xref or all in one floor plan?

[Kristik4]

My office is having a huge debate about the method of setting up floor plans. Years and years ago, the office (before myself and others got there) decided to put all the floor plans on one file and start each layer with the number of the plan. For example, the basement walls are on layer "0-ncon-walls" and the first floor walls are on the layer "1-ncon-walls". So the file is HUGE and in my opinon A MESS. They use a LSP program that you click "1" to just show the first floor and "2" for just the second floor layers. We are multidiciplined so other departments xref the architects floor plans into their drawings. I came a background of large and small firms and experience from working all over the country. I STRONGLY believe in having only one floor plan in each files and xrefing in the floor plans as needed. Also I think all floor plans should use the same layer names (ie A-Ext-Wall) so you can transfer items from one file to the the other without having to change the layers.

I would appreciate anyone's input as to which method is commonly used and suggestions on how to deal with this office conflict. As you can infer from my email I feel strongly about the method and I feel like our office is going backwards in technology and it will slow down production and increase the risk for mistakes.

Kristi

[architecture68-raff]

For what it's worth, we use the "one drawing per floor" method you prefer as well. Putting all of the floor plans in one drawing is makes it difficult to deal with (especially when it comes to plotting), and also limits the a team's access to the project when several people need to work on it at once.

It really comes down to personal preference, but personally I think you are along the right lines.

[Strix]

It sounds like if I was in your office, (and I have no experience of Xrefs) I would be the first in the queue to learn!

Xrefs were invented for a reason, and the scenario in your office sounds like the exact scenario they were created for!

why the heck spend all that money on a CAD system and not use it to its full capabilities? :?

[Dipali]

For what it's worth, we use the "one drawing per floor" method you prefer as well. Putting all of the floor plans in one drawing is makes it difficult to deal with (especially when it comes to plotting), and also limits the a team's access to the project when several people need to work on it at once.

It really comes down to personal preference, but personally I think you are along the right lines.

I agree with u fully.
I was drawing all plans in one drawing before i learn about correct use of x-ref some 3 urs. back.
so when I strated my own practice that is what I decided to continue to have one plan in each file & use x-ref. It is very useful for mutli unit residential projects for me & I am sure will be as useful for all types of projects.
we have each unit plan in seprate file, than if we have variation in balcony area of the unti plan at diff. levels, I x-ref base unti plan into new file> use x-clip to remove the non confering part & draw it there & than x-red that file into my floor plan file. This r only line drawing files.
Than we have seprate files for layout sheets again differtn for each unit plan or floor plan & sit eplan.

I know it may sound very complicated to the person who has not worked with x-ref but Believe me it is the Best Practice.:D8)

[khama]

One drawing per floor for sure.. and you can even go as far as saying multiple drawings per floor if they are huge like some of the sites i have seen.. Column arrangements and concrete reo are seperate drawings as well and this is easier to load and render much faster when you are editing. If we incorporate all of these into one drawing your productivity plummets down to unacceptable levels and deadlines are not met. It is personal preference thou, and if the company is making good progress doing it this way... Why fix what's not broken. Status quo rules the day..

[Kristik4]

Thanks to you all who responded. I thought I was not really in the minority. I have done residential projects like Dipali where even the units are xref'd. I think that tool is great but I gotta take small steps with this backa**ward firm here in Maine. I will be happy with just each floor plan into seperate files. I have been trying to get the firm to attempt to not customize every single unit - that there is an economy in having some regularization of the units... but hey... you gotta start small and pick your battles one at a time. I also work at home for myself and even with just me, I use xref's. I find it is very fast and eliminates duplication of work and the potential for errors.

Thanks again... please keep the comments coming....

[pwesthelle]

XREFing is an operational management decision, not a CAD management decision. The management question being, "would you rather complete the project faster and more accurately by having any number of designers and draftspersons able to work on a project at at the same time?" If the answer is yes, then the only way to do it is by way of XREFs. Having worked in architectural and multi-disciplinary environments alike, I can state without question that there is no other comparable way to cross-coordinate between disciplines on big projects and produce timely deliverables without XREFs.

[Teeds]

I am the opposite extreme.

I often work on high ride conversions, so I break down xrefs into the vertical components that are reusable floor to floor.

For example, elevator cars must align, so they are the same top to bottom, unless a car does travel the entire height of a building. Interior wall faces and stairtowers are similar. Apartment walls sometimes.

Your systems reminds me of what the cad jockeys used on Computervision when we worked on the Crescent project.

On simple projects, I use the same structural grid to keep everything in vertical alignment.

[Russell H]

Just picked up this thread - I know it's quite old now. Having only just scanned the other replies my opionion would be to use Xrefs.

Having all floor plans on one drawing means only one person can work on the drawing at any one time. This obviously slows work rates down.

If you need to produce drawings for say an internal finishes then an xref will provide a central source for the structural information. Any changes to the structure are easliy highlighted instead of having to remember copy and paste from the master drawing.

Good drawing management is the key to using xrefs correctly - no text or dimensions is a good tip as well. You're looking at creating a central infomation source that useful in many other drawings. Steelwork, services etc.

Hope this helps in your office conflict!!

[CADNY]

Xref dynamic links reflect changes automatically and helps a design team work together on a set of drawings. Xrefs are also useful in combining mechanical drawings into a single working drawing.

[jules_s]

XREFing is an operational management decision, not a CAD management decision. The management question being, "would you rather complete the project faster and more accurately by having any number of designers and draftspersons able to work on a project at at the same time?" If the answer is yes, then the only way to do it is by way of XREFs. Having worked in architectural and multi-disciplinary environments alike, I can state without question that there is no other comparable way to cross-coordinate between disciplines on big projects and produce timely deliverables without XREFs.

I sort of agree and disagree to that.

There is a CAD management issue involved with xrefs (I use them)

The biggest flaw with xrefs is that the changes don't get sent to all of the people using them, either that or the changes dont get picked up on. Ensuring that consultants/team members are aware of changes to the xref is imperative IMO...and that to me IS a CAD management issue.

My other issue with xrefs is making the entire system too complicated....nestled xrefs and unreferenced links are a royal pita

PS: I wonder if Autodesk can/will ever adopt REVIT technology into their other CAD products?!?