Multiple Mark-up layers

[isaac960]

Can someone / anyone from Autodesk tell me if Design Review is going to allow Multiple Mark-up Layers within ADR.

We have a situation where we need multiple engineers to comment on the same drawing, but need to seperate their comments on to different layers.

AutoCAD pioneered the layering system so it sames bizarre the they launch a product for red line mark-up that only allows one mark-up layer. Or am I missing something ??

[Kalicy]

Thank you for your feedback.
 
ADR doesn't allow Multiple Mark-up Layers within ADR by now.
 
I have recorded it in our feature tracking database, however, as this is a good idea.
 
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
 

[isaac960]

Kalicy,

Just downloaded ADR 2012 and it doesn't look like multiple mark-up layers is this correct.

Do you know of anyone who might be able to develop this as part of the API ??

[herbert.he]

Thank you for your feedback.

Your requirement has been recorded in our database and will be considered for possible inclusion in future releases.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

[Karindra]

Is this still the case?  I'd love to be able to put my markups on three different layers.

[jdavis417]

While I understand your want to visually differentiate between the markup source (their name is in the Properties of the markup), if you want to make certain, said layers "invisible", they could be missed. Perhaps working with each markup set individually, then combining them afterwards could meet your needs? Would somehow color-coding the markups by creator give you what you want? Again, I'm concerned about making selected markups invisible.

[Karindra]

That might work for the original question, but my situation is slightly different; I'm not using ADR as just a coordination tool, but also for tracking notes and comments for myself (and any other engineer at my office that looks at the drawings); I'm also putting in notes to the drafter(s) and/or other disciplines with requests that I don't want on the plans. So far I've been using different colors to differentiate - red for markups, green for loads the truss manufacturer needs to deal with, black for notes to drafter, blue for notes to self - but once I start throwing in coordination discussion with more disciplines it starts going haywire.

I could do multiple copies of the markup, but that seems like a waste of time when I could put the items on multiple layers (which would allow me to create multiple better-coordinated sets; I don't send my notes to the architect, but it's handy to have them on a "master" set) to the enties I am coordinating with much faster.  Currently, creating a "send off set" off of a master set of 20 or so pages (one to architect, one to civil, one to calc package) takes two to three hours, including verification time.  With layers, I could send them out in half an hour.  That would also make ADR a clear winner over Bluebeam's PDF editor, which is what I currently use for almost all of my package preparation needs.

[jdavis417]

I smell what you're stepping in! 😉

Whether it's "layers" or another attribute like "action set 1, 2, 3", we need more control so that we CAN have one file (with one filename) store the entire history of the design review. (I mean all the markups and the Approved stamp in one document, with the ability to not print the markups upon release of the file) The "note to self" you mention is perfectly legitimate and should be an option for you not to include in a markup set you provide to others. However, governing bodies markups (for example) should probably never be allowed to be hidden? That could be dangerous and allow someone to be deceitful (or simply lead them to a time-wasting mistake). Perhaps markups, stamps and simple notes must have "rights and permissions" or "weight" so that some can be hidden but not others? It occurs to me that comments can be added to existing markups... but that is only a kind of work-around... adding a note to yourself would let you change it's status to "Done" (for example) and a comment embedded in another markup would never do that independently.

It's a bigger process than Autodesk previously realized? I wonder if they intend on seeing it through. Since Autodesk Design Review is a free application, I'd prefer it to any .pdf "solution" that costs money. Add in the ability to use .dwf(x) as an underlay in my drawing, then change the status within my native Autocad or Inventor application, and .dwf(x) is a better option to ensure that markups are truly completed.

We're All in this Together (so bail faster!), 😉

John

[Karindra]

First, eww.

Second, I'm not too worried about hiding markup - it'd be nice, but not required, and possibly not a fantastic idea for the exact issue you mention.  What I could use is the ability to lock them, or mass edit them.  Save a new copy of the master file with a name you want to give the client, lock the layer you want to keep in a coordination set, erase all notes (except those locked), review to ensure you didn't make a mistake.  As it is I need to go into each sheet individually, click on each note individually (and god forbid I miss one, or click on something I don't want to - it deselects everything) and delete them manually.

[jdavis417]

So, while you're not interested in "hiding" an official markup from a down-stream user it seems you'd settle for simply being able to hide some of your "internal-use" notes?  Other than removing them, as you do now, I can't think of an existing way to actually exclude part of the markups.  A work-around might be to add notes with the method shown in the attached image... as "placeholders" for the more-verbose note inside the markup label's properties.  This might clean-up the view of the page but doesn't actually remove any sensitive information (if that was the goal).

Multiple file versions could lead to data loss and, for some, the ability to delete any markups at all is a deal-breaker to adopting ADR.  We really need Design Review to address all of our individual needs, while preserving the entire history and both individual markup and sheet approval status (a tall order, I suppose).

[Karindra]

I think I'm having trouble explaining myself.

As someone involved in the SE side, I need to be able to provide markups and comments to multiple organizations and disciplines.  The only client I have that uses DWF also does their own structural plans; we just provide review.  (It's residential.  What can I say?)  The notes that the contractor might need for preliminary discussion may not match what the truss manufacturer needs, or (on a larger project, like an apartment building) what the civil engineer needs, or what the person drawing the plans might need to put on the submittal set at that location.  I *also* like to put in internal notes.

Currently, when I send out markups, I provide either color-coded notes or delete the irrelevant information, depending on complexity of the project.  But I can forsee a time when I will need to provide a number of notes in close quarters to one another, for different disciplines.  Here's an example that has already happened:  Shear wall type, holdown type, point loads applied to truss, request for information re: mechanical unit, notes to future reviewer/my records explaining the load path of the discontinuous shear wall tied down to the beam.  The person providing the drawings needs to provide the shear wall designation, the tiedown designation, and the uplift values on the plans.  The truss manufacturer needs to confirm the mechanical loads and provide a design that can support them.  The HVAC person needs to know where the system is (centered over the wall, in this example), and provide a design distributing that load to the structure or provide me with the ability to do so.  The reviewer needs additional information (specifications of table 12.3-1 or 12.3-2, in the example) to be able to review the job, and my coworkers need to know that I've covered all of this if I get hit by a bus tomorrow.

With the current system, I can create a master file and then carefully edit the others.  In fact, that's what I do; that's what takes the majority of the prep time.  But right now, there is no convenient way to (for example) grab all notes intended for one discipline and remove them from a set going to another discipline.  If I grab a group, it selects all markups.  If I grab individually, it either takes forever or deselects them as I carelessly click two pixels outside the item I was trying to select.

It should be noted that I'm discussing this coming from the perspective of a person that provides markups, not a person that provides drawings.  They're all my markups; I wouldn't want the ability to delete other people's markups.  I just want to have a better ability to handle my own markups.

[jdavis417]

Thanks for the explaination!  You're not just wanting to tell a draftsperson what to change, but to work out the design using .dwf as a collaboration tool.  That's a good idea and perfectly valid... just a step-or-two ahead of where ADR has made it to.

If you had the "layer" functionality you've requested and I were providing you .dwf's for markup, I'd be tempted to give you two files... one for you to use for my markups (with Editing and Deletion of markups disabled) and one for your use (with Editing and Deletion of markups enabled).  I would do this to make sure that I cannot possibly be missing a markup that I was tasked with (and that you didn't accidentally delete or hide one you intended me to have).  If someone between me and the official reviewer wanted me to ignore a certain markup from the official reviewer, they'd have to add an additional markup telling me not to do it.  At least I'd be aware of what the official reviewer wanted... and that it was not completed.  This is the only way I can think of to assure accountability.  Your stepping stone can't become my stumbling block! 😉