Iso - Cut piece list split table issue

[m.bevers5BJNV]

I'm trying to get a cut piece list to work properly (in a test project).

Adding the cut piece list is easy, but for obvious reasons (properly make use of paper space), I want to split the table. I found this explanation on how to do this:
https://www.autodesk.com/support/technical/article/caas/sfdcarticles/sfdcarticles/How-to-split-the-c...

But, somehow, if I follow these steps, this is what happens when I generate an iso:

This is what my cut piece table looks like in the project setup (isometric template setup):

What I'm aiming for, is something like this:

Anyone any idea what I'm doing wrong?

[Michiel.Valcke]

A side by side numbering as in your example is not possible in any autocad product, the table will always run down (or up) until it runs out of available space and when it does it will start a second table to the side. 

If you really need such a table you will need to have someone custom develop such a functionality. 

I suggest you give your table a bit more space to work with and make the cell's smaller. That way you'll be able to fill a few rows before a new table to the side needs to be added.

[m.bevers5BJNV]

Thanks for your reply
You're saying a side by side table is not possible in AutoCAD, but what is this then?:

https://www.autodesk.com/support/technical/article/caas/sfdcarticles/sfdcarticles/How-to-split-the-c...

(I just don't get the same result as their screenshot is showing)

[Michiel.Valcke]

Hi, you can get side by side tables, you cannot get side by side numbering. Don't forget when you edit the table and set it to break to the left or right, you also have to set at which height it has to break. Make sure the break height is set a bit smaller then the height of your table area (blue hatch) otherwise you'll trigger an iso split or an overflow table instead. And the spacing is the distance between the side by side tables. If you want them to touch, set it to 0.

[m.bevers5BJNV]

Ahh, that's something I should look into! Thanks!

(I'll try to find some time today to test and if it works I'll mark your post as solution)

By the way; the example I showed was poor. I don't need the numbers to follow up like this:

1 -------- 2

3 -------- 4

5 -------- 6

etc.

This is just fine:
1 -------- 4
2 -------- 5

3 -------- 6

etc.

One more (bonus) question:

Is this really the only way to get the <...> cut piece numbering to show up? So xml manipulation is really needed?

[Michiel.Valcke]

The cutpiecenumber appears by default. The article you linked just shows how you can combine it into a single annotation - combining it with the part number. 

This is a screenshot from an out-of-the-box final iso style with cut list.

The isoconfig.xml is a very potent tool that allows the user to customize most elements of an iso. A lot of this has been channeled through the updated UI of the project setup, so less xml manipulation is needed. But that is still what is happening in the background. 

At the moment you can turn on/off the cut piece id annotation through the project setup and you can change the <...> padding, but you cannot add fields without manually going into the xml. The same goes for the BoM annotation.

[m.bevers5BJNV]

Again, thank you @Michiel.Valcke 👍

[m.bevers5BJNV]

Ok, almost there 😅

I managed to now get the cut piece table nicely next to each other, but...

For some reason it keeps creating an overflow iso and splits up the second table and places it on the overflow iso:

iso page 1 (cut piece table somehow stops at <7>)

iso overflow page (only containing this cut piece table)

This it what I have done now in the setup:

This should allow for three tables next to each other (in the very rare case that this would be needed)

[Michiel.Valcke]

@m.bevers5BJNV can you share your iso style folder here so we can try for ourselves. At this point it is more guesswork to find the cause. Maybe unchecking the 'create overflow dwg' option in the iso setup will fix the issue, maybe the issue is caused by the table size, we would have to fidget about to see if we can define the cause and thus fix the issue.

[m.bevers5BJNV]

Hi @Michiel.Valcke,

Please find attached a copy of the iso style folder I'm using for this test.

(this is just from a simple test project I created, so don't pay attention to the title and data block content and/or any attribute links that might be missing there)

Thanks again for trying to help me here.

[Michiel.Valcke · Accepted solution]

Hi,

The solution was simple as it was weird. Apparently the total hatch area is also counted in some way to determine if you have enough space for your table or if an overflow .dwg should be made, which makes sense when you think about it, but seems weird in the context of this idea. By elongating the hatch area the table was correctly showing side by side. By shortening it you could limit the table to only 6 rows instead of 7.

[m.bevers5BJNV]

ahhhh ok, that makes some sense

Great! I'll try and find time to test that today and get back here and mark your reply as solution.