Layers should be hierarchical

[Anonymous]

The argument goes: A drawing rapidly becomes too complex to have have everything in one layer, so divide it into layers. But the argument is recursive: A layer soon becomes too complex, so define layers inside of the layer.

Obviously the tree of layers can be reduced to individual layers, but from an organizational point of view, the layers inside of a parent layer are related, so the layers should reflect this logical relationship. The standard UI controls for controlling the display of a tree would make the interaction with a long list of layers easy.

Imagine a file system where you could only have one level of directories. Nobody would put up with that. Why are layers any different?

Is there something wrong with this argument?

[jggerth]

While I'd like to see a hierarchical layer manager, especially with NCS layer naming practices in use,  increasing complexity in a drawing can be better handled by using reference files, instead of trying to rely solely on layers. 

[john.vellek]

HI @Anonymous,

Thanks for the idea.  I believe that using Layer Group Filters helps accommodate the method you are describing. This allows you to see related layers easily. It also lets you use the layers in different layer group relationships concurrently as some or many layers are applicable to many situations.

[john.vellek]

Hi @Anonymous,

I am checking back to see if my post helped you with your problem or if you need additional assistance or information. Please add a post with how you decide to proceed and your results so other Community members may benefit.

Please hit the Accept as Solution button if my post fully solves your issue or answers your question.

[Anonymous]

Hi John,

I have used filters, and understand the value. One gripe about filters -- why not allow a regular expression to optionally be used? Sometimes a simple wild card is not flexible enough, and a regex is so much more powerful, and very common (at least in software development).

Don't see why the hierarchical layer structure is still not useful. Layers could be dragged and dropped into folders to evolve a convenient organization. A layer could be in more than one parent with the concept of a symbolic link (thinking in Unix).

One could even carry the folder analogy one step further, and allow a layer to be expanded to show the objects within the layer, and then even objects could be moved across layers by the intuitive drag and option gesture. Object selection could also be done.

But why stop there? A 3D object could be further expanded to show its solid history, and selection would then let you access the parameters of the operation very conveniently (and also clearly show the set of operations applied).

Filters would still work, but now they would prune a tree instead of a list.

[dgorsman]

That would require a major modification of not just the program but also user customization, third-party applications, and work processes which also work with the layers collection.

I'm of the firm opinion that anything that requires that number of layers should have a level of automation between the user and the system to handle the detail work for them ie. the task they are working on determines the layer in use.  You can always build your own tree-style layer interface to do this for you, without impacting anyone else or waiting for Autodesk.

[john.vellek · Accepted solution]

Hi @Anonymous,

Not being a programmer, I can only imagine how complex re-architecting the product would be to address layers in this fashion.  It would also likely require re-working the dwg and dxf formats as well as create a way to handle legacy drawings.

Obviously there are software packages available (many from Autodesk) that address things on more of a component level that often times eliminate layers altogether!

So, with that said and the understanding of your appreciated contribution, I doubt (IMHO) that this kind of change is likely in the near future. Of course, as I frequently am, I could be totally wrong!

I do however appreciate your contribution and encourage you to contact the product team directly through the Product Feedback page. The links below go into more detail about the best ways to make suggestions.
How to provide feedback on Autodesk products
Raising enhancement requests for Autodesk products

Another great option is to participate in the AutoCAD Customer Council. This is an opportunity for our customers to partner with the AutoCAD development team to improve future releases of AutoCAD by giving continuous feedback on ideas, designs, and early builds.
In order to get involved email autocad.beta@autodesk.com or autocad.lt.council@autodesk.com