The way the layer manager search function is set up allows you to only search for a layer with an exact replication of the name of the layer. With tons of unit plan xrefs, our layer manager looks something like this:
X_13135_A5_1_FURN
X_13135_A5_1_CAB
X_13135_A5_1_RAIL
and so on... each unit xref has its own designation. So we would like to be able to search all xrefs for their furniture layers. So I could type in furn and it would show me all furn layers in each designated unit xref. Instead I have to type in x_13135_A5_1_FURN for that particular unit. For another unit I have to type in X_13135_A1_1_FURN or whatever the unit name is. PLEASE fix this it would save so much time. The screenshot attached below is an example of what our layer manager looks like.
Solved! Go to Solution.
The way the layer manager search function is set up allows you to only search for a layer with an exact replication of the name of the layer. With tons of unit plan xrefs, our layer manager looks something like this:
X_13135_A5_1_FURN
X_13135_A5_1_CAB
X_13135_A5_1_RAIL
and so on... each unit xref has its own designation. So we would like to be able to search all xrefs for their furniture layers. So I could type in furn and it would show me all furn layers in each designated unit xref. Instead I have to type in x_13135_A5_1_FURN for that particular unit. For another unit I have to type in X_13135_A1_1_FURN or whatever the unit name is. PLEASE fix this it would save so much time. The screenshot attached below is an example of what our layer manager looks like.
Solved! Go to Solution.
Solved by dmfrazier. Go to Solution.
Have you tried wildcard characters (*, ?)? For example, *FURN*.
Works for me with ClassicLayer and LayerPalette.
Have you tried wildcard characters (*, ?)? For example, *FURN*.
Works for me with ClassicLayer and LayerPalette.
How about Layer Filters ?
How about Layer Filters ?
Yes I learned that using two asterisks does the trick. Thanks a lot.
Yes I learned that using two asterisks does the trick. Thanks a lot.
HTH
This worked quite the trick. Thanks alot
This worked quite the trick. Thanks alot
@conorbFR5HG wrote:This worked quite the trick. Thanks alot
so why dont accept it as a solution?
@conorbFR5HG wrote:This worked quite the trick. Thanks alot
so why dont accept it as a solution?
Not sure how to Shay, im afraid. Please advise
Not sure how to Shay, im afraid. Please advise
Additional wildcards from HELP:
# (pound) |
Matches any numeric digit |
@ (at) |
Matches any alphabetic character |
. (period) |
Matches any non-alphanumeric character |
* (asterisk) |
Matches any string and can be used anywhere in the search string |
? (question mark) |
Matches any single character; for example, ?BC matches ABC, 3BC, and so on |
~ (tilde) |
Matches anything but the pattern; for example; ~*AB*matches all strings that don't contain AB |
[ ] |
Matches any one of the characters enclosed; for example, [AB]C matches AC and BC |
[~] |
Matches any character not enclosed; for example, [~AB]C matches XC but not AC |
[-] |
Specifies a range for a single character; for example, [A-G]C matches AC, BC, and so on to GC, but not HC |
` (reverse quote) |
Reads the next character literally; for example, `~AB matches ~AB |
Additional wildcards from HELP:
# (pound) |
Matches any numeric digit |
@ (at) |
Matches any alphabetic character |
. (period) |
Matches any non-alphanumeric character |
* (asterisk) |
Matches any string and can be used anywhere in the search string |
? (question mark) |
Matches any single character; for example, ?BC matches ABC, 3BC, and so on |
~ (tilde) |
Matches anything but the pattern; for example; ~*AB*matches all strings that don't contain AB |
[ ] |
Matches any one of the characters enclosed; for example, [AB]C matches AC and BC |
[~] |
Matches any character not enclosed; for example, [~AB]C matches XC but not AC |
[-] |
Specifies a range for a single character; for example, [A-G]C matches AC, BC, and so on to GC, but not HC |
` (reverse quote) |
Reads the next character literally; for example, `~AB matches ~AB |
@Shay.Gaghe wrote:
@conorbFR5HG wrote:
This worked quite the trick. Thanks alot
so why dont accept it as a solution?
[Because it's a three-year-old question, posted by someone else, who already accepted what they were replying to as the solution, anyway. Only the original poster and certainly others with special privileges can mark something as an accepted solution. But anyone can give Kudos, if they like something enough.]
@Shay.Gaghe wrote:
@conorbFR5HG wrote:
This worked quite the trick. Thanks alot
so why dont accept it as a solution?
[Because it's a three-year-old question, posted by someone else, who already accepted what they were replying to as the solution, anyway. Only the original poster and certainly others with special privileges can mark something as an accepted solution. But anyone can give Kudos, if they like something enough.]
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.