All of the holes are symmetric from the center line left to right and top to bottom. Can I detail out 1 quadrant and say 4X in the detail label? It has to be referenced from the main dowel pin hole where it is now.
Use a hole table.
that make just as big of a mess.
How does a hole table make "just as big of a mess"?
It outputs a massive table and all 113 holes have a letter call out. I cleaned up up like this...
Can you upload the part?
Incrementally dragging the inner jog points toward the part would help.
I agree hole table is much better
unless the dwg can be imported to CNC
the machinist can simply look the table and move the tool x and y for the holes
it's easy to make mistake to find the location of the holes from dimensions on the drawing
Sometimes a mess is just a mess. A hole table should be much easier for manufacturing to follow than to try and trace all those dimension line jogs.
Some alternatives (which could be used in any combination) ...
Use a larger view scale
Reduce the dimension font size
Place alternate ordinates on both sides of the part
Break the alignment and move alternate dims further out, or use multiple ordinate sets.
But a hole table would be the best solution.
I agree with using the hole table, and using as large of a drawing and view as possible.
Since you are using GD&T already, I've had great luck in the past using chain dimensioning scheme with basic dimensions and a quantity callout to clean up repetitive patterns. This is possible because there is no tolerance stack-up as the basic dimensions are theoretical. It may not help on this drawing since everything is so tight and your pattern is not rectangular.
I believe you could dimension one quadrant and then apply a symmetry tolerance about a horizontal and vertical centerline. But I would defer to the advice of someone more experienced for that.
Some would frown upon chain dimensioning for "ease of manufacturing" but realistically most everything runs off a CAD model these days (or DXF if laser). Even if a CNC is being programmed at the machine it's probably with a conversational control or macro that will be easier to type in (8x at 0.5in spacing) than a bunch of X, Y coordinates. Hole Table would aid someone drilling it out on a Bridgeport with a DRO or manual part inspection.
It's important to understand how the drawing will be used to determine the best method really.
As others have stated, I believe "what it is is what it is".
But that said, to save on clutter and potential errors on misreadings, I would suggest creating multiple "somewhat-duplicate" views:
I flipped through my Y14.5 looking for a kosher method for your post, but I didn't see something for this scenario.
But I think this is "kosher-enough" and it should improve your drawing's readability, but that's up to you and yours.
I hope this helps.
PS: Perhaps you're not there yet, but I was just wondering:
Another thought is to make the dims basic using text.
Adding BASIC after the <dim> is Y14.5 acceptable and since it's after (right of) the dimension value, the required amount of jog is less than the basic box, not only because of the box height but also because you must jog a little more to keep the box lines apart.
"BSC" is also acceptable but for your issue, it adds no value and will more likely raise questions.
Can you post the part?
Retrieving data ...