Gordon,
I came from an office that worked similarly as Alfredo, the rule was "attach
only". It's important to note that when using attach, there should be
strict standards concerning *where* you attach xrefs. We also had a three
level system such that base files, such as grids, referenced only into
master files, such as floors, which only referenced to sheet files. Never
attach at the same level (of the three). When there's a clear hierarchy,
circular references are not really a problem.
I now work for an office that's "overlay only". It took some time to get
used to, but overall I think it causes less headaches, and allows a looser
file structure. Granted we have to use the xref attach command a little
more, but really, once a file it set up, you don't ever have to go back to
it. I don't think that the "I have to xref SO much more when overlaying"
argument really flies. With 100 drawings over 6 months to a year for a
project, you're still attaching files only 100 times (once for each sheet).
IMHO, from my experience, the real problems come when you MIX attach and
overlay on the same project. It gets really hairy, and requires a lot of
coordination for the team. Only with clear guidelines about how the project
is organized will this ever work. There's a project here that the team
tried to do that on without any organization, and it's been a nightmare for
them. I say "I hate to say I told you so, but..."
So as others have suggested, a clear organization will enable either system
to work. However, if one is in place already, you're asking for more
trouble by changing it.
Good luck,
Danny Polkinhorn
Perkins & Will
Atlanta
"Alfredo Medina"
wrote in message
news:47AA124F5A8AD993EBEA1D0682526878@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Gordon,
>
> We use attached X-refs only. No overlays. Even though I experimented for
some time
> with overlays, I finally realized that we can do everything with
X-ref-Attach with no
> problems. In our office, we produce drawings that are related to different
> disciplines: Architectural, Electrical, Mechanical and Technology. The
floor plans of
> each discipline are organized by putting each discipline's design elements
in their
> own "master" files; then, these "masters" are borrowed by other
departments to create
> their own design elements in their "masters"; then, these combined
"masters" are
> x-ref'd into sheet files. The sheet files are drawing files that might
contain 3 or 4
> layouts, in order to group the sheets that share the same master file or
design. The
> relationship between these master files is represented in our CAD manual
in a chart
> with bubbles and arrows, that shows the relationship betweens all these
files.
>
> The setup for the master or design files is something like this:
>
> architectural design = "A"
> reflected ceiling design = "B" (includes A as background)
> lighting & fire alarm design = "C" (includes A+B as background)
>
> The setup for sheet or plot files is something like this:
>
> architectural floor plans = X-ref "A"
> reflected ceiling plans = X-ref "B"
> lighting plan = X-ref "C"
> fire alarm plans = X-ref "C"
>
> The maximum depth of nesting is the one represented by a+b+c , which
occurs precisely
> when we do the lighting sheets, because we x-ref "C" in order to show the
> architectural background(A), plus the r.c.p.(B) plus the lighting design
itself (C) In
> most other situations, only two levels of nesting are required.
>
> Alfredo Medina
>
> "Gordon Price" wrote in message
> news:BED760C4DACAF0BDEF7D42DEFA28E9F8@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > My office has a history of NEVER attaching an Xrefs, it is all overlays.
> > Because of this, you get into a situation of Xref the structural grid
into
> > the plan, then xref the grid and the plan into the ceiling plan, then
xref
> > the grid, the plan & the ceiling plan into the ceiling plan sheet. It
seems
> > to me this is just a bunch of wasted effort, and nesting Xrefs would
> > eliminiate a LOT of redundancy. As far as I can tell, the Never Overlay
rule
> > is a hold over from when there really was issues with doing it (what,
> > release 12 or something?).
> > So, from a CAD Management standpoint, and given an office of 30 people,
> > doing relatively large public projects, are there any reasons to stick
with
> > the 'No Nested Xrefs' rule, or potential pitfalls to be aware of?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Gordon
> >
> >
>
>