Re-define blocks

Hi all,

I have to change our company logo which has been inserted into all our drawing sheets. Is there a way I can redefine the block externally without having to open all the drawings?

Thanks in advance
Dart

 

Good grief. Somebody "up high" doesn't realize what happens when they do that. I seem to recall that there may be some lsp or script file that will do it - do a search. Otherwise,
you will have to open each one and insert new logo. Argh !!

 

The perfect argument for Xref's instead of Blocks for such things as title
blocks and sheet formats.

If you end up needing to open each drawing, you wouldn't really have to
actually Insert a new logo in each one -- you could redefine it with
the -INSERT <Filename>= approach that's been discussed recently.

 

Check out SCRIPTPRO, it should have come with the AutoCAD migration tools.

 

<<The perfect argument for Xref's instead of Blocks for such things as title blocks and sheet formats.>>

That is, unless you have legal documents already issued.

 

Nonsense. You're confusing CAD methods, with what's considered a legal document.

Joe Burke

 

This is fodder for a complete new thread, but you apparently have never been called to produce the original file in electronic form (the method it was transmitted). When you have, come back and we can talk.

 

Getting OT, but...

I prefer xreffed titleblocks (no breaking news there) and just find them
more convenient to work with.

What I do, (which is something I haven't seen mentioned much), is simply
store the referenced 'working' copy of the titleblock in the working
'PlotSheets' folder of the project.

Once the project reaches a new milestone/set_issue/phase, etc, the current
'working' project **folder(s)** is/are just copied and renamed for the next
phase. IOW, if the titleblock does change at some future point, I still
have a 'snapshot' as it were of the project at that previous point,
(including the old titleblock, of course.)

It's actually more of a folder/file organization issue than anything
relating to AutoCAD.

Funny thing about this system is that - as should be easy to surmise -
ultimately, I end up with a LOT of different drawings that are named exactly
the same, but simply reside in different projects and/or phase folders. At
first I was extremely worried that I'd slip up from time to time and
accidentally overwrite drawings with the same name. This was actually my
biggest concern. But in practice (having used this method for ~4 years
now), *it's never happened*, nor have I seen any of my co-workers wailing in
grief about overwriting a drawing with the wrong one by mistake. So, after
about 6 months I quit worrying about that, and started worrying about other
things. (I know that some use project # prefixes for their drawing files
and such to help prevent this from happening, but for me, such project #
prefixes just tend to muddle up the view and add another layer of complexity
when it comes to xref management/automation...)

At any rate, since I strive to always use relative paths, the correct
referenced drawings are picked up whenever I open a plot sheet or whatever,
regardless of what 'phase' folder I may be looking in.

YMMV,
David Kozina

 

Okay I'm confused, how in the world are thousands and thousands of obsolete files "easier" to work with?

How are dozens of different titleblocks for the same client "easier" to work with?

Sounds like you're reaching for reasons to use xref'd TBs.

 

There are NOT "thousands and thousands" of obsolete files in the Project's
current (working) folders.
Just the working files. Nothing confusing about it, really.

The previous/older "phase" folders are more for archival purposes than
anything, which is what I thought you were talking about... - IOW, if I need
to produce or find something in a drawing the way it *was* (perhaps I was
misunderstanding your earlier comment to Kent Cooper(?) on how to produce an
original file, with a (presumably) older titleblock).

As I said, it's more of a file organization/management issue, rather than an
AutoCAD issue.
Adequately nested folders do much to keep things easy to manage and
organized.
Current files are easy to find, whereas older files are just as easy to
locate/access if I need to.

Reaching for reasons to use xreffed TBs?
What I was explaining above really has nothing to do with that issue other
than the fact that I don't have to run any special scripts or other routines
to re-define blocks if the TB changes. But, I'm sure you already understood
that.

Best regards,
David Kozina

 

<<There are NOT "thousands and thousands" of obsolete files in the Project's current (working) folders.
Just the working files. >>

For many of us "just the working files" is thousands of drawings. My current project will have between 18,000 and 22,000 files, averaging about 2MB each.

But the question remains, how is two of anything ever "easier" than one?

<<The previous/older "phase" folders are more for archival purposes than anything, which is what I thought you were talking about>>

PDF or DWF for archival.


<<if I need to produce or find something in a drawing the way it *was* (perhaps I was misunderstanding your earlier comment to Kent Cooper(?) on how to produce an original file, with a (presumably) older titleblock). >>

I was speaking of active contracts, not archival. The field needs another print of a file, last issued 4 months ago, unless you've kept a hard copy of the previous issue you're stuck, you can't just plot a new one, cuz' it's gonna have a different TB.

TB's are set at contract. If the client wishes a new TB, it will be used on the next project, which may be running concurrently with the previous.


<<other than the fact that I don't have to run any special scripts or other routines to re-define blocks>>

Neither do we.


<<if the TB changes>>

it doesn't.


<<But, I'm sure you already understood that. >>

Oh, quite, there is a contingent of folks who promote the use of XREF'd TitleBlocks I do not, and think it is the least-intelligent use of XREF's. It does very little for you, except offer a quick-fix for unstable titleblocks. The better solution is, of course, to stabilize the TBs.

 

Which is why I *do* have a copy of the previous issue as explained earlier.

Well, IIRC, one of the reasons for this sub-thread was having to deal with
that contingency.
You have a process that works well for you (which basically prevents that
situation from even happening).
I agree it would be a more ideal situation. It just doesn't happen *here*.
IOW, I personally have no control over the base drawings and titleblocks our
client provides us and requests us to use. (I sometimes think some of them
have hired people who do nothing BUT change the titleblock/logo/whatever -
sheesh!). So I have to deal with this situation the best I am able and,
since I cannot call the shots with respects to using a finalized titleblock
when the project starts, for me that involves xreffing. As a result, this
"quick fix" for unstable titleblocks turns out to be quite valuable *here*.
It would only be a worse situation here if they were *not* xreffed. BTDT.


One of the chuckles I get is seeing different titleblocks scattered here and
there throughout the client's issued set of drawings - because they *didn't*
keep things synch'd.

Best regards,
David Kozina

 

At the risk of starting another "discussion", we are still using A2K....

I will just create a lisp to batch through the drawings and re-define the blocks the old fashioned way.

BTW, the jury is still out on insert vs. xref for title blocks. What about using an xref for the logo into a sheet which is then inserted into the drawings???

Thanks
Dart

 

How about redefining the block as an xref through lisp. Then script that on all applicable files.

 

<<Well, IIRC, one of the reasons for this sub-thread was having to deal with that contingency. >>

The solution is better contract.


<<I agree it would be a more ideal situation. It just doesn't happen *here*. IOW, I personally have no control over the base drawings and titleblocks our client provides us and requests us to use. >>

I can only assume your client pays by the hour, not the contract, otherwise I see no reason to waste company resources playing with a client's TB.


<<since I cannot call the shots with respects to using a finalized titleblock when the project starts, >>

Someone can. But if you're paid by the hour, diddling with the client's TB becomes a profit generator.


<<"quick fix" for unstable titleblocks turns out to be quite valuable *here*. It would only be a worse situation here if they were *not* xreffed.>>

No not at all, rather simple solution has already been posted to create a lisp to insert= the new block. We did it quite often prior to R11. If he wishes to spend time and money playing with the client border, that can be accomplished even when it's a block.

 

Agreed. Fodder for a thread which doesn't apply to this NG. Which makes me wonder why
you raise these kinds of issues here.

BTW, I was drawing plot plan legal descriptions when I read your post. So don't
assume you know what I know, or what I do.

I believe folks should used whatever methods best suit their needs. Which covers your
odd case, as well as others. Where a client is either clueless in terms of CAD, or
has no desire to enforce a border.

Joe Burke

 

<<Agreed. Fodder for a thread which doesn't apply to this NG. Which makes me wonder why you raise these kinds of issues here. >>

In answer to a post that claimed the use of XREF'd TB's was the "better" method. That is clearly not always the case. Prior to selecting such a method, continuity of design, and legal issues are factors that need to be given consideration.


<<BTW, I was drawing plot plan legal descriptions when I read your post. So don't assume you know what I know, or what I do. >>

Drawing legal descriptions is a far cry from producing a file in court. Had you ever been called to do so, as I have, you would never have made your "nonsense" comment. The validity of the file was questioned in court, because the plot it produced had different lineweights from the contractor's record document and an explanation about the differences in plotters ensued. I can image the rat's nest had it contained a completely different border.


<<I believe folks should used whatever methods best suit their needs. >>

As do I, but ALL needs must be considered, not necessarily the most expedient seeming at the time.


<<Where a client is either clueless in terms of CAD,>>

He is to be educated.


<< or has no desire to enforce a border. >>

The contractor needs protection.

 

It seems to me that updating a block-definition title block in a large
number of drawings with the INSERT= approach is spending even MORE time and
money than you would to update the single title-block drawing if it's Xref'd
into the others. Even if you have a batch process that does it to numerous
drawings without opening them all, it's still another step that you don't
need to take at all if you use Xref's. So for those who are not paid by the
hour for doing it (and I think you're the rare exception if you are, and the
rare exception if you're never required to change a title block), the Block
approach is a comparative profit loser.

and....

Here's what it does for me: the benefits of Xref's have as much to do with
conservation of memory space as with convenience of changes. If you really
have thousands of files in a project, and if a large number of those contain
a title block, then if that title block is a Block in the drawing, every
single title block drawing entity has to have all of its information
contained in every one of those drawing files. With an Xref'd title block,
that information exists (and uses up its memory space) only once. It also
saves upload and download time if you need to send more than one of the
files electronically in AutoCAD format to anyone, especially if they're as
big as you describe.

 

I would think your own earlier suggestion of

would overcome that problem, and allow all the intended benefits of Xref's
at the same time. (It does, though, mean additional files, and therefore
additional memory consumed, which does away with one of the benefits.)

 

<<Even if you have a batch process that does it to numerous
drawings without opening them all, it's still another step that you don't need to take at all if you use Xref's>>

If we ever needed to do it, yes, it may take 10 minutes.


<< So for those who are not paid by the hour for doing it (and I think you're the rare exception if you are, and the rare exception if you're never required to change a title block), the Block approach is a comparative profit loser. >>

Not at all. Priot to making that step, the client will agree to pay for the extra work. Anyone roped into a cycle of playing with a client's border, needs to have it covered at contract or they are wasting their own money. We are in the design business, not the "make a pretty border" business. We contract our services and define the scope in contract, including all standards. Without setting it in stone up front, either method is a profit loser.


<<have as much to do with conservation of memory space>>

Already discussed and discounted. You're looking at saving around 10K-20K per file because you still need other titleblock-type data to be volatile in the file. Even for 20,000 files you're only looking at 400MB or about the size of one large 3D model.