How many layers do you use?

TurboGlider wrote:
One interesting question I think is, how many layers do you need to make your work easy working with?

TurboGlider wrote:
... we had about 15-design layers, about 15-3d constructionlayers and maybe 5-2d detail layers. I think we could have less, ...

i don't necessarily think that it is about getting the least number of layers possible. it is more about establishing a system or framework that is scalable and based on something grounded in the construction industry's reality.

i've been pushing for a hierarchical layer system for a while now for this purpose: i set up my layers based on building element classifications. these types of systems are hierarchical and scalable which means that at the massing/sketch/preliminary design end of the work you can use a few basic layers, but as the work progresses those elements can be split down into more specific classes . . .

e.g. the UK's CI/SfB system starts with a few basic classes:

1. substructure
2. primary superstructure
3. secondary superstructure
4. finishes
5. services - mech
6. services - elec
7. fittings
8. external works

drilling down into the '2. primary superstructure' you can find the sub-classes ...

2. primary superstructure
2.1 external walls
2.2 internal walls
2.4 stairs
etc...

it may not be quite perfect . . . but it's a system that is in place and (should be) known by all UK construction professionals.

the screenshot below is based on the NZ masterspec system. take a look at all those wall layers . . . required for various different drawing types and scales. and this is why i would like a hierarchical system: so that i can place more the more detailed wall stuff within a main 'wall' class. i could then turn on the whole wall class in one go or choose the specific details that i want to show.

just one way of looking at it. there are others . . .

HTH
~/archiben

(ps the excel file is out of date (way out of date!) but may prove food for thought for some . . .)

TurboGlider wrote:
My anger about the Swedish standard is that it's build by AutoCad users for AutoCad users that work in an AutoCad 2d way and it's implemented in almost every project. Even if the new standard is better than the old. But still it's based on codes instead of names.

ignore the "swedish standard" layer system in archicad . . . use your translator to map layers when you communicate with consultants. incidentally - how many of your autocad-using consultants actually use the swewdish standard layer system?!

a layer system based on autocad is a layer system based on drawing conventions and as such has no relevance to building modelling. your layer names should reflect the classes of building element, be easy to understand and easy to use, adapt & expand.

find your swedish building element classification and work from that. (normally it is the method by which product literature is organised and not necessarily the your specification organisation - they are sometime two very different things.

~/archiben

The problem is that the Swedish official standard assumes Autocad. In our office, we don't use this standard at all unless some client forces it upon us (it happens). We prefer a very basic system with layer names in understandable language like Wall-Indoor etc. Most clients finally understand that this is better even for them, but some still don't.

But be aware that using layer mapping at each translation requires care. You usually need one translator for import and another for export, and you need them to be used consistently at all times, by all involved. This is no small task. Sometimes it's better to comply and agree on a common layering system with the consultants in the beginning of a project, because forcing your principles into your work costs too much.

The Swedish importer Lasercad's template is a good start, because it uses both the standard codes and plain-language in all layer names.