CAD Managers

Reply
*Price, Gordon
Message 1 of 18 (69 Views)

Nested Xrefs?

69 Views, 17 Replies
01-20-2003 04:51 AM
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
*Wedding, James
Message 2 of 18 (69 Views)

Re: Nested Xrefs?

01-20-2003 04:58 AM in reply to: *Price, Gordon
Nesting Xrefs just makes it harder for people to understand the data flow.
Set up the sheet/model the one time, xref the needed files, and go about
your business. If you are consistent with file naming, you can do it with a
simple script or lisp routine.

I abhor nested xrefs just because of the mental gymnastics of keeping
multiple levels of xrefs straight for most users.

--
James Wedding, P.E.
IT Manager
Jones & Boyd, Inc.
Dallas, TX
jwedding@*NOSPAM*jones-boyd.com

Search before you ask, it's been asked before.
*Gonzalez, Matthew
Message 3 of 18 (69 Views)

Re: Nested Xrefs?

01-20-2003 05:44 AM in reply to: *Price, Gordon
We do only Overlays also. I like it that way because it is just easier
conceptually. Personally, I have no problem with nested Xref's but I have
seen it confuse more than one person, more than one time. It also avoids
circular references which can confuse AutoCAD, you know, Xreffing A into B
into C into A type of stuff. Is A the parent drawing or the nested xref
now? AutoCAD isn't sure either.


--
matthew g.
*Stafford, Steve
Message 4 of 18 (69 Views)

Re: Nested Xrefs?

01-20-2003 05:59 AM in reply to: *Price, Gordon
Nesting xref's is like any other feature of AutoCAD, it has it's role and
effectiveness. Every argument against can be offset by a few minutes
training and an understanding of how they should be used. If you're
spending time referencing the same group of files over and over to create
different "sheets" it's time to think about nested references....one place I
can think makes sense to me: base architectural plans and column grids, why
force all the trades to reference them in themselves?? (If you're like us
with separate column grid plans (G))

Steve


"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
>
>
*Claflin, David
Message 5 of 18 (69 Views)

Re:

01-20-2003 06:29 AM in reply to: *Price, Gordon
I almost never use "OVERLAY" with xrefs. The only reason it was added in
the first place was to deal with circular references. It just makes you
have to re-xref everything you've already referenced in. With "Edit Block
In-place," creating circular references is no longer an issue, because you
don't need to do it.
--
David W. Claflin
Associate/Architect

TSP

Architecture Engineering Construction

8751 E Hampden Ave, Suite A-1
Denver, CO 80231-4928
phone (303) 695-1997
fax (303) 695-1938
cell phone (303) 378-3414
www.teamtsp.com <>

--

This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you
are not the intended recipient (or have received this email in error) please
notify the sender immediately and destroy this email. Any unauthorized
copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this email is
strictly forbidden.
Remove .ns from reply address.

"Steve Stafford" wrote in message
news:1185B0A7D10DFA42658A8D597BD51012@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Nesting xref's is like any other feature of AutoCAD, it has it's role and
> effectiveness. Every argument against can be offset by a few minutes
> training and an understanding of how they should be used. If you're
> spending time referencing the same group of files over and over to create
> different "sheets" it's time to think about nested references....one place
I
> can think makes sense to me: base architectural plans and column grids,
why
> force all the trades to reference them in themselves?? (If you're like us
> with separate column grid plans (G))
>
> Steve
>
>
> "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
> >
> >
>
>
*Duncan, Jamie
Message 6 of 18 (69 Views)

Re:

01-20-2003 06:33 AM in reply to: *Price, Gordon
do you have a lisper that allows offset from a gridline contained within an
xref?

Just curious - always wanted to xref columns/grids etrc but hated not being
able to use offset

--
Jamie Duncan

"Maybe the Hokey Pokey is REALLY what's it all about"
"Steve Stafford" wrote in message
news:1185B0A7D10DFA42658A8D597BD51012@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Nesting xref's is like any other feature of AutoCAD, it has it's role and
> effectiveness. Every argument against can be offset by a few minutes
> training and an understanding of how they should be used. If you're
> spending time referencing the same group of files over and over to create
> different "sheets" it's time to think about nested references....one place
I
> can think makes sense to me: base architectural plans and column grids,
why
> force all the trades to reference them in themselves?? (If you're like us
> with separate column grid plans (G))
>
> Steve
>
>
> "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
> >
> >
>
>
*Stafford, Steve
Message 7 of 18 (69 Views)

Re:

01-20-2003 06:57 AM in reply to: *Price, Gordon
Are you refering to placing walls offset from a grid line? If so that's a
value you can set when placing walls, the wall command doesn't care what you
are using just what your start and end points are.

Steve
*Stachoni, Matt
Message 8 of 18 (69 Views)

Re: Nested Xrefs?

01-20-2003 07:30 AM in reply to: *Price, Gordon
We use nested Xrefs extensively.

We use Attach about 95% of the time, because we split our drawings
into smaller units which makes output easier to deal with. IMO you
need to carefully analyze your particular needs, and see where nesting
Xrefs makes sense.

In our case, we usually start with an Existing Architectural (AE)
plan, which is referenced as an Attached Xref into a Demo plan (AD)
and a new Architectural (A) plan. This allows the A/AE combo to be
referenced via Attach into ceiling (AC), furniture (AFE), finish (AF)
and power and communications (APC) files. These files are in turn
referenced into a final plot "CD" sheet files. By using Attach all the
Xref info we need comes along.

We also Xref Overlay plans into elevations and building sections for
design work to progress and still be tied to the plans. However, in
those drawings we do not want the plan info to progress to the CD
sheets, so we use Overlay to limit where the references go.

We use Overlay for referencing the Project Title Block into floor plan
files, where we use layouts for shooting off space plans for sign off.
This is just a tad simpler than creating dedicated CD sheets for
basically transitive purposes.

I would say that both Attach and Overlay perform essential functions
and need to be considered.

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com

On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:51:13 -0800, "Gordon Price" this)@attbi.com> wrote:

>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
>
Distinguished Contributor
cprettyman
Posts: 1,029
Registered: ‎12-09-2003
Message 9 of 18 (69 Views)

Re: Nested Xrefs?

01-20-2003 08:24 AM in reply to: *Price, Gordon
Gordon: In my last office, which was fairly small, and where I had been exerting my influence for some time, we allowed nested X-refs, and only one of 12 people ever used overlays. But, the projects were quite small, and the majority fo them didn't have any nesting of xrefs because we didn't have to deal with a lot of issues that are common to larger, more complex projects. In my current office, I wish that there had been an "Overlay Only" rule, except that my predecessor would never have enforcced it. The x-refing here is a nightmare. I think, having seen what may be the worst case scenario, that nested x-refs would still be OK, if everyone worked in some logical manner. But the "overlays only" rule is simple to define, and relatively simple to audit. If you are trying to make CAD work better in your office, you need to choose your battles. If everyone already accepts that rule, I would accept it, and pick another issue as the focus of my attention. - CP
*Medina, Alfredo
Message 10 of 18 (69 Views)

Re: Nested Xrefs?

01-20-2003 01:58 PM in reply to: *Price, Gordon
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
>
>

You are not logged in.

Log into access your profile, ask and answer questions, share ideas and more. Haven't signed up yet? Register

Announcements
Manufacturing CAD & IT Manager Resource
Additional information for installing, licensing & deploying Inventor, the Product Design Suites and Factory Design Suites.

Need installation help?

Start with some of our most frequented solutions to get help installing your software.

Ask the Community


Up & Ready Blog

Boldly Install, Configure and Deploy Autodesk Software.

AutodeskHelp Blog

Your one-stop shop for the latest solutions, breaking news, and behind the scenes access to the world of Autodesk support.

Connect with Us

Twitter

Pinterest

Blog

Youtube