SUDA Level Convention

Mark, you are on target. With all due respect to my former Bentley colleagues, the proliferation of the "3D"  levels does nothing more than create a levels nightmare.  Here's my philosophy:

1. Level structure should be dictated by the needs of plans production and how you need to display data.
2. The fact that a specific element is 2D or 3D or Profile or Cross-section shall not (my words) influence levels. Why?
   1. because openroads already segregates these various contexts of the feature into different models.
   2. because even though a feature shows up in all these contexts, it is still only one feature.

End of Sermon

Mark, you are on target. With all due respect to my former Bentley colleagues, the proliferation of the "3D"  levels does nothing more than create a levels nightmare.  Here's my philosophy:

1. Level structure should be dictated by the needs of plans production and how you need to display data.
2. The fact that a specific element is 2D or 3D or Profile or Cross-section shall not (my words) influence levels. Why?
   1. because openroads already segregates these various contexts of the feature into different models.
   2. because even though a feature shows up in all these contexts, it is still only one feature.

End of Sermon

Robert:

And do we not have enough levels already!? Now- and with your insight- I will be able to move the SUDA levels over to our legacy levels without much need to create new ones. 

Thanks so much!

Mark

My philosophy would pretty closely match what Robert articulates here. I will add the note that the separate Element Templates my likely still be relevant to include material for 3D views while maintaining "traditional" display in 2D.

Steve