ford347
2007-05-01, 10:10 PM
So now in RAC 2008, you can schedule wall sweeps. Good thing. So I started setting one up to see how I might make this work for all of my various foam shapes etc. in my project, then went to tag one of them and found out that you cannot tag wall sweeps. So I am left to wonder why you would want to schedule them, with the exception of an internal report or something.
My thinking here was that I have four projects, all with similar foam shapes. I would prefer not to draw a cut over every instance of every profile, so I thought I would maybe assign a type mark to each one, tag them, then in the schedule, show the type mark, profile name and a comments field. So I could then name my profiles, then in the comments field re-direct the reader to a general sheet that had the profiles detailed for dimensions etc. So whether or not they were used in combinations with others, they at least could be referenced and kept track of rather than addressing each individual instance of that shape in the model via section cut. I wanted to do this because I would like a little more information concerning the sweep from what a keynote may do for you by way of just providing a verbal explanation.
So I guess this is two parts; am I taking this way too far, or does this sound like a reasonable approach to staying organized? - or - should wall sweeps be taggable? Since they are not, how could I use a wall sweep schedule with no way to direct the reader from the wall sweep to the schedule?
Just curious how others have been handling this in their documentation.
Thanks
Josh
My thinking here was that I have four projects, all with similar foam shapes. I would prefer not to draw a cut over every instance of every profile, so I thought I would maybe assign a type mark to each one, tag them, then in the schedule, show the type mark, profile name and a comments field. So I could then name my profiles, then in the comments field re-direct the reader to a general sheet that had the profiles detailed for dimensions etc. So whether or not they were used in combinations with others, they at least could be referenced and kept track of rather than addressing each individual instance of that shape in the model via section cut. I wanted to do this because I would like a little more information concerning the sweep from what a keynote may do for you by way of just providing a verbal explanation.
So I guess this is two parts; am I taking this way too far, or does this sound like a reasonable approach to staying organized? - or - should wall sweeps be taggable? Since they are not, how could I use a wall sweep schedule with no way to direct the reader from the wall sweep to the schedule?
Just curious how others have been handling this in their documentation.
Thanks
Josh