yup, not sure if I like groups being carried over or not. The more fancy the database gets, the more it is cross referenced between entity names and layers and text styles and app id's. It is getting to be too unstable and bloated. The way I would handle this is to have a util a user could run that would get rid of a list of things. This util would be core autocad. I would also automatically eliminate unused app ids and not let them infect other drawings. We need this so bad, we would pay extra for it - something fast and stable, not a 3rd party add on. Experienced users are willing to pay for upgrades and subscription, we just want what we want, not what adesk decides to hype in the next version. The bigger they are, the harder they fall though. As an industry, we need a common open database format badly. Not sure if thats like asking for communism though. Maybe that would demotivate development of higher tools due to lack of large chunks of capital.
I think its a matter of time.
"Rudy Tovar"
|>I agree that plain junk shouldn't be caried over, but leave the good data |>like xdata alone. You knowd the odd thing is that groups don't get carried |>over, or at least in the older autocad versions, I haven't really tested it |>on 2004. |> |>We had our own custom utilities that I showed you James using Groups, but If |>we copy clipped them over to another drawing they fell apart. I felt it |>should have at least check the drawing and prompt to confirm overwrite or |>just add it to the drawing. Instead they didn't even get carried over.
James Maeding
Civil Engineer/Programmer