thread

#Layer Utility

22 messages in this thread
#21573From: David GariNov 23, 1991 12:35 AM
You can rename a layer, block, linetype, text style, dimension style, named view, named UCS, or named viewport configuration with the AutoCAD RENAME command.
#21610From: David LovingNov 23, 1991 11:03 AM
David, The Rename Command. Could you tell me why we are not allowed to rename a layer the same as an existing layer thus merging the two into one? I have a routine I use to modify a drawing from one groups layer standards into another and the only way I can reduce the number of layers is to DXF out, remove the offending table entry, and rename all remaining references. This is easily an issue for anyone who has to ship the same drawing to multiple customers and follow each standard. Shouldn't a feature like this be a part of AutoCAD? Isn't it generic enough to all disciplines to be a candidate for the core code? Dave L.
#21667From: Joe MacRaeNov 23, 1991 9:11 PM
Dave, Can you rename a file the same as an existing one, thus merging the two on your machine ????? I know…I know……stupid question…….<grin>.
#21731From: David LovingNov 24, 1991 12:27 PM
Joe, Ok, I see what you mean. Rename may not be the *best* avenue. You may disagree with the implementation but I don't see you saying the feature is a bad one to ask for! <g> Dave L.
#21791From: Joe MacRaeNov 24, 1991 9:48 PM
Nah Dave, I didn't say that it would not be a good feature, I kinda like the idea of being able to merge layers.
#21685From: Dennis W. BanaszakNov 23, 1991 11:10 PM
David, Wouldn't changing everything from one layer to the other using SSX do the trick? Sometimes you are just too lazy<g>. Dennis
#21732From: David LovingNov 24, 1991 12:27 PM
Dennis, Me? Too Lazy? You bet! That is why I use AutoCAD! <g> Change works wonders on entities not found in block definitions. Attedit is necessary for Attribs. Both of these are not necessary if I use (subst) to define a new group 8 value and update the entity but then I have a problem with SEQEND entities I can not change. Now what about those entities in the block definitions and the layer the block was defined on? I guess I have to insert them one at a time exploded, modify their entities, and reblock them on a new layer (if necessary). By this time I could have created a DXF file, used AutoLISP or an external C routine to overlook the offending layer table entry when copying to a new DXF file, rename the other occurances, and DXFIN the new one. I take it by your response that you have never tried this? I have determined this reason to be my humble opinion why we have speakers at NAAUG and AEC Systems discussing their problems trying to standardize a wide area network of offices. If it was easy to translate between two office standards, there would be no need for discussion! Dave (Da_n right I'm lazy!) L.
#21742From: Peter K. SheerinNov 24, 1991 2:14 PM
David- Very well put. I couldn't see your problem (why chprop wouldn't work) until you explained this. Funny, though; when I first started using autocad, guess what the 2nd thing I tried to do with rename was? <g>. Duff, if your listening, this makes two votes for this. Hmm… on second thought, what are the chances of being able to access and change entities/properties inside of nested blocks through Autolisp/ADS in the futre, or is this possible now?
#21832From: David LovingNov 25, 1991 9:04 AM
Peter, I think we have all tried at least once to rename a current layer the same as an existing one. I think that is why the best place to implement the feature would be in the place people try it first! I do little work with it but release 11 is supposed to allow you to modify entities inside of block definitions. Isn't it? I still think it would be difficult to reach the layer the block was defined on. You still would have to wait until the next time your in the drawing to purge the old layer. (or you can use Wblock and lose much more than an unreferenced layer!) Dave L.
#21836From: bill gilmoreNov 25, 1991 9:25 AM
David, Instead of a merger would the ability to group these two layers together have any benefit? BillG[CM]
#21894From: David LovingNov 25, 1991 1:26 PM
Bill, I like the layer grouping (directory structure) idea. I think it is possible to work around that limitation with Release 11 and the new ADS and wildcard features. It would be nice if it was already designed into the user interface. Maybe you could get one of the guys playing with ADS to design a tree-like layer control menu. I don't think that is what I need when a customer asks for a two layer drawing and I have a ten layer one. I need to be able to merger one through five into layer one and six through ten into layer two. I'd like to keep it simple. Dave L.
#21963From: bill gilmoreNov 25, 1991 8:58 PM
David – I understand, and I hope you find a simple solution to your dilemma. Often times (and I do it myself) the general concensus is that a lisp or ADS routine can solve all of our problems, but in some cases I think we do need a problem resolved at the root. Good luck. Regards – BillG[CM]
#21780From: Dennis W. BanaszakNov 24, 1991 9:07 PM
Kans, (as in Kansmanian Devil) Don't make me get up outta this chair son, take a second to regain your composure and let the color drain back out of your face<g>. I see your point(y little head) now. You need to jump into a block definition, grab the layer that an entity was on when the block was created, and then change that entity's layer while still maintaining the integrity of the block? You're right, I've never had to do that. I don't normally deal with blocks that are made up of entities from multiple layers, at least none that I don't intend to explode. Your idea has merit, but I would not want it to be enabled for the work I do. Don't change the prompt, I want to know if the layer currently exists. Dennis
#21833From: David LovingNov 25, 1991 9:04 AM
Bonzai, I always try and have my Ducks in a row before I make a suggestion. If someone (like certain engineers around here) tries to answer with a simple response (because they have not given the matter much thought) I usually hit them with a 10 pound (frozen) Duck! (ever see a Duck cannon? <g>) You took a direct hit in the nose cone! (Sorry!) Next time please respect my suggestion enough to try your proposed solution *before* you attempt to shoot it down. It doesn't make either one of us look good! <g> You NEVER use blocks containing entities on different layer? What kind of business you in boy? <g> (I know, I know. Your a CIVILian.) I agree. A prompt such as "Layer xxx already exists. Do you wish to continue?" should remain. Dave L.
#21990From: Dennis W. BanaszakNov 25, 1991 10:41 PM
David, You want frozen ducks!? I've got a squadron of Kamikaze Mallards with your address waiting on the flight line. Don't rag on me man, you didn't stipulate the parameters of the problem clearly enough. Seriously, we don't use blocks with nested layers, and you know why. We don't have to worry about telescoping entities onto layers like you seem to need to do. In your case, it sounds like a solution is needed, add it to the list. With all the people I deal with, the obvious solutions are usually the most overlooked. I did try it, but I didn't see a problem until you expanded on the particulars. Even you're not perfect, just ask your wife<g>! Bonzai!
#22058From: David LovingNov 26, 1991 10:15 AM
Dennis, That does it! Les Nesman from WKRP is on his way over with a chopper full of live turkeys! <g> (BTW, have a Happy Thanksgiving!) Ahem. It seems you can be just as testy and set off when confronted with equal classification and treatment! Touche' eh? Perhaps we are not so different after all? Dave (Who said I was perfect? <g>) L.
#22168From: Dennis W. BanaszakNov 26, 1991 9:57 PM
David, Bombs away! Actually there's a noogie waiting thats going to part not only your hair, but your scalp as well! There's only one perfect being in this universe, but I'm as perfect as humanly possible, just ask MY wife<g>. Enjoy the holiday, Dennis
#22176From: Peter K. SheerinNov 26, 1991 11:16 PM
David- Better Les with turkeys than Booker with ostriches! <s,d&rlabooh,fc> (screaming, ducking, & running like a bat out of hell, for cover) <g>
#22193From: David LovingNov 27, 1991 12:04 AM
Peter, Ooo! That's even better! <g> I likes it! I was beginning to wonder if Dennis and my little tennis match was sounding too much like a Shooker and Barp rerun… <g> He!!. Can't let them have all the fun! Dave (Where's a friend when you need a good insult? The ACAD forum!) L.
#22200From: Peter K. SheerinNov 27, 1991 1:03 AM
David- You do realize what's so bad about Scooter being up in the chopper, don't you? He's the type that aims! <g,d&r> (Hey Scooter….! Bet you can't hit me; nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah!) (Ouch!)
#22292From: Scott Booker [Thrd Mstr]Nov 27, 1991 4:09 PM
Peter… Noper.. no ostrich bombing this year. I had to send all of my birds down to Loose-my-banana so they could help the guys down at MadCasters with their tech support training. Seems that Kennies boys were trying to perfect the art of "stick your head in the sand and wait.. maybe the problem will go away". And they probably won't be available for XMAS either…. the ADESK Rel11c3 team needs `em….. <grin> Scott <biting the prod that sticks me> Booker
#21905From: Craig Sharp [Mem TM]Nov 25, 1991 3:06 PM
David: I might almost bet that Tony T. has a layer merge lisp routine. I encountered the same difficulty recently and did it manually because I could do that faster than write a routine. I don't expect it to come up that often, but if Tony doesn't have one, maybe I'll see what Santa can talk the AYA into…<g>. C#