CADForums.net

OLD-CADaver · Guest

<<I agree, but how often are all the layouts set to the proper settings, >>

With the proper use of pagesetups, every time.

<<especially when the they are being printed on another plotter not of our office.>>

Pagesetups for outside plotting speed everyone's effort.

<<. I've also done work with the military on housing, again R14. >>

During the bid phase we gave the DOD two separate estimates, one our way, one theirs. We got the job our way.

OLD-CADaver · Guest

<<Large, multi-discipline projects MUST use XREfs. >>

Oh, most assuredly, we use them all the time. But that is NOT a multi-tab issue, indeed has nothing to do with the decision as to use multi-tabs or not. Nor does it have much to do with MS vs PS issues, other than viewports are much easier than XCLIP.

<< I would like to hear from you how to edit one file with 2 or more people at once. This sounds a bit scary to me. >>

It can be very scary, we've only done it a couple of times. It requires the designers to be very aware of what they're doing. Save to file as a new file. In the new file delete everything EXCEPT the layout tab (and it's contents) that the other designer will be editing. That includes EVERYTHING in MS. XREF the original file into the new file and add annotation as required to the layout tab that remains.

Bear in mind we are exclusively 3D, with only one task model that is XREF'd into the drawing file. ONE person edits the model, but the drawings can be split for annotation with the above procedure.

When complete, cut-n-paste the separated sheet back into the original file. Save layer states for the various viewports first as vplayer settings may be lost. Turn the viewports on, and restore the layer states.

<<Are you suggesting that these types of 11th hour panics are not part of your life? Government environment perhaps but in the private consultant business, rather too often. >>

Rarely to the point of causing us to design a less efficient work system. A more efficient work system will reduce, if not eliminate, "last-minute-panic-engineering". BTW, only about 10% of our work is government.

<<"it's not finished until it is finished."
Wow, this seems a luxury. Does fast track come to mind?
I am working on a large container port site that is a 3 year program.>>

You've totally missed the point, or are purposely clouding the issue. No, I'm talking about an ENTIRE project, but one task within the project, hence my reference to "A" piperack or "A" conveyor. NO ONE places an ENTIRE contract in one file, and NO ONE is advocating doing so.

<<and we are still needing to design 3 more large pieces of the site facilities before project is completed in mid 2006>>

Each piece should be divided into manageable chunks of fabrication, correct? You wouldn't issue half a panel to fabrication without completing the other half, would you? That would be a single task that would span several sheets, and is an excellent candidate for multi-tabs.

Currently I'm working a major refinery upgrade, 70-90 designers working for the last 2 years in design, that will complete construction some time in 2007. Within this project are 11 major equipment structures. One structure is 200' long, 125' wide (10~ 20' bays by 5~ 25' bays) by 120' tall (8 varying floors) and contains some 60 pieces of equipment. The structural steel for this structure is one task with one model, and one drafting file that will contain, when complete, 38 sheets, and will be accomplished with one designer 'till check.

RickW · Guest

Hmmm.. Thought that's what BACK UP's were for

RickW · Guest

As regards "total system meltdown". It's standard practice here to ZIP the entire project drive, write it to a DVD and take it off site once a week (part of my job).

Martin Shoemaker · Guest

OLD-CADaver:

You're obviously working in a very different end of the industry. In
the 1000+ jobs that have gone through my office I think we've had
exactly two with fees over $20K. Our drawings tend to be simple, and
our drawing sets are usually just a few sheets. We rarely have details
at all, and when we do they're generally at the same scale as the
remainder of the sheet. We feel lucky when we have over a week to do a
project.

If I try to dictate deliverables to the architects I work with they go
elsewhere. I can't get most of them to even export their ADT files to
AutoCad before they send them. I don't get a 'viewport that views the
electrical layout' from the architect (I have to decide for myself which
layers in the architect's drawing have value for me), and I see no
reason to create one for the projects I do. Why keep a bunch of layers
we don't use or need? You would probably take exception to our binding
xrefs and refusing to use OLE, but those decisions give us the ability
to go back to any revision of any file we've ever done and be able to
print out an accurate copy of that revision.

If we were a really big company doing really big projects I'd probably
feel differently. Maybe we are at an R10 level. So what? Our system
works very well for us.

Martin

OLD-CADaver wrote:

OLD-CADaver · Guest

<<Our system works very well for us. >>

Ahhh, the ever present excuse for continuing to work with old methods. Carry on.

R.K. McSwain · Guest

tbroekhu wrote:

Allen Jessup · Guest

Map queries are good. What we used to do if we needed to get something out
quickly and have 2 people working on what was originally 1 file is: The lead
person would open the file, Wblock out the portion of the file the second
person would work on, Save the main file under a second name to be xrefed to
the dwg the 2nd person would work on (pre-Enable with copy), if person 1
made a change person 2 needed to see they would have to coordinate updating
that xref, etc.

This was a clumsy method and only used when we needed to get things out
quickly.

We do occasionally use the Map Query and save back now. But the way our
tasks and drawings are set up now there usually isn't any benefit to it.

Allen

"R.K. McSwain" <rkmcswain@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42286441$1_1@newsprd01...

COVENANT777 · Guest

The only thing i got to say is Working in model space is great for one thing only and that is the main drawing. Xref in your title block and your background and TEXT in paperspace. Any other way is useless waste of time. I have gone through extensive scenarios inorder to figure out which is more efficient and this is by far hands down the best way.

Dave Jones · Guest

"COVENANT777" <nospam@address.withheld> wrote in message
news:9183983.1111088176768.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum1.autodesk.com...

Walt Engle · Guest

To each his own. I prefer model space and insert title blocks with attributes.
For others......well, whatever suits them.

COVENANT777 · Guest

Hey buddy, I am the Master ;). Long enough to know that paper spcace is for text and model is for the other. I mean really, tell me why you think model is better for text, give ma senario and I bet you that i will find many reasons why its not as good as using paperspace. And yes, i agree the same tasks can be accomplished but the absolute mess thats left behind on the drawing is just not cool for the other poor saps that have to try and figure out what the crap you were doing in the drawing. I guess i don't just draw thinking only of myself, I like to try and make it easy for the other guy as well. Honostly why buck the system, other than to feed the old Autocad 10 to 14 way of doing things.

Dave Jones · Guest

"COVENANT777" <nospam@address.withheld> wrote in message
news:30066399.1111096820452.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum1.autodesk.com...

Matt · Guest

I second that. What field are you in Convenant?

	CADForums.net Forum Index -> Drafting	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 2 of 4