TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => Topic started by: Mark on June 24, 2015, 09:28:05 AM
-
Note: To avoid confusion when transmitting and publishing drawings, it is usually recommended that you create only one named layout for each drawing.
On each layout, you can create as many layout viewports as you like. Each layout viewport is like a picture frame into model space, containing a view that displays the model at the scale and orientation that you specify. You can create a single layout viewport that fits the entire layout or create multiple layout viewports. Once you create a viewport, you can change its size, properties, and also scale and move it as needed. You can also specify which layers are visible in each layout viewport.
I'm confused by that statement. Are they saying you should only have one Layout per .dwg?
-
That is my take on it. One layout but it can have multiple viewports.
-
My take as well.
-
Do you actually do that? I have some drawings with 20+ layouts in them. I see no benefit.
-
Nope. That sounds like some outdated transmission guideline.
-
Note: To avoid confusion when transmitting and publishing drawings, it is usually recommended that you create only one named layout for each drawing.
I'm confused by that statement. Are they saying you should only have one Layout per .dwg?
This is what I read, One Named layout for each drawing; i.e., there should only be one Layout named East Elevation, as TWO Layouts with the same name would be very confusing. And only one layout named Road A Sta 10+00 to Sta 650+00 Plan and Profile, because as you can see two of those would be equally confusing.
IF their intent is to suggest that there should be A single drawing that contains A single Layout, they have clearly failed to specify that midst
all the verbiage attempting to explain how one can make viewports on said layout tab.
-
This is what I read, One Named layout for each drawing; i.e., there should only be one Layout named East Elevation, as TWO Layouts with the same name would be very confusing. And only one layout named Road A Sta 10+00 to Sta 650+00 Plan and Profile, because as you can see two of those would be equally confusing.
Actually not so confusing, as with Highlander... There can be only one. :-D
(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11119/111194404/4329631-2372207452-highl.jpg)
-
Sounds like how I had to do things with R13
-
Mark, there's a number of possible reasons for that guideline. First, by having only one layout ("drawing") per file that allows multiple users to be thrown at a job. Second, drawing tracking systems usually track by filename not by drawing; with a 1:1 relationship between file and drawing it minimizes management and storage issues. That also comes down to requesting an existing drawing for modifications, its not beneficial to sign out the entire 20-drawing set considering that other projects which need some of the other 19 drawings will have to wait until the entire set is checked back in.
-
Given that the 'drawing' may actually be made up of multiple drawing files all referenced together,
and then subsequently referenced into a single file, and then referenced into the 'drawing' that will have this singular
layout in it. I don't know that this is document management driven, because it would not account for
'drawings' composed in that manner. And many Civil 'drawings' are constructed that way.
-
Do you actually do that? I have some drawings with 20+ layouts in them. I see no benefit.
I did (when I used AutoCAD).
Reasons:
1. Multiple people on a project
2. Batching
3. Project navigator
-
You xref the model into each new .dwg?
-
Second, drawing tracking systems usually track by filename not by drawing; with a 1:1 relationship between file and drawing it minimizes management and storage issues.
I have one .dwg with 20 layouts. If i used their method i would have 20 .dwg's. How does that minimize management and storage?
-
You xref the model into each new .dwg?
Using the method they appear to be asking for one would need to do exactly that.
-
You xref the model into each new .dwg?
Yes - I XREF our existing, and proposed models into each new, single-layout drawing.
Working in a team environment is impossible when one user has the entire project locked up to work on one 'sheet' at a time, so single-layout drawings have been SOP since well before my time, at ALL of my employers to-date (save the occasional user who insists on being inconsistent from project to project).
Cheers
-
Second, drawing tracking systems usually track by filename not by drawing; with a 1:1 relationship between file and drawing it minimizes management and storage issues.
I have one .dwg with 20 layouts. If i used their method i would have 20 .dwg's. How does that minimize management and storage?
It's an antiquated way of doing things and IMO generally has little value ... I usually keep my working drawing with multiple tabs, then when I submit to the client break them out individually using this (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=19721.msg240359#msg240359).
-
single-layout drawings have been SOP since well before my time
Like I said, "Old School". I do not have entire projects in one file, but for example all details sheets are in one file per trade. Floor plans that do not fit on one sheet are divided into multiple layouts, one file/floor/trade.
-
Working in a team environment is impossible when one user has the entire project locked up to work on one 'sheet' at a time, so single-layout drawings have been SOP since well before my time
I can agree with you there! For us though, its one person on drawing.
-
Succinctly:
1. Every client wants 1:1 relationship between hard copy and dwg file.
2. Multiple designers.
-
Working in a team environment is impossible when one user has the entire project locked up to work on one 'sheet' at a time, so single-layout drawings have been SOP since well before my time
I can agree with you there! For us though, its one person on drawing.
Yes, because Civil 3D actually likes it that way...because so much of the labels are directly connected to the model.
-
single-layout drawings have been SOP since well before my time
Like I said, "Old School". I do not have entire projects in one file, but for example all details sheets are in one file per trade. Floor plans that do not fit on one sheet are divided into multiple layouts, one file/floor/trade.
You forget that I have so little experience - well before my time is not the same as well before yours, or others'. :angel:
Oddly enough, multi-layout drawings was the norm back then, and this single-layout SOP was a break from "old school" thinking (to those who taught me anyway, YMMV). :-D
That aside, to-date there is no simpler, more consistent, and flexible way to both manage a project (small or large), and allow for on-demand team resource allocation when a given deadline requires it.
Cheers
-
to-date there is no simpler, more consistent, and flexible way to both manage a project (small or large), and allow for on-demand team resource allocation when a given deadline requires it.
There is no way that this would work for our working files. It would be over complicating some very simple tasks. Running piping or ductwork between files just because the entire floor doesn't fit on one sheet would be a huge waste of time and prone to errors.
-
Our "plot" drawings are separate from our design files, so having multiple people work on a project is a non-issue.
-
to-date there is no simpler, more consistent, and flexible way to both manage a project (small or large), and allow for on-demand team resource allocation when a given deadline requires it.
There is no way that this would work for our working files. It would be over complicating some very simple tasks. Running piping or ductwork between files just because the entire floor doesn't fit on one sheet would be a huge waste of time and prone to errors.
Wait... You put your design elements in the actual sheets? :?
I 'spose that does complicate a relatively simple task.
For clarity, we differentiate between drawings that plot (i.e., exhibits, sheets, etc.), and those that do not (i.e., models containing line work, and C3D Objects for DREF/XREF only).
We generally have one existing, and proposed model (for each phase, if needed), and those are XREFed into said 'sheets', so the only entities within that sheet itself are labels, annotations, dimensions, etc. (in model), and the attributed title block (populated with Fields via SSM Properties) & Viewport(s) (in layout).
As example, team production breakout, would have one user modify the proposed model, and one or more update the 'sheets', etc.
-
You're doing it right.
-
Wait... You put your design elements in the actual sheets [files]? :?
I 'spose that does complicate a relatively simple task.
Complication is a matter of perspective. I'd much rather have sheet files containing just title blocks, annotation would still be done in the models, but not everyone here is familiar with that methodology. Every time I need to use sheet files, someone messes up the works somehow.
-
Maybe this doesn't apply, but, when I was reading up on sheet sets, it stated in the documentation that multiple layouts in a single drawing caused problems with them. I don't remember why, I just remember reading it somewhere.
-
As with complication being a matter of perspective so is right and wrong. As long as you and your employees can navigate effectively and efficiently, the current methods conform to your workflow standards (do not hinder the design/QA philosophy), and you can meet the client needs with as little overhead as possible then you can not consider one method better. Set up your standards to mirror your workflow/company.
Making a decision (even if it is deemed "not as effective as" later) is better then atrophy.
-
As with complication being a matter of perspective so is right and wrong. As long as you and your employees can navigate effectively and efficiently, the current methods conform to your workflow standards (do not hinder the design/QA philosophy), and you can meet the client needs with as little overhead as possible then you can not consider one method better. Set up your standards to mirror your workflow/company.
Making a decision (even if it is deemed "not as effective as" later) is better then atrophy.
Amen.
FWIW My firm do Planning Application for volume housebuilders in the UK and this is how we set up our files:
We produce two types of drawings - Layout-based and Housetypes. The Layout-based drawings deal with some aspect of the site layout, Hosuetypes with the individual buildings.
Layout-based drawings derive from a number of XREFS. Details will vary from project to project but generally would be the X-Layout (the bulk of our proposals), a survey, and OSMap, and civil engineering for slab and road levels, plus any additional context data (offsite road works, adjacent developments, etc.). We then have a separate file for each drawing (Planning Layout, External Works, Vehicle Tracking, Adoption, etc.) which will have separate layout tabs if that drawing needs to extend across several sheets (this is often the case with the External Works, for example).
Housetypes will have a separate file per housetype (2B4P or 3B5P, for example) but plans/elevations and all varns (brick/render, side windows) will all be in that file on different layout tabs for their sheets.
dJE