Exporting Layer Names and Standards

[Archidave]

We have had some issues in the office when it comes to training new employees to use our CAD standards. I would like to know if there is a lisp program or other routine out there somewhere that can export your layer standards to a text or spreadsheet file that would include layer names, descriptions, colors, linetypes, etc. for a handheld hard copy of the standards to keep for reference and for training purposes. Any suggestions?

We used a lisp program called "GetLayer2K" but it does not work properly.

thanks

[Anonymous]

Try LAYERHTM.EXE at http://www.dotsoft.com/freestuff.htm

Josh


wrote in message news:5486731@discussion.autodesk.com...
We have had some issues in the office when it comes to training new
employees to use our CAD standards. I would like to know if there is a lisp
program or other routine out there somewhere that can export your layer
standards to a text or spreadsheet file that would include layer names,
descriptions, colors, linetypes, etc. for a handheld hard copy of the
standards to keep for reference and for training purposes. Any suggestions?

We used a lisp program called "GetLayer2K" but it does not work properly.

thanks

[Archidave]

I tried this program and I get an error message during installation that it was not compatible with my system files?

Never seen that before.

[Anonymous]

We don't have a "list" of layer standards, rather we have templates set up
that hold all of our layers and linetypes. These prototypes are used
whenever a new .dwg is started, bringing in everything you need for that
.dwg.
We are a civil firm and have a large batch of prototypes. For instance, a
subdiv, topo, bndry, storm, erosion, storm, planprofiles, detailsetc........
This has worked well for us.
I know this does not answer OP question, but gives another way at looking at
his problem.

--
Larry

wrote in message news:5486731@discussion.autodesk.com...
We have had some issues in the office when it comes to training new
employees to use our CAD standards. I would like to know if there is a lisp
program or other routine out there somewhere that can export your layer
standards to a text or spreadsheet file that would include layer names,
descriptions, colors, linetypes, etc. for a handheld hard copy of the
standards to keep for reference and for training purposes. Any suggestions?

We used a lisp program called "GetLayer2K" but it does not work properly.

thanks

[Anonymous]

At the command prompt, type in ( -layer ) (without quotations) then select
"?". This will open the text window. Keep hitting enter till you are at
the end of the list. Drag your mouse over the text, copy and paste into
word or notepad. It will provide you the layer name, color, status,
lt...all that fun stuff.

[Anonymous]

We have a block with all of our layers in it in our template files. Then we
do an xclip of the block so that it is cut out of the drawing. The block
reference remains, and can't be purged, but you will never see the block
unless you do an xclip/select all/delete clipping boundries. The average CAD
monkey here has no idea that the block is even there.


"larry" wrote in message
news:5486787@discussion.autodesk.com...
We don't have a "list" of layer standards, rather we have templates set up
that hold all of our layers and linetypes. These prototypes are used
whenever a new .dwg is started, bringing in everything you need for that
.dwg.
We are a civil firm and have a large batch of prototypes. For instance, a
subdiv, topo, bndry, storm, erosion, storm, planprofiles, detailsetc........
This has worked well for us.
I know this does not answer OP question, but gives another way at looking at
his problem.

--
Larry

wrote in message news:5486731@discussion.autodesk.com...
We have had some issues in the office when it comes to training new
employees to use our CAD standards. I would like to know if there is a lisp
program or other routine out there somewhere that can export your layer
standards to a text or spreadsheet file that would include layer names,
descriptions, colors, linetypes, etc. for a handheld hard copy of the
standards to keep for reference and for training purposes. Any suggestions?

We used a lisp program called "GetLayer2K" but it does not work properly.

thanks

[Anonymous]

If that's really all you need, you can open the layer manager and either:

PrtScn to the clipboard and paste to Word, or
-A -C to copy all the layer info to the clipboard and paste into
Excel

wrote in message news:5486731@discussion.autodesk.com...
We have had some issues in the office when it comes to training new
employees to use our CAD standards. I would like to know if there is a lisp
program or other routine out there somewhere that can export your layer
standards to a text or spreadsheet file that would include layer names,
descriptions, colors, linetypes, etc. for a handheld hard copy of the
standards to keep for reference and for training purposes. Any suggestions?

We used a lisp program called "GetLayer2K" but it does not work properly.

thanks

[Anonymous]

Check this out...
http://www.caddee.com/llexicon.html
http://www.caddee.com/layerlist.html

With Layer Lexicon there is no need to have a printed list unless you are
sharing with someone outside the office (Layer Lexicon was used to create
the HTML layer lists). The layers can be stored on your network in a central
location for your entire office to access and when new layers are added they
are available to everyone.

Layer Lexicon is a floating tool that can be rolled up and down with a
single-click, so the layers are right there all the time. You can either
pick a layer and select the objects that go o that layer or pick a layer and
set it current.

Jim Dee
www.caddee.com

wrote in message news:5486731@discussion.autodesk.com...
We have had some issues in the office when it comes to training new
employees to use our CAD standards. I would like to know if there is a lisp
program or other routine out there somewhere that can export your layer
standards to a text or spreadsheet file that would include layer names,
descriptions, colors, linetypes, etc. for a handheld hard copy of the
standards to keep for reference and for training purposes. Any suggestions?

We used a lisp program called "GetLayer2K" but it does not work properly.

thanks

[Anonymous]

As others have mentioned, we don't use hard copy layer "standards."

Our standard layers are there from the start in our templates. Part of the training process for new hires involves doing simple redline drafing in existing drawings, so they get exposed to the layering before they're ever asked to start a new job. We don't have any need for a "reference" since the correct layers are already present when a drawing is created.

In our case, there are relatively few standard layers (around 30), so their names and proper uses are perfectly clear. If the system were more complex, we might have a need for more complex documentation.

But if we needed that, it would be on-screen, or menu-driven, or somehow built into the drawings. Long experience has convinced us that hard copy standards manuals are a poor use of energy and paper. Standards ought to be built into your tools and processes at every stage, not sitting on a shelf unread.

[Anonymous]

It is not just the layer names etc. that the new employees may need. A general description of what goes on each layer may help them out quite a bit. Using a standard layer isn't enough. Using the right layer seems to be the challage. (city dictates layers names, not us and can get confusing for new people)

[Anonymous]

I suppose it depends on your industry and needs. I've never had to work in a realm where the layer names couldn't be made self-explanatory. If the names alone aren't "enough" then I'd have to suspect that the names aren't very well chosen.

[Anonymous]

I believe his statement isn't about layer names being accurate or
descriptive, but, about being totally clear about anything that might go
under a specific layer.

In my thoughts, that would be like someone drawing a piping plan, seeing
a layer for text first and placing all pipe labels on it. Which, in
layer descriptions might not be correct. That layer could be for only
notes, where labels could be further down the list by their respective
system's layer name.

Just my $0.02

Melanie Perry
***not all who wander are lost***
http://mistressofthedorkness.blogspot.com

Tom Smith wrote:
> I suppose it depends on your industry and needs. I've never had to work in a realm where the layer names couldn't be made self-explanatory. If the names alone aren't "enough" then I'd have to suspect that the names aren't very well chosen.

[Anonymous]

I understand, but to me that should fall under the category of self-explanatory, if both layers already existed in the drawing template.

The best way to train a new hire on this would be the traditional method of starting them out doing redlines on an existing drawing, which already had some stuff properly placed on those two layers. If the new hire can't follow a clear example, or doesn't think of looking at ALL of the available layers before deciding where to place an item, then you'd know that person needs extra coaching and watching, which would be worthwhile information.

[Anonymous]

The menu system should be switching to the proper layer when you select
either an object (valve block or whatever) to place on a pipe. The system
should have a graphic for pipe that you would select, it would put you on
the proper pipe layer and start the line command to allow you to draw a line
representing a pipe. Select the menu graphic for pipe size, and it should
change you to the proper pipe annotation layer, start the quickleader
command so that you can show the size and when finished, put you back on
your pipe layer.

Having to worry about which layer stuff goes on is counter productive.

Dave Alexander


wrote in message news:5501593@discussion.autodesk.com...
I understand, but to me that should fall under the category of
self-explanatory, if both layers already existed in the drawing template.

The best way to train a new hire on this would be the traditional method of
starting them out doing redlines on an existing drawing, which already had
some stuff properly placed on those two layers. If the new hire can't follow
a clear example, or doesn't think of looking at ALL of the available layers
before deciding where to place an item, then you'd know that person needs
extra coaching and watching, which would be worthwhile information.

[Anonymous]

Well, you guys obviously work differently than I do.
I don't have in-house staff. We do CYA in my facility and that means
outsourcing all design and most construction.
I have no control over menu systems.

I just have to make it as idiot-proof as possible.

You guys sound like you have ideal situations there. Not everyplace
does, because I still see a need for things like that in my experience.

Melanie Perry
***not all who wander are lost***
http://mistressofthedorkness.blogspot.com

Dave Alexander wrote:
> The menu system should be switching to the proper layer when you select
> either an object (valve block or whatever) to place on a pipe. The system
> should have a graphic for pipe that you would select, it would put you on
> the proper pipe layer and start the line command to allow you to draw a line
> representing a pipe. Select the menu graphic for pipe size, and it should
> change you to the proper pipe annotation layer, start the quickleader
> command so that you can show the size and when finished, put you back on
> your pipe layer.
>
> Having to worry about which layer stuff goes on is counter productive.
>
> Dave Alexander
>
>
> wrote in message news:5501593@discussion.autodesk.com...
> I understand, but to me that should fall under the category of
> self-explanatory, if both layers already existed in the drawing template.
>
> The best way to train a new hire on this would be the traditional method of
> starting them out doing redlines on an existing drawing, which already had
> some stuff properly placed on those two layers. If the new hire can't follow
> a clear example, or doesn't think of looking at ALL of the available layers
> before deciding where to place an item, then you'd know that person needs
> extra coaching and watching, which would be worthwhile information.

[Anonymous]

Dave, that's exactly my point.

The entire system of production, from the CAD tools to the checking process, should support and encourage the desired results. It should be hard to get it wrong. The right layers should already be present, much of the placement of things should be automated (without quibbling about the fine details of exactly "how" this happens), and there should be a quality control mechanism whereby the correctness of the final product is validated.

If you've got all that, a hard-copy list of layers names and verbiage describing them just plain isn't needed.

In the big scheme of things, as far as I'm concerned, this is all relatively trivial. I'm WAY more concerned with whether a drawing violates building codes or will cause somebody to be injured or will get us sued than I am with the spelling of a layer name, or the mis-layering of a line. So our overall "standards" efforts are directed at maximizing the total quality of the finished product. As a secondary consequence (not as a goal in itself), the layering business pretty well takes care of itself. We haven't bothered with a printed "layer standards" document in almost 10 years.