Copy/Paste Block changes parameters after first paste
Simply calling the block COLUMN may just mean you have a different definition of that same named block in existing files, and as you know in AutoCAD what is already in your file gets used first and always.
FYI I can use your block in your file with no issues in LT2015.1.1, even when I copy/paste it in the same file, see first copy and "second" copy
See image. Same file you just tried, ctrl+c ctrl+v = different sizes.
Not sure how you got it to not do that?
That is what I am missing and I keep bashing my head against triple checking settings. I just rebuilt the block completely in a new file and it does the same thing.
Yes, in one drawing I might have a bunch of different column sizes, 24x24's, 30x30's, etc. I didn't think that having different size columns in one drawing could break the block? Is that the case and would I have to make a separate block for every single column size EVER? The whole goal of the block was so I didn't have to keep drawing each column manually by hand over and over and over. Example, one of my jobs has over 100 columns....its way more confidence inspiring if I can just copy paste similar columns and since the insertion point/base point is always centered within the block, I know it drops right on the grid lines where I need them.
EDIT: tried a plethora of column sizes, and after a few copys, it breaks. Its not consistent. certain sizes seem to retain their size where as others (especially those that aren't squares but are rectangles) brake more often than not.
EDIT 2: Note, there aren't any different block definitions from drawing to drawing. Everything is the same, and so copying within the same file or from file to file in the same job with the same column sizes shouldn't be an issue. If I have 3 columns sizes in a job, I use those same 3 sizes over and over. Sure, a new job might require different sizes where I will insert the block and draw the drawing from scratch, but considering two files already have that column size why doesn't it understand that and why does it change the size to something so random? Its literally just moving the lines 1.5" or so in either direction.
So I ended up just having to use a work around.
The original intent of the block is for the basepoint to move at .5 scale with the stretch command, so that when the column gets its size changed, the base point stays in the center, this is what I guess (for now anyways) was causing the issue. Every time you copied it, the basepoint would move and thus for some reason change the size of the column. Once I removed the basepoint entirely and anything it is associated with, the issue I think goes away.
The work around is to simply keep the base point at one corner of the column (0,0), and remove all but one grip point in the opposite corner, thus the stretch is always in one direction, the base point thus doesn't move around. The goal of the base point staying centered was to make it easier to snap the column to a grid line on center.
To work around this, I added two lines that cross at the center of the column, and put them in a separate visibility state to be toggled on and off as needed (I don't want the X marks the spot to be shown on the final drawings). This X scales with the rest of the block maintaining the center point. Thus the issue might be resolved but I will keep experimenting. Of course after modifying the block I had to move all 200+ columns back in place but making use of different layers and quick selects it wasn't that long.
Over all, here is the final result.
Why not create the block with the basepoint in the middle to start with? See the attached drawing.
Howard Walker
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
