INSERT vs XREF - what strategy should I use?
Carb Unit
I'm drawing a house as a collection of 3D solids,
right down to individual blocks, pipes, etc.
I've been using XREFs for everything these last few years
because I like how there's only one copy which is
current in all drawings. No re-loading needed. Some
drawings are nested several levels deep. I'm not in a
multi-user environment.
Now I want to use Xdata (AutoLISP group -3) or Attributes
(AutoLISP group 66). I was very disappointed to find
that Xdata and Attributes aren't available to AutoLISP
if the block is in the drawing as an XREF.
What other surprises will I find? I haven't worked in
paper space, or used dimensions, at all.
Another disadvantage I've found is that XREFs want
their own set of layers.
What's the strategy concerning INSERT and XREF
that makes the most sense?
--tom
Mike Leonard
"Carb Unit" <twa...@brinet.com> wrote in message
news:38A7BA05...@brinet.com...
> Hi, I'm using both r13c4 and 2000 on Win NT.
>
> I'm drawing a house as a collection of 3D solids,
> right down to individual blocks, pipes, etc.
>
> I've been using XREFs for everything these last few years
> because I like how there's only one copy which is
> current in all drawings. No re-loading needed. Some
> drawings are nested several levels deep. I'm not in a
> multi-user environment.
>
> Now I want to use Xdata (AutoLISP group -3) or Attributes
> (AutoLISP group 66). I was very disappointed to find
> that Xdata and Attributes aren't available to AutoLISP
> if the block is in the drawing as an XREF.
>
> What other surprises will I find? I haven't worked in
> paper space, or used dimensions, at all.
Then you've seen nothing yet. :-)
>
> Another disadvantage I've found is that XREFs want
> their own set of layers.
Disadvantage is not what I would call this feature. The intent is to manage
the layers of each xref without affecting the working drawing. Example
being that if the xref contained an identical layer as the working drawing
you can manipulate them separately.
>
> What's the strategy concerning INSERT and XREF
> that makes the most sense?
The one that best fits the given sistuation. Blocks generally are intrinsic
to the working drawing while xref's are just that. External references that
enhance productivity in or to the working drawing. Example being that a
large plot plan would not be required for all disciplines so why make it an
intrisic part of every drawing wherein a title block would be part of every
drawing. In short, whatever makes sense to you would be the best strategy.
>
> --tom
>
Carb Unit
Thanks for your response Mike, but the reason for my post is
that I'm not sure <what> makes sense in my case. Here's an example
of the structure (nesting) of my drawings. Right now all these
are XREFs (except for 3dmasonry.dwg).
3dmasonry.dwg (complete masonry drawing - all stories)
3dmasonryB.dwg (basement story)
3dcourse01, 02... 15.dwg (individual course drawings 1 thru 15)
3dcourse01x.dwg (exterior wythe of cavity wall)
3d12block.dwg (basic 12" concrete block)
3d12halfblock.dwg
3d12blockcorner.dwg
<etc>
3dcourse01i.dwg (interior wythe of cavity wall)
<etc>
3dcourse01h.dwg (masonry heater foundation)
<etc>
3dcourse15x, i, h.dwg
(these have a similar hierarchy)
3dmasonry1st.dwg (1st story)
3dcourse16, 17... 30.dwg
3dmasonry2nd.dwg (2nd story)
3dcourse31, 32... 45.dwg
3dmasonry3rd.dwg
<etc>
Won't it be a terrific drawing management headache if I use blocks?
I mean, if I change 3d12block, my basic concrete block, don't I
have to visit each of my individual course drawings and refresh
the block? If I use the block as an XREF as I have, no updating
is necessary. Now, with my Bill Of Materials program, this
sucks, because I can't access an XREF'd block's attribute data.
I understand why one can't change attribute data, but I should
at least be able to <read> it. Then again, any software that's
gone thru as many changes as AutoCAD is bound to have some
"compatibility baggage". Win/tel is the same way.
--tom
Mike Leonard
As opposed to management of all the individual drawings. If I understand
your hierarchy correctly then each course of blocks / bricks has it's own
drawing xref'ed into a master called masonary which is in turn xref'ed into
an overall grand scheme drawing. Since this example just reflect the mason
work I could imagine the amount of drawings your working with if other trade
items are being pursued in a similar fashion.
> I mean, if I change 3d12block, my basic concrete block, don't I
> have to visit each of my individual course drawings and refresh
> the block?
Yes. Any change that far down the hierarchy is going to exhibit some type
of ripple affect throughout the branches if not the whole tree. Even
without being a "block" each drawing would have to be visited to update even
the smallest changes for an individual item. I would assume that a
*standard 12" masonary block* would not be subject to change at this stage
since the only differences should just be the supplier. Same as a *standard
bricks* with a given set of dimensions to work with be it whatever type of
running course.
If I use the block as an XREF as I have, no updating
> is necessary.
Unless you change the basic block then your back to visiting each xref'ed
drawing and redefining it. Depending on what is changed it could lead to
changes in other less dependant xref'ed drawings.
Now, with my Bill Of Materials program, this
> sucks, because I can't access an XREF'd block's attribute data.
> I understand why one can't change attribute data, but I should
> at least be able to <read> it.
For BOM purposes I would set up a temporary master once all was at that
stage and bind all the xref's. Run my BOM one time and chunck the temporary
master. Either that or run it on each drawing and manual combine all items
at a later time. BOM's are not that static though and sometimes have a
dynamic life of there own. Sounds as though you could use a program that
could link to each individual item in each individual file and maintain that
link regardless whether xref'ed are not.
Then again, any software that's
> gone thru as many changes as AutoCAD is bound to have some
> "compatibility baggage".
You misspelled "bugs". Compatability baggage doesn't quite make sense in
the context of xref's vs. inserted blocks. Each serves a purpose and each
has it's own advantages and limitations depending on the circumstances of
their use.
> Win/tel is the same way.
Which I know absolutely nothing about. What is Win/tel anyway?
Mike L
Carb Unit
>
> > Win/tel is the same way.
>
> Which I know absolutely nothing about. What is Win/tel anyway?
>
> Mike L
Thanks again Mike.
Win/tel = Windows and Intel. Both MS's and Intel's
products have to be mostly compatible with a large installed base of
old technology. This can and does cramp their ability to innovate, since
they spend a significant about of energy insuring that the old stuff will
run.
--tom
Mike Leonard
Thanks. Now I understand Win/tel. The backwards and forwards compatability
issues have always been the bugga boo. NT and Win 2000 will change that.
Bill Gates could do like Autodesk and just say ok, after this date MS will
no longer support anything not running on either an NT or Win2000 os which
would almost force people to adopt one, the other, or switch to Linux. :-)
Mike L
"Carb Unit" <twa...@brinet.com> wrote in message
news:38A99C08...@brinet.com...
> Mike Leonard wrote:
>
> >
> > > Win/tel is the same way.
> >
> > Which I know absolutely nothing about. What is Win/tel anyway?
> >
> > Mike L
>