Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[chuft-captain]

(Build 1269)

So it's a bit hard to work out exactly what's going on with this one, but I think the crux of it is that when grouping objects it seems that the group is always sent to layer 0 (even when the grouped objects are initially all in the same layer).
If Layer 0 is hidden then the newly grouped object disappears from view ... in which case I can re-enable Layer 0 and re-assign the grouped object back to the original Layer, however if Layer 0 is visible, then it's not immediately apparent that the Layer has changed.
I understand that when the objects being grouped are individually in different layers before grouping, then the only logical decision I guess is to put the group in Layer 0, however when they're all already in the same Layer, then perhaps it is more appropriate for the group to remain in that Layer.

This opinion is based upon the way that I work --- I tend to use Layers to group multiple objects which are used to compose an assembly or assemblies, but I often need to temporarily un-group assemblies to make changes to individual elements, and then re-group the assembly or assemblies, at which point the assembly and it's components gets re-assigned to Layer 0 (and this fact often goes un-noticed by me if Layer 0 is also visible.)
I imagine that if I was to make changes in all Layers and forget to re-assign the Layer on every occasion after re-grouping, then eventually everything would just end in Layer 0 ...  so I think you can see the problem.

As I can have multiple assemblies which I may want to view and work upon independently, I tend to organize each assembly and it's components into it's own Layer. I then want it to remain in this Layer unless I choose to move it elsewhere. The constant re-assignment to Layer 0 causes a bit of chaos which affects my workflow.

Other people may have a different opinion about this if they perhaps use Layers in a different way to me, but this is how it affects my workflow.

CC

This post referenced in: Version 1.0 Bugs and Suggestions

[Steve]

I agree. Grouping several things should put the group in the same layer if they are all in the same one.

What group layer should the group be in if the objects are in different layers? The default group layer?

[chuft-captain]

Do you mean ... "What group layer should the group be in if the objects are in different layers? The default group layer?"

I'm not sure what the best approach would be.
One approach might be to just put the group in the lowest layer of the selected objects.

But what if there are other un-selected objects already in that layer? Maybe you should scan the layers of the selected objects with a preference for placing the group in a layer which is otherwise empty --- this would nicely separate it from the other objects.

But what if none of those layers are empty of extra objects? Do you put it in the nearest empty layer, or create a completely new layer for the group? ... This would appear to require that there is no limit on the number of layers which can be created, whereas at present there's a limit of 8 layers.

Regardless of the layer selection strategy for grouping, once grouped, on a future un-grouping action, I think that the un-grouped objects should probably remain in the current layer rather than returning to their original layers.

[Steve]

 

[chuft-captain]

Why so ?

I hope you don't think that you have to cater for all those scenarios. I was just thinking out loud about the possible scenarios.
I think your strategy to put the group in the same layer when all objects are already in that layer, and in the default layer otherwise, would go a long way to improving this functionality.
I mean ... what else can you do? ... and it's probably better to just have a couple of simple rules that everyone can understand, than to have a very complicated strategy.

Regards
CC

[Steve]

That's an "embarrassed" symbol . This is the one for sad    They look too much alike! Anyway I was referring to my using group for layer TWICE (That one is a smiley face)

[chuft-captain]

I was referring to my using group for layer TWICE

Birds of a feather, flock together!

No need to be embarrassed about a couple of typos, but the fact that you were thinking about groups and layers interchangedly (is that a word?) .. suggests a possible elegant simplification...
Maybe groups and layers are conceptually one and the same. This might open a whole can of worms though. (EDIT: Don't tell the birds about the worms!)

[Gyperboloid]

Yes, it is logical the grouped items from the same layer to stay in that same layer. As for grouping different items from different layers I think the right way is to bring an aware window wich will remind that things can be grouped only if they belong to the same layer, so the meshes-itemes to be grouped from different layers first should be manualy transfered to one same. That way there will be some kind of control on what is where. And actually, it seems that there is no need to create some items on different layers and for some reason group them later on one, so it's kind of a special sittuation and will be met not that often.