Redefine block in 400+ drawings

I have modified a title block and need to redefine it in the 400+ drawings currently in the works. I have a script for erasing purging and inserting the block in the same location (0,0,0) but many drawings have a references that can accumulate over 20M and they take a long time to open and save.

So my question is this: Is there a way to redefine a block in multiple drawings without having to open them? In my attempt to find some lsp or way of doing it someone mentioned using Design Center for it but I have not been successful in selecting multiple drawings with Design Center nor updating a block.

Any help is appreciated.

I have modified a title block and need to redefine it in the 400+ drawings currently in the works. I have a script for erasing purging and inserting the block in the same location (0,0,0) but many drawings have a references that can accumulate over 20M and they take a long time to open and save.

 

So my question is this: Is there a way to redefine a block in multiple drawings without having to open them? In my attempt to find some lsp or way of doing it someone mentioned using Design Center for it but I have not been successful in selecting multiple drawings with Design Center nor updating a block.

 

Any help is appreciated.

Does your title block have attributes?

DNK

Yes but that doesn't matter due to they are driven by Sheet Sets Manager so all will be refreshed when drawing is opened regenerated printed...

I just need to redefined the block due to moving attributes around for customer satisfaction.

I was going to suggest you redefine/attsync it instead of erase/purge/insert, but that doesn't really address your problem.

Maybe you could relocate the drawings, breaking the xref path, do the title block update, then move the drawings back? That way it can't load the heavy xrefs.

That would speed up the process a bit for script pro. Never thought of that angle. Thanks.

You could use ObjectDBX - that would be pretty quick - although you would lose the drawing thumbnail.

I have an ObjectDBX 'base program' that may help if you want to go this way:

http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=31827.0

Bear in mind though, that with ObjectDBX you cannot use SelectionSets (ssget etc), or ent* methods (entmod, etc), nor can you use any command calls.

Lee

I always do this with a script and the redefine attsync method. 400 drawings doesn't take too long, and if I think it will take a long time I start the script as I go home and its all ready when I come in next morning.

I believe ObjectDBX can do this without opening the drawings but I don't know. Lee?

I always do this with a script and the redefine attsync method. 400 drawings doesn't take too long, and if I think it will take a long time I start the script as I go home and its all ready when I come in next morning.

 

I believe ObjectDBX can do this without opening the drawings but I don't know. Lee?

True, ObjectDBX can do it without opening drawings, and will process large quantities of drawings in very very little time.

This thread provides a lot more information and performance examples:

http://www.cadtutor.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37127

But, of course, whenever you use the save method with ObjectDBX you lose the drawing thumbnail - unless you use ObjectARX or .NET coding in conjunction with it.

But, of course, whenever you use the save method with ObjectDBX you lose the drawing thumbnail - unless you use ObjectARX or .NET coding in conjunction with it.

I don't get a consistent thumbnail anyway

True, most users are not bothered by the loss of a thumbnail, and it comes back as soon as you do a manual save - so its not too much of an issue really

True, most users are not bothered by the loss of a thumbnail, and it comes back as soon as you do a manual save - so its not too much of an issue really

It is an issue if you have file management software that ( realistically ) expects a thumbnail.

It is an issue if you have file management software that ( realistically ) expects a thumbnail.

Good point. I hadn't thought of that