Which is better

I have someone in my office that prefers to draw the entire job in one file.... This could be argued to be ok, when the project is at its infancy, and everything is quite simple, but it leads people down a slippery path.

We also have had jobs that suffer from terrible errors and mistakes as a result of using mulptiple xrefs to build a plan (eg seperate xrefs for cores, internal walls, external walls....)

But in the end, xrefs are there for a good reason, if they are well understood, and the designer is aware of the consequences to all the drawings when changes are made, then they can save huge amounts of time and effort and aid accuracy and coordination. I struggle to understand the benefits of having multiple copies of the same information in one drawing,... infact it is one of my pet peeves.... it always leaves me asking the question "which is the current up to date drawing!?"

I would also be interested to hear more about your experiences.

 

nobody got any replies to my last rant? ... I'm shocked

 

I have someone in my office that prefers to draw the entire job in one file.... This could be argued to be ok, when the project is at its infancy, and everything is quite simple, but it leads people down a slippery path.<<

Which "slippery path" is that?


What errors were truly the result of the XREF? And which were the result of sloppy drafting practices? This goes back to C.Witt's comment. If the source file is accurate, all subsequent uses of that file should be as accurate.

I can see no erros that would be caused by using xref's, however I have seen many that result from NOT using xref's. Like after the jobhas been underway for some time, a foundation has to move for some reason. The designer working the underground pipe has a "copy" of the Foundation location plan as a background and is totally unaware of the change until the change notice crosses his desktop. Had he been using the source file as an XREF, he would have been made aware of the change as soon as it was saved.

Now that being said, I see little advantage in using component XREF's for cores, walls, ect. In fact it seems that it would make material control more difficult. But I have seen several organizations the use XREF's quite effectively for component assemblies in the Mechanical industry.

 

<Which "slippery path" is that?>

the potential for the job to grow in size, and become unmanageable as a single file... and the likelyhood that you increase the amount of redundant information in the file. You can't have more than one person work on the project at any one time.....

<What errors were truly the result of the XREF? And which were the result of sloppy drafting practices? This goes back to C.Witt's comment. If the source file is accurate, all subsequent uses of that file should be as accurate.
aye, sorry.... you're spot on.... I should have clarified that as 'user errors as a result of using xrefs'.

<I have seen many that result from NOT using xref's>

damn right....



<Now that being said, I see little advantage in using component XREF's for cores, walls, ect. In fact it seems that it would make material control more difficult. But I have seen several organizations the use XREF's quite effectively for component assemblies in the Mechanical industry. >

Yep, I think the consequences of this backs up your thoughts that it would make material control more difficult. There is no clearly defined 'edge' between the different xrefs, making coordinating between them cumbersome.

 

the potential for the job to grow in size, and become unmanageable as a single file..<<

We've refined the process to some degree, to the point of changing the lines along which we divide a job. This nearly eliminates the possibility of the file becoming unmanageable. We discovered some time ago that we could be more efficient if we changed the product.


Our system above breaks the contract along lines that produce smaller models (not necessarily geopraphically), so the possibility of more than one designer is reduced. But there has been an occasion where an additional set of hands was required. He started a new drawing, using the required drawing as a template, erased everything in ModelSpace and deleted all the layout tabs except the one he was to modify. He then XREF'd the source model into ModelSpace, and mdoified the PaperSpace entities as needed. A cut-n-paste back into the original file, and we're done.

So spreading the work to additional hands is not impossible, you just need to be creative.

Now just for the skae of continuity of design, I'd avoid using more than one designer to modify the model itself.

 

<Now just for the skae of continuity of design, I'd avoid using more than one designer to modify the model itself. >

now if only life were that easy in my office! ... there are many fingers in many pies and the drawings suffer as a result. I suppose there's no real workaround for that in an architectural office where there are so many people involved at any one time. /sigh/