Topic: Wipeouts, Hatches or Solids ?

[CAB]

Please report any problems you may have had with a particular method.

[Krushert]

I prefer Wipeouts. 

Use to have a problem (wipouts printing solid black) with some plotting PDFs that were created with PDF writers that were not DWG to PDF driver.  But I believe (because I never got a definitive answer) was the plotters drivers.  They (the print shops) had a service tech come out and fiddled with something.

But that seems old news now.   

[bchapman]

I tend to stick with background masks for Mtext / Dims.... try to avoid wipeouts...have lots of problems with them on my end...flop draw order, copy / paste issues (they don't stay attached to text), etc.

[StykFacE]

I do not use Wipeouts, but Solid Hatches for masking objects. My methods include:

• DWG's using a STB Plot Style, I have a named plot style called "Mask" and the screening is set to 0%.
• DWG's using a CTB Plot Style, I have either a designated color set to 0% screening, or the "quick way" is to use True Color of 255,255,255 to any object. This is true white, which AutoCAD simply leaves blank for plotting. This works for PDF's as well.

I have had zero issues with these methods. Plus, it isn't constrained to only Solid Hatch... you can apply these techniques to just about any object (PLINE, LINE, ARC, CIRCLE, TEXT, etc). Hatches are limited only to your needs or desire, so creating a very complicated mask using my method seems far easier than with wipeouts.

Plus, wipeouts have always been, and continue to be problematic at times. They have caused solid black spots on PDF outputs, they're a raster entity so can bloat the file, and people have pulled their hair out in the past figuring out why there's a border around them as many people don't realize there's a FRAME option to them, which is one more thing to add when it comes to quality control.

My humble $0.02 anyways.

[Krushert]

^  Interesting!  Thanks for the ideas.

[CAB]

Good info Tanner.
I see from this thread http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=43285.0 that some may use color 254,254,254

In that past I have had solid hatches go wonky on me, sort of like getting you points mixed up when making a solid.
Don't remember the particulars though.

[StykFacE]

Good info Tanner.

Glad to help. Good thread topic too!! Thanks for starting it.

[CAB]

I only use STB Plot Style and I have a named plot style called "Wipeout"  with the screening is set to 0%.  Also color set to 254 just in case.

[ronjonp]

I use solid hatches color 255.

[StykFacE]

I only use STB Plot Style and I have a named plot style called "Wipeout"  with the screening is set to 0%.  Also color set to 254 just in case.

Are you saying this is how you've always done it, or are you trying this method from here on out? If you're trying this method from here on out, keep us posted on how you like it. I'd love to hear your response.

[CAB]

That's the way I have always done it. I also have a LAYER called WIPEOUT with that plot style.

[cadpoobah]

Interesting discussion, all!

I tend to jump between solid hatches and wipeouts. I'll use wipeouts for simple masks, and hatches for complex areas. Haven't used Solids for a loooong time.

My wipeout Rule of thumb: wipeout frames are always turned off. I even toggle them off by default during startup. This gives me full flexibility in how I create the wipeout; I don't have to worry about the frame lines showing up or plotting. I use R. K. McSwain's WF.LSP toggle function http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/NET/Toggle-wipeout-frames/td-p/2514855 (WF for short) to toggle the frames on and off as needed during creating or editing.

However, after reading StykFacE's post about wipeout's being rasters and causing bloat, I may reconsider.

Solid hatches work nice, except for the color issue. I use 255,255,255 and it works great, if you have a white background in AutoCAD. Unfortunately, not all our users do. So for those with black (or anything other than white) backgrounds, it can be a challenge. I really, really wish that you could choose a "background" color, similar to Mtext masking.

[danallen]

For masking in plans & elevations I like hatches, color 250, and we define that as a white pen in the CTB. Also used color 255, but the glare is annoying.

For symbols we often use wipeouts so the mask isn't noticeable. I've found that if we use wipeouts in elevations & plans, multiple people working in the drawing can get confused or lose the wipeout in the draworder, if the frames have been turned off. (Why isn't that are of the drawing plotting?...) People don't miss the masks.

Haven't seen problems with bloat. As I recall a wipeout is a 1x1 pixel raster, minimal file size.

[CAB]

Interesting discussion, all!

Welcome to the Swamp. 

I use mText Mask & Dimension mask for those objects.
http://www.lee-mac.com/mask.html
http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=42483.msg477142#msg477142

All others I use Wipeouts & haven't had a problem. Although panning can be slow when zoomed out & lots of wipeouts.

[ChrisCarlson]

Giving this a little bump as documentation on this issue is a tidge scarce.

I am using a named plot style and when I plot directly to our laser the background mask is a very light grey, almost 5% screening ( we have 1.5 offset and use background color selected) It's almost as if ACAD does not know what the "background" color of the plot is. I attempted to use lee-mac's mask lisp but the same output. I almost think this is an issue within my plot style, not sure but open to suggestions?  :kewl: