TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => Topic started by: novice on September 24, 2015, 06:34:24 PM
-
I've dramatically increased my use of AutoCAD blocks lately.
I work in multiple files, and I might do my designing in any one of them. Whatever my latest design update is, I need to be able to copy/paste stuff into other files. I need to keep propagating my new work into various files.
The issue is AutoCAD is designed to protect those files, as if my new work is a virus or something. But it's not. I need to be able to constantly overwrite outdated stuff with new, improved stuff.
My blocks are kind of complex. Lots of nesting. And I use copy/paste all the time. "Get more organized" with block naming, or filing (wblocks or xrefs) is not an option, for very practical reasons. I'm designing stuff. That stuff is in constant flux for quite a while, and it's not a linear process.
Any ideas? I don't ask this question casually - I've spent a lot of time searching the internet for practical answers. I've found none of any substance so far.
-
By "virus", are you referring to the fact that when you paste in a block, that duplicate definitions are ignored? The only way to do what you want OOTB is to use the redefine feature of the INSERT command. Issue the INSERT command, click on the browse button and browse to your new block definition (you may have to wblock from another dwg first), hit the OK button and it will ask you to redifine the existing block. Choose YES. then continue inserting. When you get to the point where it is asking you to pick an insertion point, hit ESC. The command will quit without inserting, but the block will have been redefined.
-
I need to keep propagating my new work into various files.
This sounds like a job for XREFs. Blocks within files is cumbersome at best as you are finding out.
"Get more organized" with block naming, or filing (wblocks or xrefs) is not an option, for very practical reasons. I'm designing stuff. That stuff is in constant flux for quite a while, and it's not a linear process.
I'm afraid organization may be the only option. In my non-work life, I tend to not be very organized. At work, I am meticulous when it comes to file management. Maybe if you describe your work flow in more detail, we can give you suggestions. I'm sure someone has worked in a similar fashion and can give you some pointers.
If you can't make the program work with your process, you probably will need to change the process.
-
By "virus", are you referring to the fact that when you paste in a block, that duplicate definitions are ignored? The only way to do what you want OOTB is to use the redefine feature of the INSERT command. Issue the INSERT command, click on the browse button and browse to your new block definition (you may have to wblock from another dwg first), hit the OK button and it will ask you to redifine the existing block. Choose YES. then continue inserting. When you get to the point where it is asking you to pick an insertion point, hit ESC. The command will quit without inserting, but the block will have been redefined.
Thanks for the response, 57gmc. Aside from the fact that I don't know what "OOTB" means, I understand your suggestion. The problem for me is not only that the amount of time it would take for me to do an otherwise simple task increases exponentially (if I undertake to organize hundreds of constantly changing block definitions externally, wblock or xref), but it also forces me into a work process completely at odds with an appropriate creative process. I'll say more when I respond to Rob.
-
I need to keep propagating my new work into various files.
This sounds like a job for XREFs. Blocks within files is cumbersome at best as you are finding out.
"Get more organized" with block naming, or filing (wblocks or xrefs) is not an option, for very practical reasons. I'm designing stuff. That stuff is in constant flux for quite a while, and it's not a linear process.
I'm afraid organization may be the only option. In my non-work life, I tend to not be very organized. At work, I am meticulous when it comes to file management. Maybe if you describe your work flow in more detail, we can give you suggestions. I'm sure someone has worked in a similar fashion and can give you some pointers.
If you can't make the program work with your process, you probably will need to change the process.
I'm afraid organization may be the only option as well, though it would be of a mind-numbing complexity in my case. I believe I'm pretty meticulous as well, but some kinds of meticulous put people out of business. I can't afford to be that meticulous.
The stuff I design is all about parts, assemblies, machines, and systems. I've been using blocks lately to mirror this structure, which is pretty straightforward in principle - make a block out of a part, make a block out of an assembly that's an assemblage of blocks of parts, make a block out of a machine, that's an assemblage of blocks of assemblies which are themselves assemblages of blocks of parts... It's all nesting, all the way down.
I always aim to standardize, at any and all of these levels, but there's a process involved in getting there. And that process happens when working on real projects that need to get done in certain timeframes. Parts get redesigned when I see how the machines function as a system. It's top-down and bottom-up all the time. It's a turbulent process, and it needs to be.
I didn't have these problems in the past, though. One, I didn't use blocks as much (or wblocks or xrefs). And two, I did all my work in one file, so to the extent that I did use blocks, redefining them didn't cause these problems. Both of these factors changed recently as my projects got more complex and I now have detailers working for me. Multiple files means multiple people working on a single project at once, and blocks organize my designs so that detailers can more easily know what they are looking at.
One example of how the current process doesn't work for me is that the blocks I make as I'm designing have casual names, often randomly generated. When the design (say, of a machine) gets to the final detailing phase, accurate/useful blocks are made, which I can then put together as a system. This system is then placed in multiple contexts. I try to make sure blocks are renamed at a certain point, with a nice, formal name, once I get to an appropriately stable stage in the process. But there's just too much nesting - some nested block is going to get inserted into a different file, it will be redefined back to an old definition, and I'm none the wiser. There is no way for me to know that the information is now wrong.
-
Going to multiple files and multiple users would strongly suggest getting away from using blocks and opt for XREFs. As changes are made to the files, those changes can be seen on the fly with a simple reload.
No matter what choice you make, you should have a part/assembly naming standard that can be implemented from the initial creation of the parts.
XREFs are going to have some speed bumps that you will have to slow down and strategize for. Circular references and overlay vs. attach will probably be the biggest headaches at first with the nesting levels but once you get your head around them, it will make sense.
With that being said, I'm wondering if there is software that has the ability to have multiple people working on the same machine at the same time, similar to Revit's environment for your machines.
-
If your 'block' definitions are constantly changing, you should not be using blocks.
In theory blocks are for things that are relatively static in nature.
As above XREF methods will resolve most of this issue.
And unless you are a bird, 'nesting' blocks inside blocks is rarely a good thing.
-
Found this (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=30260.0), here at The Swamp.
All very tidy, and I'm sure it's a great approach for many, but it won't work for me.
Really, blocks and nested blocks are fantastic to a very large extent. I'm not sure why anyone would think otherwise. But we're all in our own particular situations, working in ways that make a lot of sense based on those situations.
The only thing missing for me when it comes to blocks is the ability to propagate my new work into my older work. That AutoCAD won't let me do this is a shame (though I do understand their fears). Worse though, is that I don't even get a warning that some nested block I'm inserting is being redefined without my knowledge. That is inexcusable.
Not sure how I will move forward at this point.
-
Found this (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=30260.0), here at The Swamp.
All very tidy, and I'm sure it's a great approach for many, but it won't work for me.
Why not?
The only thing missing for me when it comes to blocks is the ability to propagate my new work into my older work. That AutoCAD won't let me do this is a shame (though I do understand their fears). Worse though, is that I don't even get a warning that some nested block I'm inserting is being redefined without my knowledge. That is inexcusable.
That's because you are trying to use blocks in a way that they were not intended to be used.
The propagating that you want is accomplished with XREFs. That is how they were intended to be used.
-
Found this (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=30260.0), here at The Swamp.
The only thing missing for me when it comes to blocks is the ability to propagate my new work into my older work. That AutoCAD won't let me do this is a shame (though I do understand their fears). Worse though, is that I don't even get a warning that some nested block I'm inserting is being redefined without my knowledge. That is inexcusable.
Design Center will allow a Rt-Click REDEFINE option for blocks.
Most likely the issue is how deep you might be nesting blocks.
And therein lies the 'problem' , if one will not accept the definition of the problem no solution will ever present itself.
Despite your assurances that blocks work for you, clearly they are not working as efficiently as you want them to, and or at all.
You are now in a loop of attempting to 'solve' a problem without properly defining it.
-
Found this (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=30260.0), here at The Swamp.
All very tidy, and I'm sure it's a great approach for many, but it won't work for me.
Why not?
The only thing missing for me when it comes to blocks is the ability to propagate my new work into my older work. That AutoCAD won't let me do this is a shame (though I do understand their fears). Worse though, is that I don't even get a warning that some nested block I'm inserting is being redefined without my knowledge. That is inexcusable.
That's because you are trying to use blocks in a way that they were not intended to be used.
The propagating that you want is accomplished with XREFs. That is how they were intended to be used.
I understand that I'm not using blocks in a way that AutoCAD handles well. I agree with you.
It doesn't work for me for the reasons I already described to the best of my ability.
I understand there is probably no good solution for me at this time. This is why people still invent things like new software. I'll deal with it.
Thanks for your help - it's ok if it just doesn't work for me.
-
Found this (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=30260.0), here at The Swamp.
The only thing missing for me when it comes to blocks is the ability to propagate my new work into my older work. That AutoCAD won't let me do this is a shame (though I do understand their fears). Worse though, is that I don't even get a warning that some nested block I'm inserting is being redefined without my knowledge. That is inexcusable.
Design Center will allow a Rt-Click REDEFINE option for blocks.
Most likely the issue is how deep you might be nesting blocks.
And therein lies the 'problem' , if one will not accept the definition of the problem no solution will ever present itself.
Despite your assurances that blocks work for you, clearly they are not working as efficiently as you want them to, and or at all.
You are now in a loop of attempting to 'solve' a problem without properly defining it.
I'm not sure where this is coming from. I've clearly stated the problem, there are no good solutions at this time, and I will make do. It's ok.
-
It doesn't work for me for the reasons I already described to the best of my ability.
I understand there is probably no good solution for me at this time.
Actually, I don't see an explanation as to why XREFs will not work for you. It seems that is the solution.
-
It doesn't work for me for the reasons I already described to the best of my ability.
I understand there is probably no good solution for me at this time.
Actually, I don't see an explanation as to why XREFs will not work for you. It seems that is the solution.
It's simply too formal and cumbersome for how I need to work.
-
You are not the first person that needs to work like you do. The solutions are out there. XREFs were designed for exactly what you are describing. I really think you should explore that as an option before writing it off. That is, unless you plan on looking for another software solution. Even if you find one, it is going to have a similar work flow to using XREFs.
-
I've dramatically increased my use of AutoCAD blocks lately.
I work in multiple files, and I might do my designing in any one of them. Whatever my latest design update is, I need to be able to copy/paste stuff into other files. I need to keep propagating my new work into various files.
The issue is AutoCAD is designed to protect those files, as if my new work is a virus or something. But it's not. I need to be able to constantly overwrite outdated stuff with new, improved stuff.
My blocks are kind of complex. Lots of nesting. And I use copy/paste all the time. "Get more organized" with block naming, or filing (wblocks or xrefs) is not an option, for very practical reasons. I'm designing stuff. That stuff is in constant flux for quite a while, and it's not a linear process.
Any ideas? I don't ask this question casually - I've spent a lot of time searching the internet for practical answers. I've found none of any substance so far.
your process is the problem....XREFS will solve this problem
why are you reluctant to change your process to improve your workflow?
Very glad I do not have to perform your performance evaluation....pretty sure we would not be working together very long.
Your reluctance to at least try a best practice method is shocking 'novice' - you are getting advice from persons with considerably more experience
than yourself yet you will not even attempt to utilize their advice.
Clearly stated it isn't working for you, because you are doing it in a manner that does not work.
Move to Xrefs...Nest them as deeply as you want, and your new work, and or revisions will ALWAYS propagate as you expect them to.
-
wow. you really know how to help someone.
-
The responses I'm getting are starting to get kind of disturbing. People who know nothing about my work are insisting something is right just because it works for them. Let me say, for every person working with XREF's to that extent, there are hundreds working in other ways. My solution will likely be to back off on the use of blocks at the higher system levels.
We're here to help each other, right?
-
wow. you really know how to help someone.
some people will accept a solution with no prodding...
others it might seem need to be hit over the head with a freight train
It poses the question;
If one is seeking help because they are having an issue....
and then fight so hard to defend the practice that is the source of the problem...
do they really want help?
-
People who know nothing about my work are insisting something is right just because it works for them. Let me say, for every person working with XREF's to that extent, there are hundreds working in other ways.
Actually it is more likely that it is the other way around. For every person that is doing it without XREFs, there are thousands that are using them.
-
To be fair, the limited amount of detail you have provided limits the amount of help that can be provided. And from what you have described XREFs are the way to go.
Not sure about "creative" work in the mechanical design field. A bolt is a bolt, and isn't going to change. Same with nuts, plate, and many objects. Those are ideal for blocks. If you have an arrangement which doesn't change much, then that is also ideal for an assembly type block - especially if its a one-off. But if you have an arrangement which *might* need the occasional re-org and you want to propagate the changes automatically everywhere its used? Yeah, XREF is the way to go.
XREFs, unlike blocks, don't necessarily need to have a fixed name. A file XREF'd into one host may be called "Fred". XREF'd into another host, the very same XREF may be called "Barney". So naming conventions won't get in the way. And XREFs can be nested under XREFs, along with other XREFs, provided a hugely flexible nesting arrangement.
-
People who know nothing about my work are insisting something is right just because it works for them. Let me say, for every person working with XREF's to that extent, there are hundreds working in other ways.
Actually it is more likely that it is the other way around. For every person that is doing it without XREFs, there are thousands that are using them.
I use XREFs all the time. Are you under the impression I don't use them at all?
-
I understand why some of the other posts have put you on the defensive but I'm just trying to help.
So, far you have not said that you use them and you have stated that you aren't using them or even tried them for the purposes of this discussion.
-
I understand why some of the other posts have put you on the defensive but I'm just trying to help.
So, far you have not said that you use them and you have stated that you aren't using them or even tried them for the purposes of this discussion.
I guess it's just kind of frustrating that people don't give me the benefit of the doubt. What I've said is that it doesn't make sense for me to use XREFs on such a massive scale, due to the beast it would create. I already have a better solution than that, by far, which is to simply back off on the use of blocks at the higher system levels. This solution is not ideal, though, and I thought maybe someone here could help. This hasn't worked out so far, but so what? I tried.
I realize there's only just so much I can do to explain my situation. So what? Why not take my word for it? What's at stake? Offer some insight on XREFs or whatever other solution might be an elegant one and feel good for doing it.
I appreciate your help. I appreciate everyone's help. But one size doesn't fit all, and I'm a smart guy too.
-
Hey novice,
Reading your explanation I could see how xrefs would solve or possibly make it worst and depends on which process I assume your using.
-
The problem with your solution is that it does not work for the situation that you described, i.e. multiple users and multiple files. It could be made to work with the use of LISPs for automatically updating blocks and master files for those blocks. It is not an ideal solution but it does work. It will also require a change from your current flow and additional organization. I cannot advise you on this solution because I won't waste my time on such a work flow when there are better solutions.
-
Thanks for your help Jeff and Rob.
-
Found this (http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=30260.0), here at The Swamp.
The only thing missing for me when it comes to blocks is the ability to propagate my new work into my older work. That AutoCAD won't let me do this is a shame (though I do understand their fears). Worse though, is that I don't even get a warning that some nested block I'm inserting is being redefined without my knowledge. That is inexcusable.
Not sure how I will move forward at this point.
This is where I get lost.
The nested blocks are not getting redefined if there is already a definition for the block in the file.
So if you have a block called Machine with nested blocks PartA and PartB. PartA and PartB each have nested blocks ComponentA..... nested.
If you copy and paste machine block from one drawing to another it use any block that is already defined in drawing.
So if drawing already contains a PartA or component block it will use that one.
you would need to have a file for each nested block to overwrite existing
Like everyone else if this is workflow then xrefs would solve problem or need better explanation
-
Thanks for the response, 57gmc. Aside from the fact that I don't know what "OOTB" means, I understand your suggestion.
OOTB means "Out Of The Box". In other words, unless you can invest in custom programming, there aren't many options. You either have to redefine your blocks or use xrefs. You might consider Inventor. You can swap out parts and assemblies of parts, especially with Vault. However, keep in mind that since parts and assemblies are individual files, you are essentially using xrefs. But you do gain a nicer interface for dealing with all those files.
-
Thank you for the kind suggestions, Jeff and 57gmc.
Jeff, I just can't provide a better explanation. It would take a ton of time I don't have, yet in the end I would probably still fail to communicate.
57gmc, your post makes a lot of sense to me, though nobody who does the same work I do feels that Inventor is fluid enough to solve these issues.
-
what is it that you do that is so unique?
It is cad based right?
-
Thank you for the kind suggestions, Jeff and 57gmc.
Jeff, I just can't provide a better explanation. It would take a ton of time I don't have, yet in the end I would probably still fail to communicate.
57gmc, your post makes a lot of sense to me, though nobody who does the same work I do feels that Inventor is fluid enough to solve these issues.
Maybe a happy medium is the way to go. Using a combination of the two methods just might help you. Use XREFs during the beginning phases of a part or assembly when things are very fluid and then converting to blocks that are stored in a library as they become more solid.
I'm really grasping at straws here because you really haven't given us any idea what it is that you do. Maybe you could give us a general description of a "typical" job, if there is such a thing, from start to finish.
-
Thank you for the kind suggestions, Jeff and 57gmc.
Jeff, I just can't provide a better explanation. It would take a ton of time I don't have, yet in the end I would probably still fail to communicate.
57gmc, your post makes a lot of sense to me, though nobody who does the same work I do feels that Inventor is fluid enough to solve these issues.
Maybe a happy medium is the way to go. Using a combination of the two methods just might help you. Use XREFs during the beginning phases of a part or assembly when things are very fluid and then converting to blocks that are stored in a library as they become more solid.
I'm really grasping at straws here because you really haven't given us any idea what it is that you do. Maybe you could give us a general description of a "typical" job, if there is such a thing, from start to finish.
There's no need to grasp at straws. As I've said, it's too much work to try to explain the whole thing. I appreciate the help that's been offered, including this last useful suggestion, but I will find my own way through these issues - they won't get resolved in this thread, and I guess I'm not the type to pretend they are resolved and then move on. I hope that's not offensive in any way - I mean no offense. Thank you again.
-
If you come up with a solution that you like, would you please post back here with it?
-
If you come up with a solution that you like, would you please post back here with it?
If I do, I certainly will!