Topic Title

when are we going to get the ability to enter xclips by fence, this is of critical importance for making xrefs usable.

Hello Paul & welcome,

This has been on the "official" wish list for a while now. (BTW, you can post your ideas in the Wish List section on this forum, or email them to WishList@DataCAD.com)

Here's a workaround that can work for an 'L' shaped X-Clip Cube, or any other shape for that matter:

Insert two (or more) XRef's -- do one first and X-Clip it for one "leg" of the 'L' and then insert another copy of the same XRef (on maybe another layer?) and the X-Clip it for the other "leg". If you place them both at Absolute Zero, or snap to the same insertion point to align them -- and voila!

aaah the official wish list, each week I look in vain for some sign that the significant upgrade is progressing, but nothing is forthcoming, meanwhile I watch as spirit disappears over the horizon, I note that most of the other medium size firms in our city have already switched, and yet loyalty holds me back, but only for so long.

Hello Paul,

I know what you mean -- new features never seem to come quickly as one would want them. But OTOH, I use XRef's all the time -- each file in one of our drawing sets has at least 5 or 6 XRef's, and some have about 20! I find them extremely useful as they are. In an earlier post, I give a general outline of how how use them.

Another level of sophistication that can help make them useful, is to use the Z heights of entities vs the X-CC to include or exclude things -- so you can "overlay" a section on an elevation; reusing a portion of the elevation as the background -- and more importantly, forcing close coordination of the details. I'll try to post some images of examples of what I mean; when I get back to work this coming week.

Yes I am aware of the use of z height in the xclip function and use it extensively. I also agree that no cad package can keep up with it's users wish list, but some cad packages seem to be doing a far better job of improving their programmes than datacad at the moment. In the past I could clearly see a competetive advantage from using datacad, never because of price but because it was built for architects. The generic engineering cad packages with architectural add ons have corrected their failure in this regard now (microstation/autocad) and leapt ahead at exploring the 3d/drafting/documentation interface. This is an area which may not bear productive fruit for some time. But one thing is for sure and that is that when it does I do not want to be on the team still trying to start a fire with two sticks. Yes datacad has been a great tool and it still does do all those basic things as well as any other cad package. But it is failing to move with the times- archicad/vectorworks xref directly into C4d, thus solving all rendering issues (this willl not be satisfied by a sketchup link), spirit has boolean functions and a functional if primitive datacase model. Microstation Triforma and Autocad Revit are starting to achieve results in the search for an intelligent modeling method. Certainly we won't be entrusting a set of construction documents to that direction for a while, but there lies a future that we can all see the benefits of. 10 years ago a significant number of my contemporaries still held the view that hand drawn is best, now locked into their reduced skill set they are marginalised by the mainstream construction industry who will only accept a cad approach. The risk of failing to maintain contact with what could become one day the industry standard and as result require a cataclysmic shift in work methods with resultant downtime and capital outlay is too great. At the moment my hope is that the failure to make progress is the result of an ultimately successful effort to achieve the correct direction into theis new field of endeavour, and I have been hanging on in that hope. My hope however is fading. At a minimum there needs to be interoperability with autocad files, true 3d modeling capability, intelligent document set production and management tools (like reordering multiscale plot capability- needed to ensure sets can be printed in order, intelligent title blocks, detail references, section markers, drawing numbers) rudimentary inteligent objects (editable wall/window/door types), recognition of specific drawing types (plans, sections. elevations, reflected ceiling plans). That is a beginning of an understanding that whilst we would like to create a bit more in 3d we still output the info in standardised 2d formats.

By the way to all the people who claim this direction cannot yield the desired document results should have a look at the Eureka tower in Melbourne by Nation Fender Katsalidis, a project documented in archicad.