Topic: Titlesheets as xresfs

[Daniel J. Ellis]

Running through our roughly annual review of CAD standards and practices, and some one suggested using xrefs for titlesheets, but he wasn't sure how this would work in practice.

I know several of the guys her ehave mentioned making theier titlesheets this way: how does this work?

Information on our titlesheets (ATM) is job description, drawing description, drawing number, date, client logo, and drawn initials.

[Krushert]

You mean Title Blocks.  Yes we xref our TBs and love it.  You have to seperate what data/info is constant for every drawing to drawing and what is unique for every drawing.  The only growing pain is if you share your drawings with outside sources.  You have to remember to be sure to include your title block.  If you use professional stamps then I would suggest xrefing that to the source TB as an nested xref.  Then you have to detach that when you share your files.  But that is a simple process with Etransmit function. 

[Bob Garner]

Ditto to everything Krushert said.  Our office doesn't xfef titleblocks but our corporate office does for large jobs where making any changes to 150 titleblocks would be a pain.  I don't like to xref titleblocks for small jobs because, well, I need to simplicate things and I'm always losing my xrefs.

[sinc]

We've been putting our titleblocks in paperspace, and then use the Sheet Set Manager to change things like job name, issue date, etc.  However, we do not have a client's logo in our title block...  I don't think the SSM will let you do something like that.

[JCTER]

We copy a title block from our standard files into the folder for each job.  Xref'd into each working drawing.

The only thing that's specific to our job is the revision level, revision description, rev date, and initials applicable to the revision.

Everything is stored in the title block as a field, if it changes drawing-to-drawing, and the field references somewhere safe for it to change each time.

[mjfarrell]

you will want to explore

fields for the SET, and fields for the Sheet...consultant logo(s), can be a block with or without visibility states to turn yours, or theirs on as needed.

[Daniel J. Ellis]

How much time saving does it represent?

Our sheet set will normally be limimted to about a dozen sheets, very often at different paper sizes.

Presumably that would potentially leave us with three or four different xrefs to deal with...

[Krushert]

How much time saving does it represent?

 huge time savings.  My Client here last week could not make up their mind on what they wanted the rev block to say for the as-built drawings for 118 sheets.  (All I can say is that they are MEP folks - Need I say anymore   )   Change 3 pieces of text in one file - three different times.  How long does that take?  Now take that same time and multiply times a 118 times.  The kicker is disruptions during the changing 118 sheets and then you forget what and where you were and miss a sheet or two.  Then you got phone calls from the client whining and what not. I will almost anything to reduce errors especially simple one like this.

Our sheet set will normally be limited to about a dozen sheets, very often at different paper sizes.

Presumably that would potentially leave us with three or four different xrefs to deal with...

Then this could be a more hassle that it is worth with having that many TB xrefs and so few sheets.  Personally I would still do it for the reasons mention above.   But to each their own.  

My suggestion is to try it for a project or two.  We tried as an experiment and we like it.

[mjfarrell]

Given the number of Sheet Sizes...it might be a toss up if Xreffing them into your files will save any time; unless the title blocks can or do scale proportionately to fit the various sized sheets.
However, it think that even just using Fields, and one Title Block per sheet, most likely will Still save you some time.

[JCTER]

Just a thought, but what if your xref'd title block had every size you need, in that one xref?

That way, when you are in your layout tab, you'd have 3 title blocks showing (for 3 dif sizes) and you'd just have to create your viewports and what not in the right one.  Maybe even use XCLIP to 'hide' the non-relevant sizes?

It would affect your plotting situation, a bit, but could be an easy workaround.  You'd just have to insert the xref such that the desired title block had it's base point at 0,0, or just use "Window" to select the plot area, and have defined page setups for each size.

That way you could have all the same information, etc, in each title block, and only one file to insert.  May create need for a little adjustment to standard practices, but I don't think it'd require much, and would still be a big increase in efficiency.

You'd probably just have to have an empty area in your title block for client logos and what not, and just insert the proper one into the xref file on a per-job basis.  Maybe make it a dynamic block for easy swapping/switching.

[mjfarrell]

I do not think that If the titleblock is set correctly one MUST plot by WINDOW an not by Layout...every office whose standards I've helped develop uses LAYOUT not window when plotting from layouts.

[JCTER]

I do not think that If the titleblock is set correctly one MUST plot by WINDOW an not by Layout...every office whose standards I've helped develop uses LAYOUT not window when plotting from layouts.

Didn't say they must...

Also we're not talking about a typical situation.  How many offices have you helped that have multiple title blocks in one layout?  I was suggesting something very nontypical, so it's not too surprising if nontypical process would be employed... 

[mjfarrell]

I do not think that If the titleblock is set correctly one MUST plot by WINDOW an not by Layout...every office whose standards I've helped develop uses LAYOUT not window when plotting from layouts.

Didn't say they must...

Also we're not talking about a typical situation.  How many offices have you helped that have multiple title blocks in one layout?  I was suggesting something very nontypical, so it's not too surprising if nontypical process would be employed...  

It might be NON typical to have multiple title blocks in one XREF, however there really doesn't seem to be a need to keep veering away from the path of normal(typical) to implement this solution.  Further the closer to normal and typical you keep this 'solution'; the easier it will be for the users to adapt to, and actually use the 'solution' otherwise it becomes just another problem to work around.

[JCTER]

I do not think that If the titleblock is set correctly one MUST plot by WINDOW an not by Layout...every office whose standards I've helped develop uses LAYOUT not window when plotting from layouts.

Didn't say they must...

Also we're not talking about a typical situation.  How many offices have you helped that have multiple title blocks in one layout?  I was suggesting something very nontypical, so it's not too surprising if nontypical process would be employed... 

It might be NON typical to have multiple title blocks in one XREF, however there really doesn't seem to be a need to keep veering away from the path of normal(typical) to implement this solution.  Further the closer to normal and typical you keep this 'solution'; the easier it will be for the users to adapt to, and actually use the 'solution' otherwise it becomes just another problem to work around.

You have a better idea for how to implement an xref'd title block where multiple sheet sizes can come into play?

[sinc]

I do not think that If the titleblock is set correctly one MUST plot by WINDOW an not by Layout...every office whose standards I've helped develop uses LAYOUT not window when plotting from layouts.

The problem we have with LAYOUT is that it can create issues with Page Setup Overrides.  So we use "Extents" a lot instead.  This has the drawback that we can't have any clutter laying around our layout in paperspace, but we typically have no clutter there anyway, so it works out.

[JCTER]

I do not think that If the titleblock is set correctly one MUST plot by WINDOW an not by Layout...every office whose standards I've helped develop uses LAYOUT not window when plotting from layouts.

The problem we have with LAYOUT is that it can create issues with Page Setup Overrides.  So we use "Extents" a lot instead.  This has the drawback that we can't have any clutter laying around our layout in paperspace, but we typically have no clutter there anyway, so it works out.

Same here.  "Extents" is just a simple no brainer implementation, and controlling the plotting area is as simple as having a 'point' on the non-plotting layer, at the desired extents, or using the X,Y offset in your plot dialog, saved in the page setup.  6 of one, half a dozen of the other, as I see it on that part.

[mjfarrell]

What 'problems' are created using page setup overrides?
From my experience, there should be none.  What are they if they can be described explicitly?  Those 'problems' might be caused by how one has ones layouts set up...

If PAGE Setup A uses plot by layout
and page setup B uses plot by Layout

what gets plotted wrong?

If one can not or does not use BY LAYOUT, there are some fundamental flaws in the process of creating the Page Setups.

Please send me an example of a file where LAYOUT doesn't work for all page setups, and I can discover WHY, and WHAT should be done to enable same to work without issues.  Unless of course, this is a fundamental flaw in the version of ACAD you are using.

(Perhaps this should spawn a second topic in PLOTTING?  Interestingly enough I am finding no discussion about 'problems' using BY LAYOUT and plotting in the usual places.)

[Krushert]

I do not think that If the titleblock is set correctly one MUST plot by WINDOW an not by Layout...every office whose standards I've helped develop uses LAYOUT not window when plotting from layouts.

The problem we have with LAYOUT is that it can create issues with Page Setup Overrides.  So we use "Extents" a lot instead.  This has the drawback that we can't have any clutter laying around our layout in paperspace, but we typically have no clutter there anyway, so it works out.

Same here.  "Extents" is just a simple no brainer implementation, and controlling the plotting area is as simple as having a 'point' on the non-plotting layer, at the desired extents, or using the X,Y offset in your plot dialog, saved in the page setup.  6 of one, half a dozen of the other, as I see it on that part.

I use plot by view.  Set my view in paper space to limits that I haves set in paper space and never have a problem.  With this method, we do not have to worry about stuff outside the limits and cured our problems with layout with ill-effect to pagesetups.  Yes MJ, we too have had a problems with "plot by layout" but we have been use this method for so long, I would not have any examples to give. 

[Krushert]

It might be NON typical to have multiple title blocks in one XREF, however there really doesn't seem to be a need to keep veering away from the path of normal(typical) to implement this solution.  Further the closer to normal and typical you keep this 'solution'; the easier it will be for the users to adapt to, and actually use the 'solution' otherwise it becomes just another problem to work around.

Define Normal.   For that matter define Typical.

The definitions for those terms IMO are infused personal opinions so that "normal" adapts to ones needs. 

[mjfarrell]

From your answer Krush; it is starting to appear that the 'problem' with by layout is one of implementation and not within the application.

[Krushert]

From your answer Krush; it is starting to appear that the 'problem' with by layout is one of implementation and not within the application.

Hmmm Okay.  Thank you Mr Assumption.

[JCTER]

From your answer Krush; it is starting to appear that the 'problem' with by layout is one of implementation and not within the application.

Hmmm Okay.  Thank you Mr Assumption.

Kick his ass, Sea Bass! 

[mjfarrell]

From your answer Krush; it is starting to appear that the 'problem' with by layout is one of implementation and not within the application.

Hmmm Okay.  Thank you Mr Assumption.

Well, whats a person supposed to do, when it appears that no one can list explicitly what the 'problems' are when using Page Setup overrides and By Layout, or provide samples drawings that exhibit the probelm?

Should someone give me a drawing that exhibits 'the probelm(s)', I will endeavor to change my position based on facts, when such facts are presented.

[JCTER]

From your answer Krush; it is starting to appear that the 'problem' with by layout is one of implementation and not within the application.

Hmmm Okay.  Thank you Mr Assumption.

Well, whats a person supposed to do, when it appears that no one can list explicitly what the 'problems' are when using Page Setup overrides and By Layout, or provide samples drawings that exhibit the probelm?

Shrug and move on?

[Krushert]

From your answer Krush; it is starting to appear that the 'problem' with by layout is one of implementation and not within the application.

Hmmm Okay.  Thank you Mr Assumption.

Well, whats a person supposed to do, when it appears that no one can list explicitly what the 'problems' are when using Page Setup overrides and By Layout, or provide samples drawings that exhibit the probelm?

Should someone give me a drawing that exhibits 'the probelm(s)', I will endeavor to change my position based on facts, when such facts are presented.

I think you did not read this part.

.... Yes MJ, we too have had a problems with "plot by layout" but we have been use this method for so long, I would not have any examples to give. 

I have not used Plot by Layout for years. Henne why I can not post.  and not I am not about to pull something from between you where just to continue this.

What I did not mention is that I semi-automate my plotting with lisp and to ensure error-free plots I used a draconian method of plot by view.  Just becuase Plot by Layout works for you and Autodesk does not mean it works for us.  Hence my comment of "To each their own"  The OP ask us for our opinions and thoughts.

Good Day.

[mjfarrell]

Well and good Krush, my thoughts and Opinions remain unchanged by heresay evidence of a 'problem' with By Layout  whilst one is performing Page Setup override plotting.

There is no reason the OP can not and should not use Xrefs for titleblocks, irrespective of plotting output methods.

[Daniel J. Ellis]

What I did not mention is that I semi-automate my plotting with lisp and to ensure error-free plots I used a draconian method of plot by view....The OP ask us for our opinions and thoughts.

Good Day.

We similar use lisp to make plotting three-quarter automatic - that's why we've recently moved from using "Extents" to "Window" to define the view; I'll have to investigate "Layout" as an option.

The multiple sheets thing kinda reminds me of R14!!

Is it possible to use "Freeze by viewport" to have some layers visible in one layout tab but hidden in another?

dJE

[JCTER]

Is it possible to use "Freeze by viewport" to have some layers visible in one layout tab but hidden in another?

dJE

If you are in paperspace looking through a viewport at the model, with the viewport 'activated' so that you're -in- model space... and you freeze a layer.  That layer is only frozen in -that- viewport.  It is not frozen in model tab, nor will it be frozen in any other viewports you create thereafter.  This can also be done in the layer manager, with viewport active, by using the "VP Freeze" column.

[Daniel J. Ellis]

I knew it did that, I just wondered if it considered each layout tab a separate viewport

[JCTER]

I knew it did that, I just wondered if it considered each layout tab a separate viewport

nope

[mjfarrell]

however...IF you Named the title block layers in such a fashion that the A size sheet layers could be ON while ALL other sheet size layer were OFF that would work.
You would of course need or want a unique layer name for each instance of the Xref attachment to have full controll of ALL Xref layers on each Layout Tab.

[Daniel J. Ellis]

yeah, not sure I can see that happening.

Guys at my place are pretty bad at just inserting xrefs on whatever layer happens to be current at the time   But that's another matter ^_^

One to consider though

[mjfarrell]

yeah, not sure I can see that happening.

Guys at my place are pretty bad at just inserting xrefs on whatever layer happens to be current at the time  But that's another matter ^_^

One to consider though

You know I have to say, this sounds more and more like a need for proper user training than anything else.
I am happy to help provide such training.