autocad mechanical blocks 2013

[VALTER66]

Hello everyone! I've been to the 2013 version for a few days
How do I rename a block?
I'll explain.
with the 2009 version as with the 2005 version 2002 and 2000 I opened the block when I went to close it and I gave the command save changes references I could change the name of the block.
in 2004 (version I jumped ) nn you could change the name of the block to the closing as now in 2013 , there is a way to do it
greeting and thank you who will pay attention
Valter

 

[numero1]

But I brutally renounce all I want to rename with the ren command (English autocad).
if you have Italian should be be in (rename).
or write _ren and works on autocads of any language.
Hi.

 

[VALTER66]

But if I renounce with ren ..or rename ..or my lisp rb rename all the blocks... .
I want to rename only the block object of the change without having to explode and remake

 

[gianlucap]

But if I renounce with ren ..or rename ..or my lisp rb rename all the blocks... .
I want to rename only the block object of the change without having to explode and remake

It's very strange what you say. You don't have to explode.
to rename only the block you want just select the item you want to rename and under the old name where there is rename in put the name you want.
then recapitulating, from keyboard rename, where there is click elements with the mouse what you want to change, under where there is rename in put the name you want.
Hi.

 

[numero1]

boh for what can be said to be a yellow quot.

At this point I must confess that I have not understood anything.

Hi.

 

[tir]

I want to rename only the block object of the change without having to explode and remake

copyrenameblock

 

[numero1]

Now I understand, even if I don't understand why... in fact they will have equal blocks but with different name.
What are they for? then it is worth copying it, exploding it and doing it again with the new features.
even if they were symbols of a p&id, or equal from the graphic point, but different as characteristics, even if they were these I said ....... is it not better to make one only and change the content of any attributes within?
However, if he treated the block as ref. valter says he gave him the chance to change his name because now he doesn't give it to him +?? ?
What happened to the old blocks? to me it seems obvious that everyone and I say everyone changed their name.
I don't think there was a situation like that of the proposed lisp.
but maybe I still don't understand...
greetings

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I understood where he wants to go to parare valter but not having 2013 I can not give him any sermons. I try to explain to others.
in 2010 when you go in local modification of a block at the exit from this at the time of saving changes from the possibility to change both the name of the block and the origin.
if you change the block name that becomes a new block. if you change the origin but not the name all the blocks will undergo the change.
I also use this rename system: It can happen that some blocks (we learn the support of a cylinder) in some views of a set are completely visible, while in others or in section are partially hidden. with this system you place the block where you have to stay and change it locally in the context in which it is inserted. Obviously it will be a different block from others and through the option of the local modification I can make it independent.
there will probably be other cases where this function is useful, this is the most direct and the first that came to mind.
then recapitulating:
is a rescue option at the exit of the local change of a block
the block is renamed and becomes new and independent from what is derived.
has nothing to do with blocks with attributes
if you make massive use of blocks streams and speeds up work

 

[numero1]

..... if in one view the block is totally seen and in another only partially then, they must be graphically different, so:

1) copy original block
2) Exploding original block
3) change original lock
4) re-create new block with new name
5) insert the new block into the desired point

and the game is made.......

the only difference is that this change you want to make it inside the block without ever exploding it, and in this way maybe you will jump 1 or 2 steps.
does not seem to me (and I try to work with the blocks) such a great advantage.
Hi.

 

[numero1]

then with 2012 you can do what it says valter but in the editor of the blocks, not through the references ....... is different.
In the first case you have this possibility (save by name) and then you can insert the new block created by the insert command.
Hi.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

..... if in one view the block is totally seen and in another only partially then, they must be graphically different

in fact they are graphically different.

1) copy original block
2) Exploding original block
3) change original lock
4) re-create new block with new name
5) insert the new block into the desired point

and the game is made.......

the only difference is that this change you want to make it inside the block without ever exploding it, and in this way maybe you will jump 1 or 2 steps.
does not seem to me (and I try to work with the blocks) such a great advantage.
Hi.

It is not that you want, you can do it. Moreover the contextual modification (command refedit if not mistaken and is located under the tool menu>blocks> local reference) serves precisely to correct a block without having to explode. then if the block is complex, or the contour where it is inserted to explode, change it and redefine it by selecting each element can be long and subject to errors. in my opinion and experience is very convenient and simplifies life.
However it is not editor blocks with which you can create attributes, insert actions, and other wonders.

then with 2012 you can do what it says valter but in the editor of the blocks, not through the references ....... is different.
In the first case you have this possibility (save by name) and then you can insert the new block created by the insert command.

to achieve a result there are various roads, all valid.

 

[numero1]

with the refedit you cannot save by name...... as you want to make valter.
Unless there's any "short" option I lost.
for the rest I agree with you, if a block is overly complex maybe it is better not to explode it.
Hi.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I assure you that you can.
the command is amrefclose.
but only with mechanical, with autocad instead I was wrong it is not possible to do it.

 

[numero1]

Well... well another information.
Hello and thank you

 

[VALTER66]

Thank you! I understood what had happened!! in the lock command mechanical blocks the autodesk put me refclose...I changed from whose closing macro and I put amrefclose ..adesso works as in 2000-2002-2005-2009
Thank you! !

 

[gianlucap]

Thanks for the info I don't even know this and I apologize for not understanding you

 

[VALTER66]

working together you get great results! !
The team wins... ! ! !

 

[GiGa]

I can make some suggestions even if it usually burns.
said this we close it here that we are not in chat.
will see the moderator if giving a clean

to me that the way is bad doesn't matter!! ...you solved a problem with the blocks 2013 .. when the command was amrefclose... .
everyone has its own way... what matters is to solve problems...because companies in this period do not forgive! ! ! ! ! ! !
your experience and suggestions are always important!

@valter66
you, rightly, open a discussion dedicated to the specific problem... useless "disposing" this discussion with a problem that has nothing to do with it, except to "activate the attention of massivonweizen: for this there are other tools, firstly private messages. . .
I clean and invite you to wait for answers in the other discussion (which, among other things, will have more visibility than this)
Clean it up. . .