Rob, we are having fun!
For those not wanting to try Matt's solution from scratch, I did it and
placed a copy of my final file in the CF-NG under "ADT3.3 Custom Schedule
Workaround finished". I did what Matt explained above, with the addition of
xrefing the base plan twice: once in modelspace to get the plot scale, etc,
correct; another copy scaled down to 0.0125 original size in paperspace,
placed on the defpoints layer so it won't plot. By placing a second copy in
paperspace, you are able to easily generate your schedule there. Since it's
the same xref, it will update when the base drawing changes.
As Matt says, this is actually MUCH easier in practice than it sounds. I
also apologize for "maligning" all of us smart users out there, even the
ones who throw away plotter parts . I bet anyone could do this.
Is it ideal. No. However, this is one of those situations where after
hitting your head against the wall 3 times, it's time to step back and final
an alternate solution. Matt's is perfectly acceptable.
Regards
------------
Reid M. Addis
Addis Computer Consultants
1-800-841-4418
http://www.addiscomputer.com
raddis@addiscomputer.com
"Matt Dillon" wrote in message
news:4F355B0C52356064FF668CB0E2EF495A@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I've posted a file in Customer Files. If you want to go through the
process
> that I described and see if it is too difficult for your users, download
it
> and unzip the two drawing files it contains.
>
> The "2D Tag.dwg" is a custom content file that is a simple 2D block with
> attributes. Put it somewhere in your content folder for ADT. The other
> drawing is the example drawing that you will be using to try my method
out.
> It contains a very basic custom door schedule, a custom property set
> definition that is attached to two custom door styles, and a modified
> object-based door property set definition that only includes the door
> number. It took me all of 10 minutes to set this up. It is NOT difficult,
if
> you understand door styles, schedules, and property sets.
>
> 1) Open the example drawing. There are a few doors already placed. You may
> want to review the door styles in the drawing and note that I have
attached
> a property set definition to the styles, that includes a default value for
> the "Remarks" field (the default value is different for each style).
>
> 2) Using the Design Center, use the STOCK ADT door tags to tag the doors.
It
> should attach the Door object property definition set and number each
door.
> Save the drawing.
>
> 3) Start a new drawing and go to paper space.
>
> 4) Load and set current the "AIA Plantypes" layer key style from the base
> drawing (this step would normally be skipped, as you would already have
your
> layer key style customized - all I did was set the layer key for the ADT
tag
> to a no-plot status). Also copy the "Door Schedule" style from the base
> drawing into your current drawing. (Again, this is something that you
would
> not normally have to do, as it would already be present).
>
> 5) XREF Attach the base drawing in a viewport. You should see the door
tags,
> but if you do a plot preview, they should not show up.
>
> 6) Move to paper space and use ADC to insert the 2D Tag file the same way
> you would insert any other ADT symbol. It will come in on a predefined
layer
> key. For this example, I was sloppy and just stuck it on the DOOR layer
key,
> but I would create a new annotation key for it - it simply needs to be on
a
> different layer than the tags that are in the base drawing). Use the tags
in
> the base drawing to provide you with the correct number for the door
number
> attribute in the 2D block.
>
> 7) Create another viewport and generate your door schedule.
>
> That's pretty much it. Again, you would not have to go through the process
> of loading the layer key style, copying the door schedule style, etc.,
> because it would be part of a standardized system.
>
> The limitations to this are as follows:
> 1) You ARE using a non-linked 2D tag to workaround the issue of being able
> to tag in paper space and not wanting to annotate the base drawing.
> 2) You still have to put the schedule in a viewport. Nothing I can think
of
> to fix that, except, as Reid said, put the model in paper space. I
wouldn't.
>
> The benefits are this:
> 1) You don't annotate your base drawing.
> 2) You can place your tags in paper space and maintain the model in model
> space.
> 3) Your doors already have all properties except for the door number
> pre-attached and pre-assigned as part of the style definition. The user
> doesn't have to provide any info at all. It's all part of the style. This
> part can be modified - you may wish to leave some values unassigned. In
that
> scenario, if it was a property whose value would vary among doors of the
> same style, I would make it a part of the object-based property set that
is
> attached when you tag the doors with the stock ADT door tag.
>
> If the above is still too much for your users, then hopefully someone else
> can come up with a better solution. Otherwise I see you having two
options:
> 1) Don't use the ADT schedules and tags, but I'm having a hard time
> visualizing a system that is easier once it is set up.
> 2) Change your standard to allow for the annotation to be in the base
> drawing, and in model space, which is certainly not what I'm recommending.
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --------
> Please do not email me privately with technical issues
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --------
>
> Matt Dillon
> Assistant Moderator: Autodesk Discussion Forums
>
> http://www.dccadd.com
>
>
> "
>
>
![Autodesk Design & Make Report](https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/1350519iCB55845EBFC43016/image-size/large?v=v2&px=999" "Autodesk Design & Make Report")