Which is better

Yes I am criticizing their lax cad management. I have seen many horrible structures with many levels deep of nested
xrefs. From an outsiders point of view its a huge mess. It would be nice if one simple bind worked but in many cases
it does not.

Matt Stachoni <>
|>Well, that's their problem with lax CAD management, which has nothing to do with
|>Xrefs or binding.
|>
|>> Oh and they insist in attaching instead of overlaying.
|>There are some very good sound reasons to attach over overlay; it's how the firm
|>uses the tools they have that makes the difference between "right" and "wrong."
|>
|>Don't criticize someone else's files unless you understand how they work for
|>them, because that's all that's important.


David

 

I bet if you examine the drawings, you'll find that you don't need 48 of them.
But if they were completely bound, you'd have to wade through all of that
extraneous CAD data for the stuff you need.

Well, that's their problem with lax CAD management, which has nothing to do with
Xrefs or binding.

There are some very good sound reasons to attach over overlay; it's how the firm
uses the tools they have that makes the difference between "right" and "wrong."

Don't criticize someone else's files unless you understand how they work for
them, because that's all that's important.

Matt

 

<Our directory structure is pretty simple

ah...so simple... unfortunately life isn't so simple for us.... not sure if its an architects thing.... but I've found that architects have one hell of alot more directories to deal with all the different drawings they have to produce.

We have directories for each package of drawings, and have the base files and sheet files under seperate directory trees....
ie

Arch
-CAD
- -BASE
- - -Plans
- - -(GA)
- - - - - base GA files here (possible additional subdirectories for plans/sections/elevs/cores/flattypes/etc)
- - -(22)
- - - - - Internal wall drawings here ( details, etc )
- - -(etc)


--SHEET
- - -(GA)
- - - - - Sheet Files here (xrefing (GA) from base folder)
- - -(etc)

--ISSUED
- - - dated folders go here for each drawing issue containing a bound set of DWG's, and either PLT or PDF copies too.

--CONSULTANTS
- - - All received drawings are stored in relevant subdirectories here.

As you can see, this is potentially a really heavy system.... but I don't really see any alternative at the moment....
any ideas / suggestions ?

 

Patrick

The problem I see as a civil consultant is that when we need a background for our products I get sent a dump of files
all with their own naming convention. Typically none of them are in a coordinate system either. You cannot just take
all of them and xref overlay them at 0,0. I am still amazed at that one. When you have attached xrefs you cannot bind
them either. So what ends up happening is that I have to open most of the files, audit, purge, bind and work my way up
to the main drawing that puts everything together. It can take from 30 minutes to 2 hours to wade through everything.
Then there is the issue of colors not being bylayer and the dimensioning. Anyways in the end I get ONE drawing at the
correct coordinates in decimal units that I can xref into my products at 0,0 rot 0 scale 1.

patrickmacdonald <>
|>As you can see, this is potentially a really heavy system.... but I don't really see any alternative at the moment....
|>any ideas / suggestions ?


David

 

After all this one point was raised that I thought I should clarify..

it seems most people who use text & dims in pspace do it to avoid
multiple layers of text in Mspace on the same object (each layer of text
for a diff view).. that is not what we do. we have multiple copies of
the same object for different uses (i.e. a site plan, an enlarged
layout).. and annotate each one.. may not be a practical use of space,
but we find it works much better that way.

just thought I should add that.

 

and sheet files under seperate directory trees....

of DWG's, and either PLT or PDF copies too.

really see any alternative at the moment....

A bunch, but you won't like them. Why different directories for plans and
sections? Why different for plans and walls? Why Sheet files at all?
What's hard about layouts in the DWG? IMO, it sounds like you're making it
hard because you can.

Now preface this with "THIS IS MY OPINION", and I know that some industries
work differently, but....
Unless you issue ALL drawings every time, for every release, dated
subdirectories for previous issues is at the very best a waste of drive
space, at worst, dangerous to the project. It is asking for trouble to have
more than ONE working DWG of any file on the network. If you wish to keep
previous releases for plotting to contractors, use DWF or PDF.

 

we have multiple copies of

Better than what and how? XREFs?

 

Don;t worry.... that is atleast one thing we get right here! ... We issue the drawings fully bound, and ready to xref in at 0,0.... no need to reposition, no need to bind, and I am beginning to make progress on converting everyone to colour-by-layer.

 

"A bunch, but you won't like them"
Not at all.... That's why I posted the question ... I inherited this mess, and do not have full jurisdiction over making changes to the system. Therefore, I have limited scope to what changes I can make. But the more suggestions I here from this forum, and the sound reasoning behind the standards that you suggest, the better my ammunition to persuade the rest of the office and cad team that we should make some changes!

"Why different directories for plans and
sections? Why different for plans and walls?"

Firstly, I like to keep the number of files in a directory to a minimum, so as to reduce the time it takes the system to list the directory when you go to file open, etc. ( although this efficiency can be undermined by having too many subdirectories ). Secondly, as an architectural practice, we have many different packages of information that benefit from being stored in their own directories. Maybe the directory structure I described suggests more complexity than it actually entails. We have a set of GA plans, elevs, and sections. The walls folder would probably only contain a set of overlay's for the ga's with setting out, and annotation for the walls package. It would also contain any details relating to that package too.

"Why Sheet files at all?"

Historical cad standard.... I agree that things could be simpler if we used the same file for both the base information and the sheet in paperspace. Multiple layout tabs aren't on, as we like to keep all our plans overlayed in relation to each other.

"What's hard about layouts in the DWG?"
Nothing that I can see. We do find it easier to keep files small and simple though, a) to speed up file-open/close b) to manimise the possibility that more than one person needs to work on one drawing.

"IMO, it sounds like you're making it
hard because you can."

Well... I hope that I can make it easier! especially if I hear some sound alternative suggestions from people like you.

"Unless you issue ALL drawings every time, for every release, dated
subdirectories for previous issues is at the very best a waste of drive
space, at worst, dangerous to the project. It is asking for trouble to have
more than ONE working DWG of any file on the network. If you wish to keep
previous releases for plotting to contractors, use DWF or PDF.
"

yep, sure.... what industry are you in btw? This has been an issue for us too.... We quite often(well some of us) need to get access to previous issued information, and in DWG format so that we can easily measure things from within acad for example. We also save a set of pdfs, which constitute the 'real' record set.
Yes we do keep a record set of every issue, and yes it does take a large amount of HD space..... but we transfer the less important backups to dvd once they are a few months old. But we do find that typically if someone has failed to make a good record set, then that will be the issue that for some reason we need to dig out and re-issue.! ... sodds-law.

"It is asking for trouble to have
more than ONE working DWG of any file on the network"
not really, everyone knows that the issued folder is read-only. The files are bound before being transferred to the issued folder, and quite often the folder is zipped too.
I have to say, that I am partially with you on this one though.... I hoped to change our issueing procedure to remove the need to make a backup of a bound set of the drawings, but found that alot of people in the office would be upset not to be able to look at the drawings further down the line in autocad.

"If you wish to keep previous releases for plotting to contractors, use DWF or PDF."
Yep, we do that also.

I'd love to hear some more crits on what I have said above.... I know things need improving!
If you do make suggestions, can you tell me what discipline you are in, as I am finding more and more that architects seem to have a raw deal when it comes to the amount of drawings that we produce!
( no doubt some civi's will correct me on that! )
cheers!

 

I think he means that he copies the xref to one side, so that he can have annotations and dimensions at a different scale for a different viewport...

 

Sounds like a contract problem to me. Having drawing deliverables detailed in contract eliminates that additional work. Who is paying for the "30 min. to 2 hours" you're blowing on repairing files? Do you have to do it all over again when they revise their set?

 

You know I cannot tell who you are replying too without the quotebacks. I think its mine

Since my position is overhead the company is paying for it. So if I pick my nose or work in autocad the money is the
same. Now if I bill to a job then either the budget gets tighter or the client pays for it on a time and materials job.
At any rate I do not get to write the contracts. I have always said that cad setup and other bs time needs to be added
into contracts but I have no control over that.

Now who is responsible for turning this unusable crap into a working drawing? Is it the archtect? No they fulfilled
their obligation which is to give us their files. How we use them is our problem. So I doubt a contract is going to
cover that point.

If the files change over and over again then yes you have to do it over again. In the past I have had to make
conversion scripts to cut down on the doing it over and over again nature of the project. But most jobs its a one time
conversion.

But its still a waste of time. If there was some way around it I would have already done it.

OLD-CADaver <>
|>Sounds like a contract problem to me. Having drawing deliverables detailed in contract eliminates that additional work. Who is paying for the "30 min. to 2 hours" you're blowing on repairing files? Do you have to do it all over again when they revise their set?


David

 

You know I cannot tell who you are replying too without the quotebacks. I think its mine <<

Sorry 'bout that, chief.

True your position is overhead, but if you contract the standards and require compliance, that will free up your time for training and development which will increase productivity, which will free up additional time for training......

Here, CAD management is overhead as well, but I have a limited montly budget, the rest of my time is production design. The contracts have a limited budget as well, and can not take a major hit for reparing a contractor's file. He has the satndard, he agreed to it at contract, it is his responsibility to insure compliance.

 

I agree with you completely. But most of the time we are signing the contract with the architect or the developer. We
cannot dictate what another company does because they are not signing a contract, we are.

OLD-CADaver <>
|>>>You know I cannot tell who you are replying too without the quotebacks. I think its mine <<
|>
|>Sorry 'bout that, chief.
|>
|>True your position is overhead, but if you contract the standards and require compliance, that will free up your time for training and development which will increase productivity, which will free up additional time for training......
|>
|>Here, CAD management is overhead as well, but I have a limited montly budget, the rest of my time is production design. The contracts have a limited budget as well, and can not take a major hit for reparing a contractor's file. He has the satndard, he agreed to it at contract, it is his responsibility to insure compliance.


David

 

But most of the time we are signing the contract with the architect or the developer. We cannot dictate what another company does because they are not signing a contract, we are. <<

You have a conratct with the architect, then the architect is responsible for passing through drawings from his other contractors. Define acceptable formats for any file that passes through them to you or the time and material costs for you do bring them into compliance (separate billing number). Otherwise you're giving away your time for nothing. If we don't get paid, we don't do it.

 

right idea, but we don't use xref's either.

 

You mean copying the same elements around on the same drawing for different annotations???

Yikes, what happens if it changes in the middle of the design process? You have to make the changes to multiple elements? Jiminey, how is that productive? With XREF's, you change it one time, one place and it changes everywhere.

 

it's just how we do it. I have yet to see a job that was done with
xrefs that is of a decent quality, thus far they have all been riddled
with errors and problems stemming from the xref'ing it self. (as seen in
the constant posts of why things don't work).

 

I have yet to see a job that was done with xrefs that is of a decent quality, thus far they have all been riddled with errors and problems stemming from the xref'ing it self. <<

You're looking in the wrong places, I guess. We've been using XREF's since R11, and I think our product is more than decent. I'm guessing that the errors and porblems you're seeing is not the fault of XREF, but pilot error. Would you explain just what errors and problems you're seeing that are related to XREF's?

 

you know this is all nice and good, but it does not solve the problem that we have today.

Again the architect will say here is the drawings, if you don't like it tough. The people making the contracts know
nothing of cad.

OLD-CADaver <>
|>>>But most of the time we are signing the contract with the architect or the developer. We cannot dictate what another company does because they are not signing a contract, we are. <<
|>
|>You have a conratct with the architect, then the architect is responsible for passing through drawings from his other contractors. Define acceptable formats for any file that passes through them to you or the time and material costs for you do bring them into compliance (separate billing number). Otherwise you're giving away your time for nothing. If we don't get paid, we don't do it.


David