TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => Topic started by: CADaver on August 11, 2007, 09:27:30 PM
-
sorry Joe,...
Someone goes to all the trouble of adding the intelligence of the third dimension, and someone writes a function to kill it. Why not explode the Dim's while you're at it?
-
While I half agree with Cadaver, I also know that I've worked on some drawings where bits and pieces were all over the place. Just plain wrong. This would be perfect for those ones, but as Randy mentioned, it would / could be a shame to blast away all of the work done in a drawing that was properly done in 3D.
Thanks for posting! :)
-
Why? Because I need a file like the attached example to be flat when I use it as an xref.
Look at it from front view. I think you'll see what I mean.
Regards
-
This is going to be long show. :lol:
*** Runs out to get 5gal bucket of popcorn and a 2 gal big gulp ***
:-) :-)
-
sorry Joe,...
Someone goes to all the trouble of adding the intelligence of the third dimension, and someone writes a function to kill it. Why not explode the Dim's while you're at it?
Dude, why not ease up on the misanthrope act? :-o
You CERTAINLY realize that adding 3D does NOT equal adding intelligence. We have flattened many client drawings where the 3D was unintended and undetected by the original user, and constituted nothing more than the random blitherings of an ill-configured 3D program being used for 2D or just plain used incorrectly.
I realise that being old and wise gives one the right to be cranky, but please avoid exasperating the young and ambitious just for sport. Particularly in cases like this where it also calls your wisdom into question.
-
This is going to be long show. :lol:
*** Runs out to get 5gal bucket of popcorn and a 2 gal big gulp ***
:-) :-)
(Pssst! Get the one with free refills.)
-
I definately need to flatten drawings at times.
And I think a 2d drawing is not too much to ask for, but it is becoming harder to get.
It's possibile to draw all the rebar in 3d. Fine, leave it in a special drawing but I definately don't need to be snapping to rebar or having a drawing so slow that is unusable.
How much intelligence do I need from the rebar, none. (Oh maybe we'll never need to x-ray again as the plan showed there would be no rebar right there. :lmao:)
-
Yes, I too have seen files like that. A file so obviously corrupted calls into serious question the validity of any other information contained therein. Relying on the accuracy of data from such a broken file is a poor bet. As we are ultimately responsible for the integrity of our files, we choose not to use questionable information from questionable files, even if it cuts a few corners.
"Misanthrope"?? I fear you have either misunderstood the definition of the word or me. Either way you couldn't be further from the truth. (ditto "Cranky") The poster asked for comments, I commented. If such comments exasperate the young and ambitious, then they should probably avoid posting where such comments may occur.
The auto-detailing of reinforcing requires a high level of intelligence to be embedded in the 3D model.
<no butter on mine, thank you>
-
All,
Given the example file I posted and select all, the ExpressTools flatten command (using 2008) fails after about 30 seconds with an error fixnump: nil. Front view shows little or nothing changed. SuperFlatten does the job correctly in 8 seconds on my machine. Assuming the Overkill option is not used.
-
We run across this on old drawings (pre-adt). Were people use old drawings in ADT but have there elevation set to something weird, so when you are trying to add new content you realize that you not getting the correct snap point. Go into to a ISO elevation and you see about 4 to 5 differant levels :ugly: . We also elevate our detail callout so that when we hide the VP the area under the detail balloon masks the hatch below, well sometime the VP get reset to As Displayed so when people plot them the detail callouts are not hidden so the first thing they do is raise them 12". To make an ugly story short they may raise them 4-5 time before they think to check the VP properties and realize the VP wasn't set to hide well they never go back to fix the detail bubbles, which by this time are about 6' above the plan :pissed: .
So anyway thanks Joe.
-
This is going to be long show. :lol:
*** Runs out to get 5gal bucket of popcorn and a 2 gal big gulp ***
:-) :-)
(http://www.theswamp.org/lilly_pond/index.php?dir=slim/&file=popcorn2.gif)
-
"Misanthrope"?? I fear you have either misunderstood the definition of the word or me.
* fires up Google.... *
* types in 'define:Misanthrope' *
Ummmm.... WOW! That's harsh!
*psssst* I don't think he really meant that.
Definitions of Misanthrope on the Web:
- someone who dislikes people in general
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=2&oi=define&q=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dmisanthrope&usg=AFQjCNGj1QoX6P0ELSvw0No26HE-liuWIQ) - Misanthropy is a general dislike of the human race. It is not dislike of individual human beings, but rather dislike of the features shared by all humanity throughout place and time, including oneself. A misanthrope is thus a person who exhibits a general dislike of humankind.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthrope (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=3&oi=define&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthrope&usg=AFQjCNE4JJi0Rw2MCPKIT8pt0VIAZQIIVQ)
-
<OK, I'm gonna get way O.T. here, but this is something that is stuck in my craw & needs to be coughed up.>
My apologies Randy, but when a guy spends a year working on a new program that fulfils a clear need, posts it here for us to all try, and then has you compare him and his work so unfavorably--well that got my dander up a bit.
Anyhow, I don't think you are a misanthrope, but just that I saw you as acting like one. Sometimes I'll do the same thing as a joke, but your comments didn't come off as any joke to me. Perhaps because in your business nothing less than 3D will do, you treated Joe like some Luddite trying to reinstate the Dark Ages.
There are lots of businesses where the overhead of 3D isn't wanted nor justified--at least not in its present incarnations, and certainly not in the form that most clients seem to be providing it to us. In our business, there is a liability in providing too much information. Anything we provide over and above that strictly required to constrain and deliniate the work represents a potential not only for undetected error but is potential ammo for the opposition in the event of a lawsuit. Incorrect or misconfigured 3D info that trickles down from a client or consultant drawing into our drawings is a total hazard, and we filter it out before passing anything down the line.
Remember that we're not engineering multi-billion dollar nuclear powerplants. Our business is mainly wood-framed and CMU school projects in the $2M~$50M range. Programs like Joe's (and no, I haven't tested it yet, but I will) are definately needed in my world. To see you denigrate his work on the open forum in such an off-hand manner...well, I simply couldn't let it pass unchallenged.
-
I feel like exploding some dimensions...
-
I feel like exploding some dimensions...
I think I'm going to explode all my blocks and do a superpurge too.
-
I feel like exploding some dimensions...
I think I'm going to explode all my blocks and do a superpurge too.
Get a here, ya bunch of Luddites. :lol: :lol:
-
Nice job on the routine, thanks for posting.
BTW, perhaps a better term for you know who is curmudgeon.
-
1.) Joe has been doing this for quite some time and is more than capable of taking care of himself.
2.) I’m still curious how questioning an application becomes misanthropic.
3.) Dogged adherence to an arcane method does seem Luddite now that you mention it. Maybe someday we’ll leave the “Dark Ages” and break the wasteful mindset of the duplication of effort required for 2D modeling.
4.) Even in pencil drafting, the data required for the third dimension is required to construct. There is no such thing as a 2D construction. Crippling the 3D data in a file requires that information be transmitted in some other format, no longer connected to the original data. Sorry, but that INCREASES liability.
5.) Incorrect 3D information will still be incorrect once flattened, only it’ll now be incorrect 2D information. Not sure how that helps. A drawing that is a “total hazard” will not become magically pristine by being stepped upon.
6.) Even a wood frame school house needs an elevation and that information must be passed to the constructor in some fashion. (See note #4 above)
7.) If you will read my post very carefully you will notice that I did not denigrate his work, but his concept. Knowing Joe’s capabilities as I do, I’m quite sure the program is exemplary. However, I’m not looking forward to even more returning files with empty elevation viewports.
-
1.) Joe has been doing this for quite some time and is more than capable of taking care of himself.
Point taken.
2.) I’m still curious how questioning an application becomes misanthropic.
OK, "misanthropic" has been addressed, but you didn't "question it". You compared it to some truly stupid maneuver.
3.) Dogged adherence to an arcane method does seem Luddite now that you mention it. Maybe someday we’ll leave the “Dark Ages” and break the wasteful mindset of the duplication of effort required for 2D modeling.
Right now, that duplication of effort is less effort than constructing a 3D model. Perhaps if our clients supplied us with a reasonably good 3D model of their work to start from, this wouldn't be the issue that it is. So far, this has never happened.
4.) Even in pencil drafting, the data required for the third dimension is required to construct. There is no such thing as a 2D construction. Crippling the 3D data in a file requires that information be transmitted in some other format, no longer connected to the original data. Sorry, but that INCREASES liability.
"Crippling 3D data in a file" was not my issue. Getting rid of incorrect and dead-weight 3D data is our problem. I don't doubt that a good 3D model is far more useful than any 2D model. Again, we've never received one. What we do receive, on a regular basis, is dangerous stuff to the unwary. I'm not about to pass that on from my office.
5.) Incorrect 3D information will still be incorrect once flattened, only it’ll now be incorrect 2D information. Not sure how that helps. A drawing that is a “total hazard” will not become magically pristine by being stepped upon.
The 2D coordinates are usually very good. An 8' high toilet, however is more correct once flattened, and I won't even mention the idiocy of 8' tall text in the model. (oops!) Rake walls that are flat on top in the 3D view are worse than wrong. They are misleading. So much of the "data" we receive is like this. A good dose of flatten and overkill removes the incorrect part of the data, leaving data people can actually use without being mislead.
6.) Even a wood frame school house needs an elevation and that information must be passed to the constructor in some fashion. (See note #4 above)
I've been drawing elevations for 30 years, and people have been building from them. Would I rather "view" them than "draw" them? Of course. I am no Luddite (except, I admit, when it comes to cell phones.) Again, the data we're getting is untenable for such purpose.
7.) If you will read my post very carefully you will notice that I did not denigrate his work, but his concept.
A difference, yet not much of a distinction. You belittle the very necessity of his work and imply that it is in fact a bad idea; and I say you are wrong. Not all of us have the luxury of a world where such tools are superfluous. For some of us they are a blessing.
-
Step right up folks. Grab a snack. I have a feeling this is just the beginning!
-
how many boxes of Dots can I get for 3.75$ ???
-
(http://www.theswamp.org/lilly_pond/Maverick/AwJeez.jpg)
-
I'll take a Crunch bar, and a Large Sprite please.
<Fanning the flames> I don't know, I think Cadaver has a good point. It's just that some things that work for one do not necessarily work for all. If I actually took the time to create all my work "Correctly", things wouldn't get done as timely as they do. So I take shortcuts. Will this bite me in the arse later, probably.<Fanning the flames>
-
If I have a simple equipment skid, I draw it in 2D.
Say it's 25' long, 8' wide... I drawn all my beams and braces in 2D, despite my love of 3d for structural projects... why? Because it's a simple skid, and it does take me less time to draw it 2D. If the equipment manufacturer or client sends me a 3d model of the equipment to go on this skid, I'm going to flatten it. Why? Because if I draw a line and snap to any point on that 3d model, I have no idea what elevation it will snap to. In plan it may look fine, but if I use "di"stance command to check some lengths, I might end up with incorrect values that are a hassle to deal with.
Flatten has it's quite valid and useful applications, and to deny the validity of the existence of a tool across the board just because you do things differently in your own little world, is ludicrous. ...dangit now I have a crappy rap song in my head.
-
If I have a simple equipment skid, I draw it in 2D.
Say it's 25' long, 8' wide... I drawn all my beams and braces in 2D, despite my love of 3d for structural projects... why? Because it's a simple skid, and it does take me less time to draw it 2D. If the equipment manufacturer or client sends me a 3d model of the equipment to go on this skid, I'm going to flatten it. Why? Because if I draw a line and snap to any point on that 3d model, I have no idea what elevation it will snap to. In plan it may look fine, but if I use "di"stance command to check some lengths, I might end up with incorrect values that are a hassle to deal with.
Flatten has it's quite valid and useful applications, and to deny the validity of the existence of a tool across the board just because you do things differently in your own little world, is ludicrous. ...dangit now I have a crappy rap song in my head.
*cough* OSNAPZ *cough*
-
...I have no idea what elevation it will snap to...
It'll snap to the nearest end/mid etc. of the current UCS.
-
If I have a simple equipment skid, I draw it in 2D.
Say it's 25' long, 8' wide... I drawn all my beams and braces in 2D, despite my love of 3d for structural projects... why? Because it's a simple skid, and it does take me less time to draw it 2D. If the equipment manufacturer or client sends me a 3d model of the equipment to go on this skid, I'm going to flatten it. Why? Because if I draw a line and snap to any point on that 3d model, I have no idea what elevation it will snap to. In plan it may look fine, but if I use "di"stance command to check some lengths, I might end up with incorrect values that are a hassle to deal with.
Flatten has it's quite valid and useful applications, and to deny the validity of the existence of a tool across the board just because you do things differently in your own little world, is ludicrous. ...dangit now I have a crappy rap song in my head.
*cough* OSNAPZ *cough*
Yes, but I guarantee I wouldn't remember that until after I was done and saw lines returning values 10x the length they should be.
-
...I have no idea what elevation it will snap to...
It'll snap to the nearest end/mid etc. of the current UCS.
Only if using 2d drawing tools. Simply lines can be drawn across all 3 axes.
-
2.) I’m still curious how questioning an application becomes misanthropic.
OK, "misanthropic" has been addressed, but you didn't "question it". You compared it to some truly stupid maneuver.
hmmm… I’ve heard many arguments for exploding dimensions that are every bit as valid as those offered here for stepping on a 3D file. Why is that “stupid” and this not??
3.) Dogged adherence to an arcane method does seem Luddite now that you mention it. Maybe someday we’ll leave the “Dark Ages” and break the wasteful mindset of the duplication of effort required for 2D modeling.
Right now, that duplication of effort is less effort than constructing a 3D model.
?? Doing something twice is less effort than doing it once?? … okay.
Perhaps if our clients supplied us with a reasonably good 3D model of their work to start from, this wouldn't be the issue that it is. So far, this has never happened.
maybe they’re Luddites??
"Crippling 3D data in a file" was not my issue. Getting rid of incorrect and dead-weight 3D data is our problem. I don't doubt that a good 3D model is far more useful than any 2D model. Again, we've never received one. What we do receive, on a regular basis, is dangerous stuff to the unwary. I'm not about to pass that on from my office.
Stepping on it will NOT make it suddenly “safe”. If the data is incorrect, it will remain incorrect.
5.) Incorrect 3D information will still be incorrect once flattened, only it’ll now be incorrect 2D information. Not sure how that helps. A drawing that is a “total hazard” will not become magically pristine by being stepped upon.
The 2D coordinates are usually very good. An 8' high toilet, however is more correct once flattened, and I won't even mention the idiocy of 8' tall text in the model. (oops!) Rake walls that are flat on top in the 3D view are worse than wrong. They are misleading. So much of the "data" we receive is like this. A good dose of flatten and overkill removes the incorrect part of the data, leaving data people can actually use without being mislead.
If the designer building the data, can NOT place the toilet in the right location vertically, what makes you so sure that he can place it correctly horizontally? Knowing that fully one-third of the data is garbage, you’re willing to rely on the other two-thirds as accurate?? That’s a bad bet.
6.) Even a wood frame school house needs an elevation and that information must be passed to the constructor in some fashion. (See note #4 above)
I've been drawing elevations for 30 years, and people have been building from them. Would I rather "view" them than "draw" them? Of course. I am no Luddite (except, I admit, when it comes to cell phones.) Again, the data we're getting is untenable for such purpose.
You claim you’re no Luddite, and yet you admit to using techniques that are thirty years old. Would not failing to embrace the technological edge place you firmly under that banner??
You also admit that the files you get are untenable, and yet you’re willing to place your trust in two-thirds of such an untenable file.
7.) If you will read my post very carefully you will notice that I did not denigrate his work, but his concept.
A difference, yet not much of a distinction. You belittle the very necessity of his work and imply that it is in fact a bad idea; and I say you are wrong. Not all of us have the luxury of a world where such tools are superfluous. For some of us they are a blessing.
You say it’s a good idea, I say it’s a bad idea; such is life is it not? Executing his little routine on one of our files would be a VERY bad idea, leaving some three-quarters of the drawings for that construct empty and impacting several other files relying on that model.
-
Randy, are you not reqd to supply a 2d plan at all?
-
I think the biggest problem most are talking about is when you get a set of drawings that have been 'exported' from ADT or similar, they are a mess to say the least!
-
hmmm… I’ve heard many arguments for exploding dimensions that are every bit as valid as those offered here for stepping on a 3D file. Why is that “stupid” and this not??
Comparing the unnecessary exploding of dimensions to the necessity of making a workable 2D file out of an unworkable 3D file is senseless.
Doing something twice is less effort than doing it once?? … okay.
Doing what we do is less work than re-working client drawings into viable 3D. Please quit trying to make more of it than that.
maybe they’re Luddites??
Doubtless, but I'm not about to make that observation to our clients.
Stepping on it will NOT make it suddenly “safe”. If the data is incorrect, it will remain incorrect.
No it takes a good deal of care to make it safe. Flattening is just the first step there.
If the designer building the data, can NOT place the toilet in the right location vertically, what makes you so sure that he can place it correctly horizontally? Knowing that fully one-third of the data is garbage, you’re willing to rely on the other two-thirds as accurate?? That’s a bad bet.
I don't "rely" on anything I don't have to. I make it as accurate as necessary. I'd like to have better clients, but I don't get to pick the clients. Lucky for you, if you do.
You claim you’re no Luddite, and yet you admit to using techniques that are thirty years old. Would not failing to embrace the technological edge place you firmly under that banner?? You also admit that the files you get are untenable, and yet you’re willing to place your trust in two-thirds of such an untenable file.
Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said that at all.
You say it’s a good idea, I say it’s a bad idea; such is life is it not? Executing his little routine on one of our files would be a VERY bad idea, leaving some three-quarters of the drawings for that construct empty and impacting several other files relying on that model.
Yeah, well I'm not working on YOUR drawings, so that whole observation is simply nonsense in the context of this discussion.
-
I think the biggest problem most are talking about is when you get a set of drawings that have been 'exported' from ADT or similar, they are a mess to say the least!
It's generally worse than that. These are drawings from people that bought into ADT but don't really know how to use it. This becomes very clear once you see their CAD files. They couldn't draw a doghouse in 3D.
-
Randy, are you not reqd to supply a 2d plan at all?
We plot different views of the 3D model, some of those views are plan views (slices looking down the Z axis) some of them are elevations (looking at the outside of the structure or whatever) some are sectional (slices looking down the X and Y axes normal to the structure).
-
If I have a simple equipment skid, I draw it in 2D.
Say it's 25' long, 8' wide... I drawn all my beams and braces in 2D, despite my love of 3d for structural projects... why? Because it's a simple skid, and it does take me less time to draw it 2D.
Then you're doing something wrong, shouldn't take any longer at all to place a 3D member, especially if you're defaulting Z to the current elevation.
If the equipment manufacturer or client sends me a 3d model of the equipment to go on this skid, I'm going to flatten it. Why? Because if I draw a line and snap to any point on that 3d model, I have no idea what elevation it will snap to. In plan it may look fine, but if I use "di"stance command to check some lengths, I might end up with incorrect values that are a hassle to deal with.
You'll end up with incorrect values only if you build it incorrectly.
Flatten has it's quite valid and useful applications, and to deny the validity of the existence of a tool across the board just because you do things differently in your own little world, is ludicrous. ...dangit now I have a crappy rap song in my head.
And there are folks posting on this very forum with equally "valid" reasons for exploding dimensions. I disagree.
-
I think the biggest problem most are talking about is when you get a set of drawings that have been 'exported' from ADT or similar, they are a mess to say the least!
I prefer not to use cr4ppy drawings, even if they are flat.
-
hmmm… I’ve heard many arguments for exploding dimensions that are every bit as valid as those offered here for stepping on a 3D file. Why is that “stupid” and this not??
Comparing the unnecessary exploding of dimensions to the necessity of making a workable 2D file out of an unworkable 3D file is senseless.
Stepping on an unworkable file makes it a flat unworkable file, and there are folks on this forum that have offered equally "valid" reasons for exploding dimensions. I disagree with both concepts. If you choose to use "flat" garbage carry on, however, I see little advantage over 3D garbage.
Doing something twice is less effort than doing it once?? … okay.
Doing what we do is less work than re-working client drawings into viable 3D. Please quit trying to make more of it than that.
Drawing plans and then sections and then elevations, is an unnecessary duplication of effort.
Stepping on it will NOT make it suddenly “safe”. If the data is incorrect, it will remain incorrect.
No it takes a good deal of care to make it safe. Flattening is just the first step there.
Unless you're going to physically check EVERY element in the file (see the sample Joe provided), at some point you're relying on data supplied from what you already know is a questionable source. That's a bad bet.
If the designer building the data, can NOT place the toilet in the right location vertically, what makes you so sure that he can place it correctly horizontally? Knowing that fully one-third of the data is garbage, you’re willing to rely on the other two-thirds as accurate?? That’s a bad bet.
I don't "rely" on anything I don't have to. I make it as accurate as necessary. I'd like to have better clients, but I don't get to pick the clients. Lucky for you, if you do.
If they provide cr4p, I'll rebuild it completely from scratch and bill them for it... or get a complete release of ALL liability for the accuracy of the design.
You claim you’re no Luddite, and yet you admit to using techniques that are thirty years old. Would not failing to embrace the technological edge place you firmly under that banner?? You also admit that the files you get are untenable, and yet you’re willing to place your trust in two-thirds of such an untenable file.
Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said that at all.
You said you'd been drawing elevations for thirty years, did you not? We can go back a few posts and check if you want? Some dozen years ago it became quite easy to view 3D models in elevation, making it no longer necessary to "redraw" the very same data for each elevation. Adhering to the ways of the past would fall quite comfortably under the Luddite flag.
You say it's a good idea, I say it's a bad idea; such is life is it not? Executing his little routine on one of our files would be a VERY bad idea, leaving some three-quarters of the drawings for that construct empty and impacting several other files relying on that model.
Yeah, well I'm not working on YOUR drawings, so that whole observation is simply nonsense in the context of this discussion.
Your claim that the concept is a good idea is based solely on the drawings you use, just as my claim that the concept is a bad idea is based on the drawings I use. Are they not equally valid for our frames of reference?
-
Yeah, well I'm not working on YOUR drawings, so that whole observation is simply nonsense in the context of this discussion.
Your claim that the concept is a good idea is based solely on the drawings you use, just as my claim that the concept is a bad idea is based on the drawings I use. Are they not equally valid for our frames of reference?
Hmmmm I think this is a different version of PeeWee's "I know you are but what am I"
-
heads up guys . . . they just started the last batch of popcorn in the place and the only drinks left are lemonade and iced tea (and they ran out of ice 20 minutes ago)
-
heads up guys . . . they just started the last batch of popcorn in the place and the only drinks left are lemonade and iced tea (and they ran out of ice 20 minutes ago)
*** followed by the sounds of feet stampeding and people "yelling out of my way!" ***
-
I think the biggest problem most are talking about is when you get a set of drawings that have been 'exported' from ADT or similar, they are a mess to say the least!
It's generally worse than that. These are drawings from people that bought into ADT but don't really know how to use it. This becomes very clear once you see their CAD files. They couldn't draw a doghouse in 3D.
Word up to that!
In our line of work, 3D drawings aren't all that important right now. Sure we'll generate some 3D drawings if space is critical, but as far as 3D from the architect...we don't really need it, plus it just bogs down our systems. It's bad enough that we're using ABS/MEP which is a resource hog itself. If we have simple 2D backgrounds, that's (usually) good enough.
I haven't had a chance to try the proggy yet, but I have downloaded it. If it works as good as Joe claims it does, then I'm definitely going to use it.
Thanks (in advance) Joe!
-
Randy,
I agree with you regarding the idea, if I may paraphrase, garbage in garbage out. Likewise, I certainly do not feel comfortable with any attempt at fixing other people's mistakes. Especially when that other person is a consultant who should know more about what they are doing than I do.
The flip side is sometimes I have to compromise between what I wish I had and what I have inhand. Maybe just to meet a deadline.
What I intend to do given the Site example file I posted is send the program to the consultant and ask them to fix things as they see fit.
Which leads to my point here. SuperFlatten is just a tool like any other. Users are free to use or abuse it as they see fit. That is not and should not be my concern from a programming standpoint.
Aside to those who said thanks, my pleasure. I hope it serves you well.
Regards
-
Randy, I think you're trying to exasperate me by repeating the same old <excrement>, so I'm gonna get mad here; but his is my last round of dead horse beating on this topic.
To 3D or not to 3D is NOT the question here and it never was. It's totally obtuse that you keep trying to make it seem so; but perhaps relative to your world the real issue this topic addresses doesn't even exist.
If you tried that "redraw the thing from scratch and bill the client" <excrement> in our business you'd either be without clients in a heartbeat or they'd just tell you to go whistle up a drainpipe because they ain't paying for it. I'm not going to try and educate you further in that matter, because then I'd have to bill you and you wouldn't pay either.
Are things less than cutting edge in this business? Absolutely. Are we gonna change the M.O. of the whole market segment by force of will and dogged determination? Not bloody likely. Am I losing sleep over it? Nope. When the clients can send us viable 3D, we'll send them 3D back. End of story.
As for the Luddite thing: kiss off. We have real computers and we can work them. If we're not NASA or Bechtel, well so freakin' what? We do what makes sense with what we are given, and the fact that you think what we do is wrong doesn't alter the fact that virtually everybody in this segment is doing the same thing.
Public school design isn't what you do as a specialty, so pardon me if I don't bother with the pointless task of explaining the issues further.
edited for language
-
my last round of dead horse beating on this topic
Sorry... Couldn't resist!
-
Thanks for the entertainment :-)
craigr
-
Sorry about the language, Dino. I thought I'd cleaned it all up before I hit post.
-
edited for language
Lemme guess.... Mandarin?
-
Sorry about the language, Dino. I thought I'd cleaned it all up before I hit post.
eh . . . scat happens sometimes :-D
-
. . . scat happens sometimes :-D
Scibbitty bop de dew bop di bip boo ding!
-
edited for language
Lemme guess.... Mandarin?
just well salted "good ol' boy speak"
-
edited for language
Lemme guess.... Mandarin?
just well salted "good ol' boy speak"
must be why reading was so easy for me :p
-
Randy, I think you're trying to exasperate me by repeating the same old <excrement>,
As long as you keep missing the point I'll repeat it.
but his is my last round of dead horse beating on this topic.
That's a bet.
To 3D or not to 3D is NOT the question here and it never was. It's totally obtuse that you keep trying to make it seem so;
Therein lies the point you've been missing all along. There is 3D, what I do. Then there is "broken drawings", what you're trying to fix by stepping on. Once stepped upon they are still broken, only flat. Using "Flatten" on what I do is a very bad idea, it ruins a lot of work. Using "Flatten" to fix a broken drawing is an equally bad idea in that all it does is make the bad drawing flat.
The reason I keep talking about 3D as an issue (we have at least two going here) is you keep saying you don't need it, and yet you go on to say you've been drawing elevations for thirty years. Well which is it??
If you tried that "redraw the thing from scratch and bill the client" <excrement> in our business you'd either be without clients in a heartbeat or they'd just tell you to go whistle up a drainpipe because they ain't paying for it.
Somebody is paying for the extra work, if you like repairing their drawings for free, carry on. I don't work for free. Nor do I expose my company to the liability of someone else's bad file. If you don't mind setting yourself up to pay for somebody elses back charges, carry on. I prefer profits.
Are things less than cutting edge in this business? Absolutely. Are we gonna change the M.O. of the whole market segment by force of will and dogged determination? Not bloody likely. Am I losing sleep over it? Nope. When the clients can send us viable 3D, we'll send them 3D back. End of story.
As for the Luddite thing: kiss off. We have real computers and we can work them. If we're not NASA or Bechtel, well so freakin' what? We do what makes sense with what we are given, and the fact that you think what we do is wrong doesn't alter the fact that virtually everybody in this segment is doing the same thing.
That, my friend, is a textbook definition of Luddite. Which, by the way, was the slur you intended for me, as I recall. So if you wish it smooched, be my guest.
Public school design isn't what you do as a specialty, so pardon me if I don't bother with the pointless task of explaining the issues further.
Oh I understand your position quite well. I've seen it dozens of times in dozens of places.
-
Randy,
I agree with you regarding the idea, if I may paraphrase, garbage in garbage out. Likewise, I certainly do not feel comfortable with any attempt at fixing other people's mistakes. Especially when that other person is a consultant who should know more about what they are doing than I do.
Thanks Joe, my point all along.
The flip side is sometimes I have to compromise between what I wish I had and what I have inhand. Maybe just to meet a deadline.
If that is a liability you can live with, then by all means carry on. I would prefer to miss a deadline than to jeopardize the accuracy of my data or our reputation as a quality design house. But then that's just me.
What I intend to do given the Site example file I posted is send the program to the consultant and ask them to fix things as they see fit.
For those that have been reading my drivel for a while, I cover this kind of stuff in contract. They'll bring it into compliance or they won't get paid, plus they may be liable for any and all subsequent charges and penalties.
Which leads to my point here. SuperFlatten is just a tool like any other. Users are free to use or abuse it as they see fit. That is not and should not be my concern from a programming standpoint.
And that I understand, hence my initial comment. As for abuse, a client contacted me a while back with a file another sub had basically destroyed with a similar flatten routine. Fortunatly, we had a copy of the file as it was when we transmitted to him originally and the modifications only took a few days. He had thought he was saving some money by going with someone local, but wound up spending a lot more and missing a shutdown. Very expensive lesson.
Aside to those who said thanks, my pleasure. I hope it serves you well.
Regards
Just so you're aware, I've been looking at the code a bit and there are some very interesting functions there I have to study. For the examples, thank you.
-
Then there is "broken drawings", what you're trying to fix by stepping on. Once stepped upon they are still broken, only flat.
If I may...
I don't think he is trying to "fix" them. I think he is eliminating information that he doesn't need, didn't draw or provide, and doesn't want to pass on as someone down the road may attribute that information to him because the plans they are using came from him.
I have gotten many plans in SP from other Cad jockeys that in 2d plan view were correct. Most of the entities in SP have 3d attributes to them. You "draw" a 2x6 wall in plan view, what you are actually creating is a 2x6 wall, 8' tall, with sheetrock, insulation, sheathing, siding, etc. All of which can be edited to be "correct" in 3d. Problem is these peeps don't care or use 3d. So you open the drawing in 3d and you have walls offset 15' in the air and toilets stacked over floor joists. Now I take this 2d drawing, which in 2d is correct, change say just the kitchen cabinet layout. Down the road someone uses those files thinking that ALL of the info in them is accurate...... PITA.
-
I would prefer to miss a deadline than to jeopardize the accuracy of my data or our reputation as a quality design house.
And one can only be a "quality design house" if they work the same way you do. :roll:
-
Then there is "broken drawings", what you're trying to fix by stepping on. Once stepped upon they are still broken, only flat.
If I may...
I don't think he is trying to "fix" them. I think he is eliminating information that he doesn't need, didn't draw or provide, and doesn't want to pass on as someone down the road may attribute that information to him because the plans they are using came from him.
I think you may be mistaken. As I re-read the thread he's talking about errant information as exampled by Joe's site drawing.
I have gotten many plans in SP from other Cad jockeys that in 2d plan view were correct. Most of the entities in SP have 3d attributes to them. You "draw" a 2x6 wall in plan view, what you are actually creating is a 2x6 wall, 8' tall, with sheetrock, insulation, sheathing, siding, etc. All of which can be edited to be "correct" in 3d. Problem is these peeps don't care or use 3d. So you open the drawing in 3d and you have walls offset 15' in the air and toilets stacked over floor joists. Now I take this 2d drawing, which in 2d is correct, change say just the kitchen cabinet layout. Down the road someone uses those files thinking that ALL of the info in them is accurate...... PITA.
That's the errant information (flying walls) I think is being discussed. My position is and remains, that if the 3D data has been so corrupted, I have little faith that the 2D information is any more correct. Either a file is accurate or it is not, failure in one area questions the validity of all other areas.
-
I would prefer to miss a deadline than to jeopardize the accuracy of my data or our reputation as a quality design house.
And one can only be a "quality design house" if they work the same way you do. :roll:
Not at all. There are many quality design houses continuing to use 2D methods (Luddite as they may be). When I receive a file from these, such errant information as exampled in Joe's site plan does not appear. Joe's site drawing is, in my opinion, an example of someone without a clue what they are doing. Such indication will disqualify the file from our use.
-
Those awesome piping drawings that I have seen you post. Are the colors represented in the rendering actually what they will be painted to be?
-
Those awesome piping drawings that I have seen you post. Are the colors represented in the rendering actually what they will be painted to be?
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
-
Those awesome piping drawings that I have seen you post. Are the colors represented in the rendering actually what they will be painted to be?
gee whiz... abrupt turns like that can throw my back outta whack, be careful dude.
I have some controls in NavisWorks for several different color schemes, so the screen shots from NW may be finish paint. During the modeling process within AutoCAD we use color to delineate process commodity and area visually.
-
Those awesome piping drawings that I have seen you post. Are the colors represented in the rendering actually what they will be painted to be?
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Those should be caps.
-
Those awesome piping drawings that I have seen you post. Are the colors represented in the rendering actually what they will be painted to be?
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Those should be caps.
Nah, it wasn't the "in your face" type of "OO" but rather the quiet guy hiding in the back, trying to egg on the fight, type of "oooo".
-
Those awesome piping drawings that I have seen you post. Are the colors represented in the rendering actually what they will be painted to be?
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Those should be caps.
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh...
Nah, it wasn't the "in your face" type of "OO" but rather the quiet guy hiding in the back, trying to egg on the fight, type of "oooo".
-
gee whiz...
I thought that was P
abrupt turns like that can throw my back outta whack, be careful dude.
Me? Go off course? :whistle:
I have some controls in NavisWorks for several different color schemes, so the screen shots from NW may be finish paint. During the modeling process within AutoCAD we use color to delineate process commodity and area visually.
What I was going to get at. Which I should have just said in the first place to save a reply. Was that by (what I believe is) your own definition if there is a color, texture, etc. (data) attributed to your model that is not the actual color (errant data) then your file is corrupt.
So.....
My position is and remains, that if the 3D data has been so corrupted, I have little faith that the 2D information is any more correct. Either a file is accurate or it is not, failure in one area questions the validity of all other areas.
Sorry. Late hit.
-
. . . When I receive a file from these, such errant information as exampled in Joe's site plan does not appear. Joe's site drawing is, in my opinion, an example of someone without a clue what they are doing. Such indication will disqualify the file from our use.
Please explain the basis of your opinion of this drawing. I agree that there are some things that at first glance may appear questionable, but I can also see that there may be very good reasons for most of them. The only item I would outright question is the existing contours that have been exploded down to small segments. I understand how and why this happens at times, but I also know how to fix it rather easily and do just that at the first opportunity. Other than that, this plan on first run through looks very much like something I would expect a base map produced by a civil design product to look, particularly one that is "in progress". These base maps appear in a variety of different viewports at different scales and orientation. Each of these viewports may emphasizing something different from any of the others. In addition, much of the annotation is place by the program, almost invariably within modelspace and with proper care taken, displays only in the individual viewports in which they are needed.
-
What I was going to get at. Which I should have just said in the first place to save a reply. Was that by (what I believe is) your own definition if there is a color, texture, etc. (data) attributed to your model that is not the actual color (errant data) then your file is corrupt.
Contractually, all elements will be color and linetype bylayer. Non-compliance is not tolerated.
-
What I was going to get at. Which I should have just said in the first place to save a reply. Was that by (what I believe is) your own definition if there is a color, texture, etc. (data) attributed to your model that is not the actual color (errant data) then your file is corrupt.
Contractually, all elements will be color and linetype bylayer. Non-compliance is not tolerated.
but those layers are set to what color?
-
. . . When I receive a file from these, such errant information as exampled in Joe's site plan does not appear. Joe's site drawing is, in my opinion, an example of someone without a clue what they are doing. Such indication will disqualify the file from our use.
Please explain the basis of your opinion of this drawing. I agree that there are some things that at first glance may appear questionable, but I can also see that there may be very good reasons for most of them. The only item I would outright question is the existing contours that have been exploded down to small segments. I understand how and why this happens at times, but I also know how to fix it rather easily and do just that at the first opportunity. Other than that, this plan on first run through looks very much like something I would expect a base map produced by a civil design product to look, particularly one that is "in progress". These base maps appear in a variety of different viewports at different scales and orientation. Each of these viewports may emphasizing something different from any of the others. In addition, much of the annotation is place by the program, almost invariably within modelspace and with proper care taken, displays only in the individual viewports in which they are needed.
Did you look at the file from the "front"?? There are dozens of elements with (at least) errant Z values, that alone leads me to believe that the file (begun by someone familiar with 3D concepts and functions) has been manipulated by someone who didn't know what they were doing. Such errors call into question the validity of the rest of the data contained in the file.
-
Contractually, all elements will be color and linetype bylayer. Non-compliance is not tolerated.
Contractually yes. But the data, in the file, when someone opens it and sees pink gas pipe, is wrong, errant, incorrect.
-
Contractually, all elements will be color and linetype bylayer. Non-compliance is not tolerated.
Contractually yes. But the data, in the file, when someone opens it and sees pink gas pipe, is wrong, errant, incorrect.
That's the Pepto Bismol transport.
-
DO NOT ask Dent what Pink gas pipe means to him.
-
"Nomad, you are in error. Nomad, you must destroy yourself" "Errorrr, errorrrrrr, errorrrrrrrrr"
-
What I was going to get at. Which I should have just said in the first place to save a reply. Was that by (what I believe is) your own definition if there is a color, texture, etc. (data) attributed to your model that is not the actual color (errant data) then your file is corrupt.
Contractually, all elements will be color and linetype bylayer. Non-compliance is not tolerated.
but those layers are set to what color?
As long as the elements ar bylayer, we don't really care about the layer color. I have tools to control the color of groups of xref'd layers based on the layer name (line number in the case of piping). The only layer colors we regularly check would be custom layers not specifically defined. We leave flexibility in the system to allow for unforseen options. We review these layers for name typos and make sure the display and plotting parameters are within acceptable patterns.
-
Contractually, all elements will be color and linetype bylayer. Non-compliance is not tolerated.
Contractually yes. But the data, in the file, when someone opens it and sees pink gas pipe, is wrong, errant, incorrect.
If the layer has been properly named (something we check) layer color is controlled at the designer's option with a keystroke. Color is not a compliance issue because it has little meaning for what we do. Should we desire to view certain process in a specific color we have functions to display any process in any color we choose. We have a "standard" color only because we want to start with "some" color other than white, and we program it into the layer creation function based on the commodity portion of the layer name.
-
Color is not a compliance issue because it has little meaning for what we do.
*Tim Allen* Uuunghhh!
-
. . . Did you look at the file from the "front"?? There are dozens of elements with (at least) errant Z values, that alone leads me to believe that the file (begun by someone familiar with 3D concepts and functions) has been manipulated by someone who didn't know what they were doing. Such errors call into question the validity of the rest of the data contained in the file.
Yes . . . What is your criteria for determining the "errant Z value"? I see no indication what vertical exaggeration is being used to properly display the profile to scale in those drawings. I assume from the ltscale the plan is intended to be a 40 scale drawing in foot units so the factor is probably 8 if the vertical scale is 5 or 4 if it is 10 vertical. I see maybe 10 lines that dive to zero that indicate someone drew from shot to shot from survey points that had zero elevation for some - not an error, just something that can be changed when and IF it is necessary. I also see a lot of text entities that are placed with a Z value . . . the same basic condition and solution - for general purposes these are non-issues and not worth bothering with. These drawings are ONLY shown in overhead plan view in our drawings. Any view from the side is created by the software from data that is not available within this drawing and uses the exaggeration values I described above.
-
. . . Did you look at the file from the "front"?? There are dozens of elements with (at least) errant Z values, that alone leads me to believe that the file (begun by someone familiar with 3D concepts and functions) has been manipulated by someone who didn't know what they were doing. Such errors call into question the validity of the rest of the data contained in the file.
Yes . . . What is your criteria for determining the "errant Z value"? I see no indication what vertical exaggeration is being used to properly display the profile to scale in those drawings. I assume from the ltscale the plan is intended to be a 40 scale drawing in foot units so the factor is probably 8 if the vertical scale is 5 or 4 if it is 10 vertical. I see maybe 10 lines that dive to zero that indicate someone drew from shot to shot from survey points that had zero elevation for some - not an error, just something that can be changed when and IF it is necessary. I also see a lot of text entities that are placed with a Z value . . . the same basic condition and solution - for general purposes these are non-issues and not worth bothering with. These drawings are ONLY shown in overhead plan view in our drawings. Any view from the side is created by the software from data that is not available within this drawing and uses the exaggeration values I described above.
Look at the front view in MODEL tab. Those "errant" lines that "dive to zero" along with "a lot of text entities that are placed with a Z value" indicate the file was editted by someone who knew not what they were doing. While you may be quite comfortable "not worth bothering with", it clearly indicates manipulation of data without proper training and/or thought, and questions the intent of the data.
-
Color is not a compliance issue because it has little meaning for what we do.
*Tim Allen* Uuunghhh!
Is color important for you and what you do??
-
Me thinks the conversation very interesting about this. I don't like commands that alter data in any way; Explode comes to mind. I have gotten data that was at incorrect Z due to operator error. My process is to verify the integrity of the data, upon finding the errant Z information, I send email to originator explaining where and how the data is in error and approximate time (cost) for me to fix it. Most offer to perform the cleanup in house rather than incur the cost of my adjusting the bad data. I think the underlying issue is user skill training not 3D or not to 3D. It is amazing how many users who don't get it, that even though they think they are drawing 2D in Autocad, are actually drawing in 3D with active Z of 0, and they are unawares that using 'normal' snapping processes in a 3D drawing can result in the line appearing correct to them in plan view but being totally wrong in the Z direction. :realmad:
-
Me thinks the conversation very interesting about this. I don't like commands that alter data in any way; Explode comes to mind. I have gotten data that was at incorrect Z due to operator error. My process is to verify the integrity of the data, upon finding the errant Z information, I send email to originator explaining where and how the data is in error and approximate time (cost) for me to fix it. Most offer to perform the cleanup in house rather than incur the cost of my adjusting the bad data.
Usually we don't give them the option. Repair and re-submit.
I think the underlying issue is user skill training not 3D or not to 3D.
My point all along.
-
Is color important for you and what you do??
No more than Z axis info seems to be for CaddmanQ. ;-)
-
. . .Look at the front view in MODEL tab. Those "errant" lines that "dive to zero" along with "a lot of text entities that are placed with a Z value" indicate the file was editted by someone who knew not what they were doing. While you may be quite comfortable "not worth bothering with", it clearly indicates manipulation of data without proper training and/or thought, and questions the intent of the data.
That is exactly how I viewed them and they do NOT necessarily indicate such. The text and surrounding boxes were likely all spawned from one piece of text drawn on a contour with elevation and was copied and rotated as necessary throughout the plan. While technically incorrect, this is a non-issue for any plan this drawing will become a part of unless someone tries to pan, move or draw an object from the insert point of that text. The design data does not give a rat's keester what the z value of that text is and every place it is visible, it will plot the same as if it was dead on zero. There will also be no effect on the drawing if Joe's application is used to make it so if someone is just too bent about it to leave it alone.
Bottom line - Sure this drawing could be worked on some, especially in the block that comprises most of it. Actually someone could sit down and waste a whole lot of time messing with it and not make one lick of difference in how the civil drawings it is based upon will plot out when finished.
-
Is color important for you and what you do??
No more than Z axis info seems to be for CaddmanQ. ;-)
An error in placement is severe.
-
. . .Look at the front view in MODEL tab. Those "errant" lines that "dive to zero" along with "a lot of text entities that are placed with a Z value" indicate the file was editted by someone who knew not what they were doing. While you may be quite comfortable "not worth bothering with", it clearly indicates manipulation of data without proper training and/or thought, and questions the intent of the data.
That is exactly how I viewed them and they do NOT necessarily indicate such. The text and surrounding boxes were likely all spawned from one piece of text drawn on a contour with elevation and was copied and rotated as necessary throughout the plan. While technically incorrect, this is a non-issue for any plan this drawing will become a part of unless someone tries to pan, move or draw an object from the insert point of that text. The design data does not give a rat's keester what the z value of that text is and every place it is visible, it will plot the same as if it was dead on zero. There will also be no effect on the drawing if Joe's application is used to make it so if someone is just too bent about it to leave it alone.
Bottom line - Sure this drawing could be worked on some, especially in the block that comprises most of it. Actually someone could sit down and waste a whole lot of time messing with it and not make one lick of difference in how the civil drawings it is based upon will plot out when finished.
I'm not worried about plotting but the accuracy of the data. If any of the rest of it is as slip-shod as what is plainly visible then it is a liabiltiy I'd as soon avoid. If you wish to trust it, then carry on.
-
An error in placement is severe.
Not if the error is vertical and.....
not a compliance issue because it has little meaning for what we do.
-
*gasp*
I should NOT have held my breath the whole thread.
-
An error in placement is severe.
Not if the error is vertical and.....
not a compliance issue because it has little meaning for what we do.
Failure in accurate placement is severe. If you can live with inaccurately placed elements, carry on. BTW, the dims had better be exploded.
-
I'm not worried about plotting but the accuracy of the data. If any of the rest of it is as slip-shod as what is plainly visible then it is a liabiltiy I'd as soon avoid. If you wish to trust it, then carry on.
WHAT data? . . . there is no data in this drawing for you to be suspicious of. Perhaps a remnant of some design data has been blocked in to show intent, but primarily this is nothing but 2D site geometry. You probably had a 3 in 4 shot of even having the "contours" at elevation. There is no surface, no point data in evidence and not even an alignment to base a profile from to use the data if there were any here. The only "data" like elements you have here are the spot elevations provided to show what the design data says is the elevation at a specific 2D location and I would venture a guess that if the engineer caught someone taking the time to create each of those at the prescribed z value, it would be the last time they did that and likely any other drafting task for him. These side, back and front views are irrelevant and NOT used for this type of work. Any quasi 3D type view will out of necessity by the very large horizontal scale, be exaggerated by the factors I described earlier and as such will mean the model is not true. There is zero benefit for anything at elevation in these base plans other than zero, in fact lending more confusion than anything as is evident in this thread. Even the 3D like profile views that design software generates is not really a side, back or front view of the design model. In addition to the distortion of the vertical scale, these views are not along a single plane through the model, but a series of views looking straight on perpendicular to the alignment geometry at any point as if straight segments and curves alike were pulled out and pasted z axis up flat in front of you. Only in the case of a single straight alignment will result in a cross section of the model and that still with the vertical exaggeration.
A 3D model that you would produce would likewise be of dubious worth for us. What we really need is the north-south location where any of your pipes need a connection, the pipe size, type and elevation at that point and if possible the direction the pipe is running when it terminates from your plan along with any horizontal and vertical conversion numbers needed to match your data to ours. A building footprint with a dimension to the pipe end from an appropriate spot with those notes would do just fine.
edit - fixed quote . . . I can only hope to someday match Greg or Randy in mastering the art of quote
-
I'm not worried about plotting but the accuracy of the data. If any of the rest of it is as slip-shod as what is plainly visible then it is a liability I'd as soon avoid. If you wish to trust it, then carry on.
WHAT data? . . . there is no data in this drawing for you to be suspicious of.
EVERY element contains data if nothing more that the coordinate of it's start point. If the designer placing that element is so sloppy as to screw up the Z location of the element, I have serious doubts about his/her capabilities in accurately placing either of the other two coords.
The only "data" like elements you have here are the spot elevations provided to show what the design data says is the elevation at a specific 2D location
That "specific 2D location" is data is it not? If he's incapable of accurately placing the third "D", just how "specific" can the other two possibly be?
and I would venture a guess that if the engineer caught someone taking the time to create each of those at the prescribed z value, it would be the last time they did that and likely any other drafting task for him.
Luddite??
These side, back and front views are irrelevant and NOT used for this type of work.
And any distance gathered from these errant entities will be inaccurate, hardly irrelevant. Buying pipe based on a distance gleaned from such a line would be an expensive error. Sorry, its a cr4ppy drawing, I'd avoid using.
A 3D model that you would produce would likewise be of dubious worth for us. What we really need is the north-south location where any of your pipes need a connection, the pipe size, type and elevation at that point and if possible the direction the pipe is running when it terminates from your plan along with any horizontal and vertical conversion numbers needed to match your data to ours.
Based on the poor construction of the drawing, I'd have serious doubts about gleaning any of the information you list above from the file. If they can't get a "Z" right, what makes you think they'll get either the "X" or the "Y" right?? So your North South location is suspect. We already know the elevation is suspect.
A building footprint with a dimension to the pipe end from an appropriate spot ...
And your guarantee you have an "appropriate spot" is what? A cr4ppy drawing. Sorry, I'll avoid that liability. If that is a risk you're willing to take, then carry on.
-
Again, for the purposes of a plan of this type, we tend to completely ignore the Z values except for surveyed points and points tied to a surface. In lieu of having a surface, "contour" lines may have an elevation attached for reference, but this tends to fool others into thinking they have more accuracy than the actual plus or minus 1/2 of their interval we are telling them it has. A Z value is not really considered unless we get a clue such as a non-continuous linetype not appearing correctly, failure to fillet or intersect or an errant offset. Since we do not intentionally enter a Z value in the linework it is almost always a byproduct of drawing line between points of different elevation. Surveyors can be very prolific with their points and it is often necessary to turn the elevation value off while creating linework due a congested area. Some of these lines get missed and when they cause an obvious problem they are corrected . . . often we never even notice. More massive distortions happen if one of these entities is used as part of a relative move, copy, mirror or rotate, but again it only affects Z values that we just don't think to check for. If found, a flatten utility such as Joe provided serves quite well to solve any problems as does a series of changes to all entities in the properties box. I think it is grand that you have a found such a use for these Z values for all of your linework and that they make your work so much more accurate and efficient. For my need on a plan such as this though, they are at best a nuisance and as we can see here, a real obstacle. I can honestly count on both hands every time I recall needing to type in a Z coordinate while constructing or editing my linework during my 31 years of this work.
The 2D locations your are so ready to dismiss along with the 3D drivel however is normally placed either painstakingly point to point from surveyed data using instruments capable of accuracy of the level of 1:15,000 or generated by the design program itself completely bypassing the technician. The X,Y AND Z values for surveyed coordinates of these points are displayed to 4 decimal places and if you are getting a Z on the linework, you can bet your keester the node osnap was being used at the time. The 2D is accurate if the drawing is created by anyone even half trying to do their job. It is actually more difficult to NOT generate the linework correctly for 2D purposes.
I call BS on your Luddite slur. What earthly purpose would there be in making a leader and chunk of text at a Z value accurate to 2 decimal places when any design change can render the value invalid. The purpose of a spot elevation is to GRAPHICALLY represent the surface elevation at a certain point, not something to pick on to check if it numerical value matches its Z coordinate. There is no time available in project I have worked in to waste in this manner.
When you inquire a distance between two points do you not get both a 2D and a 3D value? Use the 2D number and unless you are working on a whopping slope you will get a good number. Most all of the pipes out in the yard come in 20 lengths and are usually estimated on the number of said lengths will be needed since there is only one joint per each and any trimmed will be waste. You will be close enough.
The dimension that I said would be needed would be from a good corner off of YOUR plans. It would be up to me to worry about the accuracy of the plans you provided, verify your data, determine if we are using the same vertical and horizontal datum and rotation, and decide at what point to safely make your inch units match my foot units.
-
Again, for the purposes of a plan of this type, we tend to completely ignore the Z values except for surveyed points and points tied to a surface. In lieu of having a ...
And you remain missing the point entirely. If the original designer of the file is so ignorantly sloppy that the results are as shown, I seriously question the accuracy and usability of the remainder of the file. A cr4ppy file stepped on, is only flatter but no less cr4ppy. If you wish to accept the liability and risk of using cr4ppy files for your design then carry on.
-
Regarding the discussion about whether it's worth flattening the example file
I posted, I'll expain why it's important to me. We need to create an Architectural
Site Plan using elements of that file as an xref. In our file we place blocks
representing houses and garages. The insertion point of each block must be Z
elevation zero so we can accurately measure distances between buildings. Our ability
to do that would be shot if someone snapped a block to some Z mistake in the example
file.
Were the original file an accurate 3D model instead, I'd feel a lot better about using the data, flat or not.
Part of my job is ensure such mistakes don't happen. How would I do it without
SuperFlatten?
We chose training and functions that return "plan" distances from 3D points.
Overall I tend to agree with Randy's comments on the subject. I don't tolerate mistakes
on general principle because it's practically impossible to anticipate the potential
impact those mistakes might have on our work.
My point all along.
And just to be clear, I wouldn't use the posted example UNflattened.
-
Randy,
How much time do you spend on cleaning up a drawing, or does your program always create accurate intersections and what not?
-
Randy, a true 3D model as a base sheet used for background ONLY as is apparently the case with this file would be totally disastrous for our purpose. 3D lengths and distances result in our design data being totally wrong. All formula built into the design software is based upon 2D lengths and elevation data. For basic drawing purposes, a stretch of roadway consists of nothing more than a centerline with a collection of offsets to the appropriate layers for curbs, sidewalks, right of way, easements, setback lines and most utilities with all of these fileted as appropriate at intersections. If these lines have a Z value, offsets are unpredictable and fillets WILL NOT work at all. We also make extensive use of the properties perpendicular and radial, neither of which give reliable results when a Z value is introduced. The built in labeling routines in the software will also yield questionable results. We would be crippled by losing our most useful tools by introducing a Z value that SERVES NO USEFUL PURPOSE on our plans.
This file is useful for our background image ONLY. If you insisted upon it, I would imagine you could acquire the true design file all full of nice Z values in the coordinates. Unless you own the same design software, you would also receive either an exploded model with entities reduced to their most basic forms residing on a collection of layers created and specified by the software or more likely on layer zero depending on the export or simply collection of proxy objects that you can do nothing with other than explode down to the above described state. Either way, you will be left with a mass of linework that is never seen otherwise and nearly impossible to filter out or work around that will leave you with a whole new definition of the term "cr4ppy".
-
Stephen,
I'm not sure this applies to your comments, but I'll mention it anyway.
The SuperFlatten routine has an option to run the equivalent of Overkill after objects are flattened. The main reason for that option is to clean up a file after solid objects are exploded in order to flatten.
-
Randy,
How much time do you spend on cleaning up a drawing, or does your program always create accurate intersections and what not?
Not sure what you mean "cleaning up a drawing"?? AutoCAD, if properly used, should always create accurate intersections, should it not??
-
Randy, a true 3D model as a base sheet .... will leave you with a whole new definition of the term "cr4ppy".
You're still missing my point entirely. Elements in the posted example file are screwed up. I won't use a file that is screwed up, nor will I trust one where "parts" of it are screwed up. If you wish to do so, carry on.
A true 3D model is vastly more usable than a 2D drawing, providing many levels of design information. If your work processes have yet to account for that, maybe you should review your work practices before breaking an accurate 3D file. Gleaning "plan" distances from3D elements is a real basic programming effort, as are any of the other "complaints" you've posted.
-
I won't use a file that is screwed up, nor will I trust one where "parts" of it are screwed up
I would never trust a 3D model that came from Autocad No matter what it is. There is no way other than people with Autocad can view that model. Maybe People with SOlidworks but once you translate from Autocad you just lost all your information.
A true 3D model is vastly more usable than a 2D drawing
Wrong a 2D drawing and a 3D model go hand in hand. When the 2D drawing is directly taken from the 3D model and the 2D drawings stays associative to the 3D model is only way to go. How do you derive Tolerances from a 3D model? Yes you put it in a 2D format. The technology is out there for 3D annotation but Autocad is no way near the standards for this yet.
I believe this program that is posted is wonderfull. There are reasons outside of what one does, that always needs to have a special tool to help that person to get a job done. Maybe use this tool for a special customer who only wants 2D. There is different strokes for different folks. OR there is many ways to skin a cat. I like to start at the tail. (just joking)
i CAN NOT SPLLEE
-
I won't use a file that is screwed up, nor will I trust one where "parts" of it are screwed up
I would never trust a 3D model that came from Autocad No matter what it is. There is no way other than people with Autocad can view that model. Maybe People with SOlidworks but once you translate from Autocad you just lost all your information.
Are you trying to tie all these points together somehow or what??
A true 3D model is vastly more usable than a 2D drawing
Wrong a 2D drawing and a 3D model go hand in hand.
I can glean thousands of things from a 3D model that I can not from a 2D drawing.
When the 2D drawing is directly taken from the 3D model and the 2D drawings stays associative to the 3D model is only way to go.
no argument here
How do you derive Tolerances from a 3D model?
From the spec, the same way it gets on the 2D drawing. Don't confuse what I said. I didn't say that 2D plots were unnecessary, I said that a 3D model was vastly more usable than a 2D drawing, and it is.
Yes you put it in a 2D format. The technology is out there for 3D annotation but Autocad is no way near the standards for this yet.
We've been doing so for quite some time.
-
I have came from a 3D world were the 2D did nothing more than give the tolerances to be QC'd . The 3d was used to cut tooling. The 2D was generted from the 3D (this is on the mechanical side). All was great with the world little to no error.
I am now in the arch world, funny thing, I have yet to see a builder build from a 3D model ?? We use ADT so everything is draw in 3D but when it comes down to it,the Contractor doesn't give 2 hoots whether there is a 3D model associated with the 2D.
Differant worlds differant needs, I believe that is what this tennis game actually comes down to.
-
I have came from a 3D world were the 2D did nothing more than give the tolerances to be QC'd . The 3d was used to cut tooling. The 2D was generated from the 3D (this is on the mechanical side). All was great with the world little to no error.
This is what Field I am in today. We do this faithfully with most of the parts we design WE have the 3D model control the part and put the necessary tolerances and critical dimensions on the 2D drawings.
I can glean thousands of things from a 3D model that I can not from a 2D drawing.
Start Please tell me one thing that you can get from a 3D model that you can not get from a quality 2D drawing?
-
You're still missing my point entirely. Elements in the posted example file are screwed up. I won't use a file that is screwed up, nor will I trust one where "parts" of it are screwed up. If you wish to do so, carry on.
What I would proceed with would be a clean drawing into which I queried the desired elements with MAP and automatically fix any indiscretions in the process and use this as the base for the program to create the model. Once this process has begun, any export of this drawing would be virtually unusable for anyone without their own copy of my design software. Randy calls up and asks for my site plan, I export things like spot elevations and a surface exploded down to polyline "contours" and any new site geometry right back onto that same "screwed up" "cr4ppy" source drawing and send direct to your in box. You can't read my model or do any practical work with it because it will turn into a spaghetti nightmare of linework on whatever mix of layers the program decides. I don't have anything of more practical value to offer him short of doing a repeat of the MAP query process into another blank drawing. If we get along well and he doesn't make a habit of questioning the accuracy of my work based upon something I never work with, has no bearing on my design and only I rarely need to look at, I may be willing to take the extra time to create a special drawing for him but it still will NOT be in anything resembling 3D. Further more, he doesn't have any real NEED of my points, point groups, alignments, corridors, assemblies, grading objects, feature lines, pipe networks, profiles, profile views and survey figures that will come along for the ride in the form of proxy objects that his software has no idea of how to deal with other than display as massive white blocks showing an image of each. I stated the accuracy level of the data my work is based upon, if that is still not sufficient he is welcome to stick build the whole thing in vanilla himself in lieu of my "screwed up" "cr4ppy" drawing. I would be quite interested in seeing how they compared when overlaying each in plan view.
A true 3D model is vastly more usable than a 2D drawing, providing many levels of design information. If your work processes have yet to account for that, maybe you should review your work practices before breaking an accurate 3D file. Gleaning "plan" distances from3D elements is a real basic programming effort, as are any of the other "complaints" you've posted.
Starting with a true 3D base sheet BREAKS my design model Randy. My program CREATES the 3D model by feeding it 2D information and elevation data. It doesn't ask if the distances are 2D or 3D; it is read as 2D without exception and anything else results in a BOGUS design riddled with incorrect slopes, stationing, calculated elevations, pipe interferences, and almost certainly some areas that do not really meet minimum or maximum design criteria restraints. This 3D model exists within the file, but never truly is displayed in any view within the project. I suppose technically I could render every surface and part, set the styles to display it all in 3D and set back for a few days each time it regenerated the display, but I really don't need to see it and as I stated above, you can't without the same program and a supercomputer that runs Windows and AutoCAD.
-
Randy,
How much time do you spend on cleaning up a drawing, or does your program always create accurate intersections and what not?
Not sure what you mean "cleaning up a drawing"?? AutoCAD, if properly used, should always create accurate intersections, should it not??
I don't know...I don't use AutoCAD.
-
I have came from a 3D world were the 2D did nothing more than give the tolerances to be QC'd . The 3d was used to cut tooling. The 2D was generated from the 3D (this is on the mechanical side). All was great with the world little to no error.
This is what Field I am in today. We do this faithfully with most of the parts we design WE have the 3D model control the part and put the necessary tolerances and critical dimensions on the 2D drawings.
I can glean thousands of things from a 3D model that I can not from a 2D drawing.
Start Please tell me one thing that you can get from a 3D model that you can not get from a quality 2D drawing?
The diagonal distance across the lower left back corner and the upper right front corner of a box
The elevation of the top of the pipe 12'3" west of the east end
The clear distance between the bottom of the sloping flare line and the top of the "T" support
The volume of concrete of these five foundations
The CG of this pump
Should I go on??
-
You're still missing my point entirely. Elements in the posted example file are screwed up. I won't use a file that is screwed up, nor will I trust one where "parts" of it are screwed up. If you wish to do so, carry on.
What I would proceed with would be a clean drawing ....
Still missing the point, only now it must be on purpose. I'm not talking about accurate files, the example provided contained INaccurate data. If you provided me with INaccurate data, I'd send it back, regardless of the source, 2D or 3D, MAP, MEP, ADT or otherwise..
-
I am not missing or ignoring any point. I consider the sample drawing as a starting point for laying out a design, nothing more than basic 2d layout geometry. What you are saying you need to have before considering a drawing I deliver to you to be worth more than so much soiled toilet paper is data that I DO NOT HAVE in any format readily available for transfer. A file I send would include no more information that that provided on the posted sample drawing. I would like to think that mine would be in a better state than that one but could very well have issues that are similar to the ones you refuse to deal with unless I can bill time to export selected entities from my design model into a clean drawing as I described. My 2D data will be correct to the survey accuracy I described earlier, but any Z values on entities other than survey point objects and possibly the polylines serving as contours are incidental, have no meaning whatsoever to my design and should be ignored and/or changed to zero at any time one is discovered. Under no circumstances should any other Z value be used as part of any calculation. The addition of any Z value to any entity outside of the prescribed dialogs within my software will have a negative impact on the integrity of my final design and so can not be introduced.
-
I am not missing or ignoring any point. I consider the sample drawing as a starting point for laying out a design, nothing more than basic 2d layout geometry. What you are saying you need to have before considering a drawing I deliver to you to be worth more than so much soiled toilet paper is data that I DO NOT HAVE in any format readily available for transfer. A file I send would include no more information that that provided on the posted sample drawing.
The sample file had BAD data, erroneous data, data that is in error. If that is all you can provide, then I will decline.
-
The phrase "In a perfect world..." can be used SOOooo many times in this thread.
Just some food for thought.
Ok, breaks over.
-
Did he just fire us or did we fire him? :|
-
The phrase "in my pants..." can be used SOOooo many times in my pantsin this thread.
Just some food for thought in my pants.
Ok, breaks overin my pants.
Speaking of using phrases....
-
CreativityMav runs rampant... in my pants.
-
The diagonal distance across the lower left back corner and the upper right front corner of a box
The elevation of the top of the pipe 12'3" west of the east end
The clear distance between the bottom of the sloping flare line and the top of the "T" support
The volume of concrete of these five foundations
The CG of this pump
Should I go on??
That could all be solved with math Formulas if the dimensions are on the 2D drawing. Yes 3D is quicker. Which I would use any day of the week. Man estimating all of this in the 2D days must have been a shot in the dark.
How can you find the CG of a pump that has all kinds of different internal componets that have different densities and tolerances? If you can calculate the Exact CG of a pump from a 3D model I appraise you on this.
Do not get me wrong. 3D is the future I would like to see everything 3D and have no more 2D. But with the technology of viewers and transferring between all CAD packages being terrible one will need to use 3D and 2D drawings to communicate information.
Game over for ME
-
Just for fun, can someone produce for me an accurate site plan drawn in 3D?
For it to be correct though, you cannot use any aerial photos (those things are 2d by nature), and you need to include such things as grass, trees, ponds, light poles, wires, ditches, culverts and all other extraneous information from at least -12" below the lowest elevation.
Then when you are all done, I am going to flatten it to a piece of paper and give it to the survey folks.
-
How can you find the CG of a pump that has all kinds of different internal componets that have different densities and tolerances? If you can calculate the Exact CG of a pump from a 3D model I appraise you on this.
Not be pound the cr$p out of the already mutilated horse..... but When I used Catia you could model assemblies, give each part material, and with that 3D model you could indeed find the CG ;-)
Have a good one all
-
How can you find the CG of a pump that has all kinds of different internal componets that have different densities and tolerances? If you can calculate the Exact CG of a pump from a 3D model I appraise you on this.
Not be pound the cr$p out of the already mutilated horse..... but When I used Catia you could model assemblies, give each part material, and with that 3D model you could indeed find the CG ;-)
Have a good one all
Autocad can give you the CG as well... as long as it's a single entity of consistent mass.
I always wanted to use Catia, after what one of my machinist instructors told me about it when he worked at McDonnell Douglas.
-
Just for fun, can someone produce for me an accurate site plan drawn in 3D?
For it to be correct though, you cannot use any aerial photos (those things are 2d by nature), and you need to include such things as grass, trees, ponds, light poles, wires, ditches, culverts and all other extraneous information from at least -12" below the lowest elevation.
Then when you are all done, I am going to flatten it to a piece of paper and give it to the survey folks.
I think Civil 3D can do that given all the necessary data, but as I kept trying . . . ugh, you know . . . I don't think I could deliver it outside of Civil 3D without flattening it myself except possibly to 2007 with the correct object enabler. I am not sure what could be done to it at that end except explode everything twice into primitives and have not a clue if anything 3D would survive the last boom. And you know what, a flattened 2D result of the whole thing would serve us just as well as the original 3D for doing a redevelopment of the site or an adjoining project.
-
Did he just fire us or did we fire him? :|
If you provide a file to us with wrong data (yes wrong; has nothing to do with whether its 2D or 3D) as the example file contained you will be asked to repair the file. If it happens often enough your services will be suspended.
-
The diagonal distance across the lower left back corner and the upper right front corner of a box
The elevation of the top of the pipe 12'3" west of the east end
The clear distance between the bottom of the sloping flare line and the top of the "T" support
The volume of concrete of these five foundations
The CG of this pump
Should I go on??
That could all be solved with math Formulas if the dimensions are on the 2D drawing.
As I said it can be gleaned from a 3D model and not from 2D. Yes you can use the 2D file plus other methods to eventually arrive at an answer, but then that wouldn't be from the 2D drawing.
Yes 3D is quicker. Which I would use any day of the week.
Which goes back to my original statement on this branch; a 3D model is vastly more usable than a 2D drawing.
Man estimating all of this in the 2D days must have been a shot in the dark.
Not really, it just required <requires> a LOT more work (time and money)
How can you find the CG of a pump that has all kinds of different internal componets that have different densities and tolerances? If you can calculate the Exact CG of a pump from a 3D model I appraise you on this.
Depending on the tools used, CG's can be developed within acceptable tolerances for lifting and setting.
Do not get me wrong. 3D is the future I would like to see everything 3D and have no more 2D. But with the technology of viewers and transferring between all CAD packages being terrible one will need to use 3D and 2D drawings to communicate information.
I take you haven't used NavisWorks JetStream?? Not only will it view different models from different applications congruently, it will do a full clash detection between files from different applications.
-
Just for fun, can someone produce for me an accurate site plan drawn in 3D?
...
Then when you are all done, I am going to flatten it to a piece of paper and give it to the survey folks.
We've done a few usinf LDT in combination with EaglePoint and LFM. And they are quite useful as background xref's for other disciplines in plain old AutoCAD without flattening.
-
If you provide a file to us with wrong data (yes wrong; has nothing to do with whether its 2D or 3D) as the example file contained you will be asked to repair the file. If it happens often enough your services will be suspended.
Fair enough, but the point is moot because my boss pulled the trigger on this exchange of data about two salvos back. Claimed his seal and signature on the hard copy certified the 2D locations and any elevation data VISIBLE on the plans (spot elevation notation and the labeled contours). Suggested if you found any error in the certified items we could apologize and fix any errors or you could take it up with the State Board of Surveyors if you really wanted. We could also make any changes you want on the uncertified portions of the drawing file at our normal hourly billing rate and he would even check over the file personally at the technician rate before sending it back upon receipt of full payment of the invoice. Too bad it couldn't get worked out.
He also suggested I may go down the road kicking rocks myself if I kept participating in internet debates on his nickel.
-
3D model is vastly more usable than a 2D drawing.
I am going to have to disagree with that. How did we get to were we are today? I am pretty sure that before the dawn of the PC companies were drawing with a pencil and paper (2D??)
-
.............. He also suggested I may go down the road kicking rocks myself if I kept participating in internet debates on his nickel.
That's interesting Dino', 'cause I know of a couple of firms who have this site excluded for just that reason.
-
Just for fun, can someone produce for me an accurate site plan drawn in 3D?
...
Then when you are all done, I am going to flatten it to a piece of paper and give it to the survey folks.
We've done a few usinf LDT in combination with EaglePoint and LFM. And they are quite useful as background xref's for other disciplines in plain old AutoCAD without flattening.
Fair enough, but by the time it hits the paper, it has been effectively flattened. In this instance, the product is the piece of paper, not the drawing file itself. In fact, we are chagrin to even do a site plan, the piece of paper, being required by the local authority. It makes absolutely no difference if it is done topographically correct, with 3D apperturances and subterranian items indicated.
I can assure you that I can draw a parcel of land, using distances and bearings, much faster in 2D than even the best 3D modeler is capable of doing.
I think it boils down to "how complex is the drawing" and "does it merit doing a 3D model". Many times I have found myself doing a 3D model of a log home because of the intricate nature of the specific construction. One of the biggest problems I have found with doing this however, is that whenever the elevations are generated using a slice of the model, they are never correct because of the shape of the logs, the way AutoCAD handles the solids, and the fact that, as far as I know, you cannot create a slice across multiple planes in the same view i.e. I need the elevation view to cut 180o for 48' and then 225o for 30' then 135o for 24', otherwise the elevations are misleading.
-
. . . as far as I know, you cannot create a slice across multiple planes in the same view i.e. I need the elevation view to cut 180o for 48' and then 225o for 30' then 135o for 24', otherwise the elevations are misleading.
Most civil design packages can do just this when they create profile views along an alignment. All lengths along each segment of the alignment (even along curves) are precisely to scale.
-
Which goes back to my original statement on this branch; a 3D model is vastly more usable than a 2D drawing.
In your field of architecture. (You forgot to include this)
While I'm sure it's more usable in many fields, there are fields that it is not needed.
-
For instance....... Baseball fields
-
Strawberry Fields
-
Field hockey
NTTATWWT
-
What about Force Fields??!?
I mean, how can you flatten that which you cannot see?? :lol:
-
What about Force Fields??!?
See now that is just off topic and silly. Let's stick to ...... whatever is going on here. :lmao:
-
What about Force Fields??!?
See now that is just off topic and silly. Let's stick to ...... whatever is going on here. :lmao:
What was this topic about....breast reduction surgeries!??!
-
What about Force Fields??!?
I mean, how can you flatten that which you cannot see?? :lol:
I think it mostly definitely flatten a few people's field of vision around here. :wink:
But that just prompts the question of how accurate their field of vision was. :roll:
-
What was this topic about....
What is that smell? :|
oh no. That would be Super Flatulence
BTW, anyone opposed to renaming this dirt road to nowhere and starting a new thread so Joe's proggy can be found amongst all the pot holes?
-
What was this topic about....
What is that smell? :|
oh no. That would be Super Flatulence
BTW, anyone opposed to renaming this dirt road to nowhere and starting a new thread so Joe's proggy can be found amongst all the pot holes?
I think you should put his original post and code (nothing else) in the "Show Your Stuff" section.
-
BTW, anyone opposed to renaming this dirt road to nowhere and starting a new thread so Joe's proggy can be found amongst all the pot holes?
Left hand raises to second that motion and right hand raises to show consenting majority.
-
I think you should put his original post and code (nothing else) in the "Show Your Stuff" section.
I concur.
-
What was this topic about....
What is that smell? :|
oh no. That would be Super Flatulence
BTW, anyone opposed to renaming this dirt road to nowhere and starting a new thread so Joe's proggy can be found amongst all the pot holes?
I think you should put his original post and code (nothing else) in the "Show Your Stuff" section.
Matt,
I'd like to have a new topic so if someone finds a problem or I add support for an object type, those messages would not be lumped in here. I would leave it to Mark to decide where the topic should be.
I'd also like to post a new version in that topic, maybe named SuperFlatten 1.1. I've not changed the code, but the timer code should be removed. And most of the version history in header comments could be removed as well.
-
THIS THREAD WAS BROKEN OUT OF ANOTHER. IF SOMETHING DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IN IT. THAT IS WHY. CADAVER WAS NOT THE OP. THAT IS JUST WHERE IT MADE SENSE TO CUT IT.
THANK YOU. CARRY ON.
Mav
-
Perfect new name for this thread.....
-
3D model is vastly more usable than a 2D drawing.
I am going to have to disagree with that. How did we get to were we are today? I am pretty sure that before the dawn of the PC companies were drawing with a pencil and paper (2D??)
Read what I wrote very closely, no where did I say that 2D was useless, I said 3D was more usable, and it is.
-
Just for fun, can someone produce for me an accurate site plan drawn in 3D?
...
Then when you are all done, I am going to flatten it to a piece of paper and give it to the survey folks.
We've done a few usinf LDT in combination with EaglePoint and LFM. And they are quite useful as background xref's for other disciplines in plain old AutoCAD without flattening.
Fair enough, but by the time it hits the paper, it has been effectively flattened.
The paper is just one medium of severfal for communicating data
In this instance, the product is the piece of paper, not the drawing file itself.
It is the data used to produce that paper that is in question. If you found an error in the calcs used to determine the line size, would you still use the size on the drawing??
I can assure you that I can draw a parcel of land, using distances and bearings, much faster in 2D than even the best 3D modeler is capable of doing.
I think it boils down to "how complex is the drawing" and "does it merit doing a 3D model". Many times I have found myself doing a 3D model of a log home because of the intricate nature of the specific construction. One of the biggest problems I have found with doing this however, is that whenever the elevations are generated using a slice of the model, they are never correct because of the shape of the logs, the way AutoCAD handles the solids, and the fact that, as far as I know, you cannot create a slice across multiple planes in the same view i.e. I need the elevation view to cut 180o for 48' and then 225o for 30' then 135o for 24', otherwise the elevations are misleading.
Yet again, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT 2D vs 3D IN THIS CASE. I'm talking about a file with errors, bad data, mistakes. I won't use it, if you have no problem using the file, then carry on.
-
Which goes back to my original statement on this branch; a 3D model is vastly more usable than a 2D drawing.
In your field of architecture. (You forgot to include this)
While I'm sure it's more usable in many fields, there are fields that it is not needed.
Even there it remains more usable. Now that use may not be needed or wanted. but it is still more usable.
-
When I first saw the idea about adding Joe's programing effort to the "Show Your Stuff" forum, I thought that was an excellent idea. Then I saw what was actually done to this thread and that one. Up till now I had thought better of the swamp... a LOT better.
If you only wish glowing praise and fawning responses without any hint of dissent merely say so in the ground rules and I will seek other places to post where an honest response is allowed. But to gut this this thread, re-title it and create the other, as was done here, is at best dishonset and disingenuous. Sorry to have interupted your party, carry on.
-
3D model is vastly more usable than a 2D drawing.
I am going to have to disagree with that. How did we get to were we are today? I am pretty sure that before the dawn of the PC companies were drawing with a pencil and paper (2D??)
Read what I wrote very closely, no where did I say that 2D was useless, I said 3D was more usable, and it is.
I know what was posted, I still say that I disagree. If I give one machinist a 3d model and say "build this", he will have no trouble completing this task. If I give a second machinist just the 2D and say "build this" He can do the same. The second machinist will be able to create a more accurate part because he will have all the tolerances and datums that the first guy with the 3D does not. I've seen this many times when dealing with foreign suppliers. Some just wanted 2D information because they didn't have the technology to build from the 3D.
Which one is more usable. IN THIS CASE THE 2D IS.
Now all that being said that assumes that the information given in both case was 100% accurate. Which I think is some of the dispute here. It comes down to 2 things
NEED FOR 2D OR 3D
ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION
If the 3D is accurate and it is flattened it will still be accurate
If the 3D Z axis information is inaccurate but the X Y are accurate then when flattened and overkilled the 2D will be accurate
If neither X Y or Z are accurate then toss it out and start from scratch.
I feel that the information goes hand in hand 2D-3D
frolicking lackadaisically through fields of dandyloins :laugh:
As for the split of the thread, I don't think that it was a matter of "glowing praise and fawning responses without any hint of dissent" it was more a matter that of 7/8 of this post had nothing to do with Joe's program but more about the debate of 3D and 2D and there accuracy??
-
3D model is vastly more usable than a 2D drawing.
I am going to have to disagree with that. How did we get to were we are today? I am pretty sure that before the dawn of the PC companies were drawing with a pencil and paper (2D??)
Read what I wrote very closely, no where did I say that 2D was useless, I said 3D was more usable, and it is.
I know what was posted, I still say that I disagree. If I give one machinist a 3d model and say "build this", he will have no trouble completing this task. If I give a second machinist just the 2D and say "build this" He can do the same.
But the 3D model can be used for many more things (like clash detection) than just cutting the part can it not?? That makes it MORE usable.
The second machinist will be able to create a more accurate part because he will have all the tolerances and datums that the first guy with the 3D does not.
Then the 3D file is inaccurate
I've seen this many times when dealing with foreign suppliers. Some just wanted 2D information because they didn't have the technology to build from the 3D.
My 3D models will contain the very same drawing information.
Which one is more usable. IN THIS CASE THE 2D IS.
No the 3D is still more usable. Just because you don't use certain aspects of an element does not mean the capability vaporizes. That usability remains.
Now all that being said that assumes that the information given in both case was 100% accurate. Which I think is some of the dispute here. It comes down to 2 things
NEED FOR 2D OR 3D
ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION
If the 3D is accurate and it is flattened it will still be accurate
If you flatten my models the drawings become useless. So much for accuracy.
If the 3D Z axis information is inaccurate but the X Y are accurate then when flattened and overkilled the 2D will be accurate
Therein lies my whole point. If one third of the file is questionable then the whole file is questionable and I won't use it. If others here wish to trust that file they can carry on.
-
Even there it remains more usable. Now that use may not be needed or wanted. but it is still more usable.
How so? Why is so more usable?
-
As for the split of the thread, I don't think that it was a matter of "glowing praise and fawning responses without any hint of dissent" it was more a matter that of 7/8 of this post had nothing to do with Joe's program but more about the debate of 3D and 2D and there accuracy??
I had/have no trouble with the moderators creating the second thread. But what if they let me RE-TITLE it based on my opinion of the concept "SuperFlatten: How to permanently destroy 3D Intelligence in files". How friendly would that be to newbies cruising these boards.
This thread should have been left completely intact, including the original post and title. If someone wishes to trivialize or marginalize my position, then do so with content, not titles and creative editing. Or delete the whole thread all together, that would have been preferable and considerably more honest. Sorry, I call it as I see it.
-
Even there it remains more usable. Now that use may not be needed or wanted. but it is still more usable.
How so? Why is so more usable?
It can be used for more things, therefore more usable. A screw driver is useful for turning screws even if you don't have any screws to turn.
-
Even there it remains more usable. Now that use may not be needed or wanted. but it is still more usable.
How so? Why is so more usable?
It can be used for more things, therefore more usable.
:| :|
You have been saying this right along and I heard you the first time unlike few others that may have not.
I was just looking for more substance or with some "case in points" examples.
A screw driver is useful for turning screws even if you don't have any screws to turn.
True and it is useful other stuff beside other screws, but still this does not answer my question.
I work for Luddites who have the motto "I have been doing it this for 40 years .............." (you all have heard it before.)
I am trying get a little more "stuff" for my case.
-
3D model is vastly more usable than a 2D drawing.
I am going to have to disagree with that. How did we get to were we are today? I am pretty sure that before the dawn of the PC companies were drawing with a pencil and paper (2D??)
Read what I wrote very closely, no where did I say that 2D was useless, I said 3D was more usable, and it is.
I know what was posted, I still say that I disagree. If I give one machinist a 3d model and say "build this", he will have no trouble completing this task. If I give a second machinist just the 2D and say "build this" He can do the same.
But the 3D model can be used for many more things (like clash detection) than just cutting the part can it not?? That makes it MORE usable.
Isn't that what stack ups are for? All still 2D If the stack ups are done properly than there would be no clash. But to "CREATE" the part the 2D is more usable, to "VIRTUALLY CREATE AND ASSEMBLY" then 3D models are more usable i.e. clash detection, Stress Analyses, Airflow, Kinematics, etc.. No disagreement there
The second machinist will be able to create a more accurate part because he will have all the tolerances and datums that the first guy with the 3D does not.
Then the 3D file is inaccurate
How can you check the 3D for accuracy??
I've seen this many times when dealing with foreign suppliers. Some just wanted 2D information because they didn't have the technology to build from the 3D.
My 3D models will contain the very same drawing information.
But in most cases if the 3D isn't viewed in its native software the information is lost. I don't know to many GC's that are running AutoCAD in the filed to build houses from
Which one is more usable. IN THIS CASE THE 2D IS.
No the 3D is still more usable. Just because you don't use certain aspects of an element does not mean the capability vaporizes. That usability remains.
For the actual creation of the part, the 2D is still more usable
Now all that being said that assumes that the information given in both case was 100% accurate. Which I think is some of the dispute here. It comes down to 2 things
NEED FOR 2D OR 3D
ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION
If the 3D is accurate and it is flattened it will still be accurate
If you flatten my models the drawings become useless. So much for accuracy.
Maybe there not being created properly to begin with :-P
If the 3D Z axis information is inaccurate but the X Y are accurate then when flattened and overkilled the 2D will be accurate
Therein lies my whole point. If one third of the file is questionable then the whole file is questionable and I won't use it. If others here wish to trust that file they can carry on.
But it give you a starting point by which to check from. I know the old addage - Garbage in Garbage out. In some cases the software provided is of little use and could actually destroy the intent of the file, In other cases it cleans the file of unneeded garbage. If a line is draw from 0,0 to 10,10 but has a thickness of 12, if I flatten that line is it not still at 0,0 - 10,10 ? Does flattening this line make is less accurate from a 2D standpoint?
-
I've not read this entire thread
EDIT: All the quotes from the following post.
http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=18225.msg222494#msg222494
I had/have no trouble with the moderators creating the second thread. But what if they let me RE-TITLE it based on my opinion of the concept "SuperFlatten: How to permanently destroy 3D Intelligence in files". How friendly would that be to newbies cruising these boards.
Probably not very.
I still think the application was more oriented for drawing clean-up. I some times have to work with files that have points with a Z value of -99999, not very helpful when I only need a 2D file. Different strokes for different folks!
If someone wishes to trivialize or marginalize my position, then do so with content, not titles and creative editing.
I apologise Randy, I don't think that was the intent of the Mod squad.
Or delete the whole damn thread all together, that would have been preferable and considerably more honest. Sorry, I call it as I see it.
I thought about deleting the thread but I do value your opinion/views.
Someone goes to all the trouble of adding the intelligence of the third dimension, and someone writes a function to kill it. Why not explode the Dim's while you're at it?
Come on Randy, Joe gave theswamp membership an application that many of us can use because of the way we work and you want you jump all over him.
Perhaps you could have said ... "While I'm sure some folks will benefit from your application Joe I think it's wrong to destroy the intelligence of the third dimension for the following reasons;
1.
2.
3.
Apologies, I'm in a rare mood this morning.
-
Even there it remains more usable. Now that use may not be needed or wanted. but it is still more usable.
How so? Why is so more usable?
It can be used for more things, therefore more usable.
:| :|
You have been saying this right along and I heard you the first time unlike few others that may have not.
I was just looking for more substance or with some "case in points" examples.
A screw driver is useful for turning screws even if you don't have any screws to turn.
True and it is useful other stuff beside other screws, but still this does not answer my question.
I work for Luddites who have the motto "I have been doing it this for 40 years .............." (you all have heard it before.)
I am trying get a little more "stuff" for my case.
Ahh okay... Without additional software, 3D is "useful" beyond just making drawings in the following ways:
1.) Right off the top for what we do is visual interference checking. We can xref 3D models from Civil, Structural, Mechanical, Piping, Electrical, Instrumentation into a single file and just visually (without additional software) check for interferences. On the first three 3D projects we accomplished, field re-work due to design interferences dropped over eighty percent. That related to around a two percent savings of the Total Installed cost of the project. That alone paid for the additional costs of moving to 3D.
2.) Actual locations to design to or around. We often run several different segregated drainage systems in the same unit; storm water, oily water, amine, firewater, whatever. These systems often cross one another on their way to where ever. Being able to determine with a click or a view that they clear one another without having to extrapolate slopes and distances sames a ton of time. Sloped paving has been a killer for some of the more mathematically challenged folks in the business when attempting to locate the bottom of a stair or ladder or base-ell pipe support. Being able to determine the actual elevation with a click is a real boon.
3.) Volumes. We can pull concrete volumes of the whole job are any part thereof in an instant without ever touching a calculator. In a little longer time (without a vertical) I can reservoir volumes in diked areas, no matter how irregular.
There are many other uses and advantages, these just came to mind.
-
Randy, I'm not that great an author/writer/commentator/whatever and I on only wish I had the same articulate skills as you do (see :D), I would definitely use them for a greater purpose though.
Whether you know it or not you are indirectly insulting other people, or at least the way they work. That is a personal thing and of course people are going to be defensive, that's why we get the 'dead horse' threads like these, I'm really surprised it got this far before being split and I'm surprised you feel offended (from what I can tell).
We would all like to work in the ..dare I say it.. perfect world but that's not going to happen in the cad industry in the near future from what I can see. You really are telling people that what they are doing it all wrong - only in your opinion of course - but we/they still take it personally and hence we get threads like these where people are just justifying the way they have to, or choose to work.
You say it's all about data, yada yada but really, how dare you tell people that what they are doing - in your opinion of course - is all wrong or at least not the best way? How can you possibly impose your companies methodologies on everyone else? (btw, those are rhetorical questions, I don't need nor require your response, thank you).
As for the split of the thread, I don't think that it was a matter of "glowing praise and fawning responses without any hint of dissent" it was more a matter that of 7/8 of this post had nothing to do with Joe's program but more about the debate of 3D and 2D and there accuracy??
Well said Tim and I think it is pretty rude to press ones opinions so strongly on a bit of code or a function that was donated freely and with all good intentions. It is quite obviously very useful and needed by many and to be 'shot down' as useless or not required by a member if this board is very disappointing!
We all value your opinion Randy but geez, live and let live!
PS. To save you the hassle and a few more 'web trees', take this post in the context and spirit it was written for a change, if you really, no 'really' don't get what I'm talking about I will clarify if you like, just don't make sport of it for a change.
cheers, and still with all respect as always,
Mick.
PPS, what Mark said ;)
-
This has become rather funny.
-
Even there it remains more usable. Now that use may not be needed or wanted. but it is still more usable.
How so? Why is so more usable?
It can be used for more things, therefore more usable.
:| :|
You have been saying this right along and I heard you the first time unlike few others that may have not.
I was just looking for more substance or with some "case in points" examples.
A screw driver is useful for turning screws even if you don't have any screws to turn.
True and it is useful other stuff beside other screws, but still this does not answer my question.
I work for Luddites who have the motto "I have been doing it this for 40 years .............." (you all have heard it before.)
I am trying get a little more "stuff" for my case.
Ahh okay... Without additional software, 3D is "useful" beyond just making drawings in the following ways:
1.) Right off the top for what we do is visual interference checking. We can xref 3D models from Civil, Structural, Mechanical, Piping, Electrical, Instrumentation into a single file and just visually (without additional software) check for interferences. On the first three 3D projects we accomplished, field re-work due to design interferences dropped over eighty percent. That related to around a two percent savings of the Total Installed cost of the project. That alone paid for the additional costs of moving to 3D.
2.) Actual locations to design to or around. We often run several different segregated drainage systems in the same unit; storm water, oily water, amine, firewater, whatever. These systems often cross one another on their way to where ever. Being able to determine with a click or a view that they clear one another without having to extrapolate slopes and distances sames a ton of time. Sloped paving has been a killer for some of the more mathematically challenged folks in the business when attempting to locate the bottom of a stair or ladder or base-ell pipe support. Being able to determine the actual elevation with a click is a real boon.
3.) Volumes. We can pull concrete volumes of the whole job are any part thereof in an instant without ever touching a calculator. In a little longer time (without a vertical) I can reservoir volumes in diked areas, no matter how irregular.
There are many other uses and advantages, these just came to mind.
What kind of "other" drawings do you do? We've seen your pipe layouts.
-
If someone wishes to trivialize or marginalize my position, then do so with content, not titles and creative editing.
The split, editing, and title was my idea Randy. The title was an attempt at humor that flopped.
I had absolutely no intention of trivializing your position. My apologies.
The reasoning in my own twisted little head for keeping the posts in the other thread intact is because those were the posts I thought related directly to the program that Joe posted. If someone had posted "This is not right" or "Joe, this doesn't work because x,y, or z" (pun intended) then I would have left that in.
-
3D model is vastly more usable than a 2D drawing.
I am going to have to disagree with that. How did we get to were we are today? I am pretty sure that before the dawn of the PC companies were drawing with a pencil and paper (2D??)
Read what I wrote very closely, no where did I say that 2D was useless, I said 3D was more usable, and it is.
I know what was posted, I still say that I disagree. If I give one machinist a 3d model and say "build this", he will have no trouble completing this task. If I give a second machinist just the 2D and say "build this" He can do the same.
But the 3D model can be used for many more things (like clash detection) than just cutting the part can it not?? That makes it MORE usable.
Isn't that what stack ups are for? All still 2D If the stack ups are done properly than there would be no clash.
To create a Stack-Up of 2D files for a six bay by twelve bay structure with nine mechanical levels is a feat I'd like to see.
But to "CREATE" the part the 2D is more usable, to "VIRTUALLY CREATE AND ASSEMBLY"
Not at all.
then 3D models are more usable i.e. clash detection, Stress Analyses, Airflow, Kinematics, etc.. No disagreement there[/color]
There's the MORE usable part. That's all I said.
The second machinist will be able to create a more accurate part because he will have all the tolerances and datums that the first guy with the 3D does not.
Then the 3D file is inaccurate
How can you check the 3D for accuracy??
The same way you check any 3D model, you check it.
I've seen this many times when dealing with foreign suppliers. Some just wanted 2D information because they didn't have the technology to build from the 3D.
My 3D models will contain the very same drawing information.
But in most cases if the 3D isn't viewed in its native software the information is lost.
hmmm... there are several viewers and viewing options available for AutoCAD
I don't know to many GC's that are running AutoCAD in the filed to build houses from[/color]
Oh? Even out local hardware store uses a 3D modeling tool to design kitchens and bathrooms with customers, right in the middle of the store (there's the MORE useful part). Then drawings are extracted from the models with complete parts lists and installation instructions for the DIY'er. We have several stations in out shops for viewing the models during fabrications and several more on-site during construction. It is the norm in our business. Seems it would be a lot easier to accomplish for the average architect.
Which one is more usable. IN THIS CASE THE 2D IS.
No the 3D is still more usable. Just because you don't use certain aspects of an element does not mean the capability vaporizes. That usability remains.
For the actual creation of the part, the 2D is still more usable
Not at all. I have some parts (so do many machinists) that are cut directly from the model without EVER existing on a 2D drawing.
Now all that being said that assumes that the information given in both case was 100% accurate. Which I think is some of the dispute here. It comes down to 2 things
NEED FOR 2D OR 3D
ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION
If the 3D is accurate and it is flattened it will still be accurate
If you flatten my models the drawings become useless. So much for accuracy.
Maybe there not being created properly to begin with :-P
My drawings are of the 3D model if you flatten the model, the steel that used to reside in the view slice at elevation is now at zero and my plan viewport is empty (all my plan viewports are empty), the steel in the elevation of column line A now appears to be a single line at the bottom of the screen as it does in all the other elevational views. Others have used similar routines to do just that.
If the 3D Z axis information is inaccurate but the X Y are accurate then when flattened and overkilled the 2D will be accurate
Therein lies my whole point. If one third of the file is questionable then the whole file is questionable and I won't use it. If others here wish to trust that file they can carry on.
But it give you a starting point by which to check from. I know the old addage - Garbage in Garbage out.
And that is my point about the supplied sample.
-
I've not read this entire thread
EDIT: All the quotes from the following post.
http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=18225.msg222494#msg222494
I had/have no trouble with the moderators creating the second thread. But what if they let me RE-TITLE it based on my opinion of the concept "SuperFlatten: How to permanently destroy 3D Intelligence in files". How friendly would that be to newbies cruising these boards.
Probably not very.
I notice the title has been edited, thanks.
I still think the application was more oriented for drawing clean-up. I some times have to work with files that have points with a Z value of -99999, not very helpful when I only need a 2D file. Different strokes for different folks!
I am aware of its intent. I am also aware of its misuse.
If someone wishes to trivialize or marginalize my position, then do so with content, not titles and creative editing.
I apologise Randy, I don't think that was the intent of the Mod squad.
Then I'm curious what the intent of "Dirt road to Nowhere" was?
Or delete the whole damn thread all together, that would have been preferable and considerably more honest. Sorry, I call it as I see it.
I thought about deleting the thread but I do value your opinion/views.
Deleting it would have been preferable to what occured.
Someone goes to all the trouble of adding the intelligence of the third dimension, and someone writes a function to kill it. Why not explode the Dim's while you're at it?
Come on Randy, Joe gave theswamp membership an application that many of us can use because of the way we work and you want you jump all over him.
Perhaps you could have said ... "While I'm sure some folks will benefit from your application Joe I think it's wrong to destroy the intelligence of the third dimension for the following reasons;
1.
2.
3.
Then say that. Or delete my post or ban me all together, but butchering the thread and removing the original post was, in my opinion, uncalled for.
Apologies, I'm in a rare mood this morning.
No apologies necessary, as you may notice my mood is a little pointed as well.
-
The reasoning in my own twisted little head for keeping the posts in the other thread intact is because those were the posts I thought related directly to the program that Joe posted. If someone had posted "This is not right" or "Joe, this doesn't work because x,y, or z" (pun intended) then I would have left that in.
Psst Greg
Should we tell his Head is also blue?
I don't think we should tell him that his head is supersized. I don't think he can handle that. Can't even imagine how "little" his pillow is.
-
What kind of "other" drawings do you do? We've seen your pipe layouts.
From those models (or rather the xref's they represent) all the Piping, Structural, Building, Mechanical, Electrical and Instrumentation drawings are extracted.
-
Here's a screenshot of the left view of a drawing that was drawn with SOME proper elevations at one time, but over time, who knows who didn't know it was, used Osnaps and didn't use proper elevations and this is the result. It's now garbage. Impossible to hatch anything without doing some major corrections and to be honest, life would be much easier if it was all Flattened. Until someone came along and wanted the elevations of something.
I see Randy's point, but this is, I believe, the exception to his rule.
-
To create a Stack-Up of 2D files for a six bay by twelve bay structure with nine mechanical levels is a feat I'd like to see.
How did they used to do it before 3D?? Guesstimate
The same way you check any 3D model, you check it.
So your machining is deadly accurate? I'm sure if that were the case there would be many manufacturers banging down your door.
How do you get your tolerancing and datum structure for checking? Doesn't that come from the 2D??
Oh? Even out local hardware store uses a 3D modeling tool to design kitchens and bathrooms with customers, right in the middle of the store (there's the MORE useful part). Then drawings are extracted from the models with complete parts lists and installation instructions for the DIY'er.
Isn't that 2D?? So they are building from 2D, yeah? Also the 3D viewing is for Joe Consumer to get a visual of what his kitchen will APPROXIMATLEY look like. (note: not accurately)
We have several stations in out shops for viewing the models during fabrications and several more on-site during construction. It is the norm in our business. Seems it would be a lot easier to accomplish for the average architect.
I don't know many Archs that do routine site visits unless there is an issue. ( I don't think they like to get dirty :-D ) They do the design and let the GC do the building. In the last 3 years I have yet to see a GC with AutoCAD in the field.
I should state that this is in MY line of work, in MY area. YOUR milage may very.
Not at all. I have some parts (so do many machinists) that are cut directly from the model without EVER existing on a 2D drawing.
So have I but with out the tolerancing or means to accurately check them,getting them to preform with other parts is a problem.
My drawings are of the 3D model if you flatten the model, the steel that used to reside in the view slice at elevation is now at zero and my plan viewport is empty (all my plan viewports are empty), the steel in the elevation of column line A now appears to be a single line at the bottom of the screen as it does in all the other elevation views. Others have used similar routines to do just that.
But is the plan view still accurate?? This has nothing to do with the other VP's, that's a whole other discussion. If you flatten a dwg to the plan view, does it make the plan view any less accurate than the 3D plan view? If I took the 3D plan view and printed it to 2D paper. I then flattened the 3D to the plan view and printed it to 2D paper, would they not be the same?
And that is my point about the supplied sample.
So you would agree that an accurate 3D flattened to plan view would produce and accurate 2D plan??
-
:-D
-
:-D
:-D
-
:-D
:-D
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
-
What kind of "other" drawings do you do? We've seen your pipe layouts.
From those models (or rather the xref's they represent) all the Piping, Structural, Building, Mechanical, Electrical and Instrumentation drawings are extracted.
I mean completely different type of projects.
-
[Jenny Gump voice]
God, make me a bird so I can fly far, far away
[/Jenny Gump Voice]
-
[Jenny Gump voice]
God, make me a bird so I can fly far, far away
[/Jenny Gump Voice]
:lmao:
x 10
-
[Jenny Gump voice]
God, make me a bird so I can fly far, far away
[/Jenny Gump Voice]
Maybe we should all go for a run.
-
It happens
-
It happens
Runs happen?
-
It happens
Runs happen?
'nother Forest Gump reference?
-
It happens
Runs happen?
'nother Forest Gump reference?
Kind of a "loose" Gump reference, but a Gump reference nontheless.
-
It happens
Runs happen?
'nother Forest Gump reference?
Kind of a "loose" Gump reference, but a Gump reference nontheless.
If it's that loose, maybe you should be eating more cheese.
-
To create a Stack-Up of 2D files for a six bay by twelve bay structure with nine mechanical levels is a feat I'd like to see.
How did they used to do it before 3D?? Guesstimate
A LOT more work because the files were LESS usable.
The same way you check any 3D model, you check it.
So your machining is deadly accurate? I'm sure if that were the case there would be many manufacturers banging down your door.
How do you get your tolerancing and datum structure for checking? Doesn't that come from the 2D??
Our models are deadly accurate, our machining is within tolerances which are noted in the spec. Keep in mind that I did NOT say that 2D was useless.
Oh? Even out local hardware store uses a 3D modeling tool to design kitchens and bathrooms with customers, right in the middle of the store (there's the MORE useful part). Then drawings are extracted from the models with complete parts lists and installation instructions for the DIY'er.
Isn't that 2D?? So they are building from 2D, yeah? Also the 3D viewing is for Joe Consumer to get a visual of what his kitchen will APPROXIMATLEY look like. (note: not accurately)
Keep in mind I did NOT say that 2D was useless, just that 3D was MORE usable, just as this case points out. The 3D model was much MORE usable showing the client what his kitchen looked like than 2D drawings would have ever been.
We have several stations in out shops for viewing the models during fabrications and several more on-site during construction. It is the norm in our business. Seems it would be a lot easier to accomplish for the average architect.
I don't know many Archs that do routine site visits unless there is an issue. ( I don't think they like to get dirty :-D ) They do the design and let the GC do the building. In the last 3 years I have yet to see a GC with AutoCAD in the field.
That will change as the work force changes, as it has done in many other fields. My father in law was a machinists, his hands were permanently blackened by oil, grit, scale and steel. My younger cousin is a machinists, and works in a white shirt, his hands are never dirty.
Not at all. I have some parts (so do many machinists) that are cut directly from the model without EVER existing on a 2D drawing.
So have I but with out the tolerancing or means to accurately check them,getting them to preform with other parts is a problem.
We have that data, why don't you?
My drawings are of the 3D model if you flatten the model, the steel that used to reside in the view slice at elevation is now at zero and my plan viewport is empty (all my plan viewports are empty), the steel in the elevation of column line A now appears to be a single line at the bottom of the screen as it does in all the other elevation views. Others have used similar routines to do just that.
But is the plan view still accurate??
Not anymore, all nine levels of the structure now interfere with each other at elevation zero.
If you flatten a dwg to the plan view, does it make the plan view any less accurate than the 3D plan view? If I took the 3D plan view and printed it to 2D paper. I then flattened the 3D to the plan view and printed it to 2D paper, would they not be the same?
The plan view of the 3D model at Top/Steel Elevation 109'-0 will show only the framing at that level, as will the plans at TOS 112', 122', 126', 136' and so on. Once flatten all the steel will be at the same level (zero) and all running into one another. As I said, it will destroy the file.
And that is my point about the supplied sample.
So you would agree that an accurate 3D flattened to plan view would produce and accurate 2D plan??
[/quote]No I don't, never have. It may in some cases for some users, in our case it would be disastrous.
-
[Jenny Gump voice]
God, make me a bird so I can fly far, far away
[/Jenny Gump Voice]
Your fingers, your keyboard, you don't HAVE to click on the topic.
-
What kind of "other" drawings do you do? We've seen your pipe layouts.
From those models (or rather the xref's they represent) all the Piping, Structural, Building, Mechanical, Electrical and Instrumentation drawings are extracted.
I mean completely different type of projects.
Most of our project are along the lines of some of those you've seen me post; major petro-chem projects, in the $200M-$1.8B range. We have in the past also executed several other types of 3D projects from commercial building, highway, pulp/paper, power generation/transmission.
-
I am just wondering how in the heck do you come up with the tolerances over that huge of an area. Like big petro chem plants and stuff have so many parts and components. Also how do you know when they build the plant that the workers are even paying attention to the model and or 2D drawing? I have done some home construction in the past and had a footing off a good two feet or so. We had to come up with a way of dealing with issues like that.
I am being more curious than anyting. Thanks
-
Just one question I may regret asking, but I'm well aware that 3D drawings are much more usable than 2D and accept the fact; heck I live it.
What if you're in the situation where you're doing simple site plans, and your CAD tech's don't know how to manipulate or use a 3D drawing. There'd be no return on the investment to train them in the use of 3D oriented commands. They don't need to know the use of UCS manipulation, setting different views, clipping planes, and all that jazz. They just need to take your model and slap it on the site plan. Maybe it's just for a drainage analysis... whatever...
What's wrong with taking your model, flattening it, cleaning it up a bit, and pushin' out the drawing. I haven't come into contact with a dirt guy that we work with that would know what to do with my models... I send him a 2D drawing, generally containing 3 layers. Roof, Foundation, Exterior Walls. That's all they need, and heck, probably less than that.
There are situations where people don't know how to use a 3D drawing, and that does not make them any less successful of a CAD tech or designer or engineer than anyone else.
This LSP routine has as valid a place in someone's arsenal of tools as any routines in yours.
-
Most of our project are along the lines of some of those you've seen me post; major petro-chem projects, in the $200M-$1.8B range. We have in the past also executed several other types of 3D projects from commercial building, highway, pulp/paper, power generation/transmission.
Interesting...
You say "We" as in your company.
What kind of projects have "You" worked on?
-
I am just wondering how in the heck do you come up with the tolerances over that huge of an area. Like big petro chem plants and stuff have so many parts and components. Also how do you know when they build the plant that the workers are even paying attention to the model and or 2D drawing? I have done some home construction in the past and had a footing off a good two feet or so. We had to come up with a way of dealing with issues like that.
I am being more curious than anyting. Thanks
I can imagine they have tolerances. His drawings allow for the manufacturing of the individual pieces need to be within tolerance so that they can be assembled in the field correctly.
-
But when the parts get assembled in the field the contractors and workers have tape measures or what ever to assembly and hang the parts by. I am used to tolerances to +/- .0005 to say at the most +/-.100
I can not see how one can design for something that says has a tolerance of +/- 3 feet or more. How and what position does that part take in the 3D model space?
-
A LOT more work because the files were LESS usable.
If the end result is the same how are the file LESS usable??
Our models are deadly accurate,
As accurate as the software they were created on. Then there is the translation to the the machine file (.iges .step, etc..) no loss there I'm sure
our machining is within tolerances which are noted in the spec. Keep in mind that I did NOT say that 2D was useless.
Is that a 2D spec?? :lmao:
The point I am trying to make is this: You can create a part with just a 3D model, heck its done on a daily basis
But without the 2D it cannot be accurately measured. You have yet to address this point.
You can however create and measure a part very accurately with just 2D. That to me makes the 2D more usable to me.
3D is great if you live in a perfect world.
We have that data, why don't you?
Absolutely, It's on the 2D print. Along with the datum structure for measuring the tolerances.
Not anymore, all nine levels of the structure now interfere with each other at elevation zero.
So for YOUR work this may not be a tool that you take advantage of, but it doesn't discredit its use for someone else.
- Maybe I missed the sign on the way in
WELCOME TO RANDY'S WORLD
VISITORS WELCOME
*don't get comfortable your just visiting* :ugly:
No I don't, never have. It may in some cases for some users, in our case it would be disastrous.
Are you saying it now??
So to sum things up, Joe's tool ( :lmao: ) would not work for YOU, but as we can see by some of the other posters, it will work great for them. as long as they don't send their files to you.
Your fingers, your keyboard, you don't HAVE to click on the topic.
I just stop by in between flattening drawings and exploding dims. :lmao: Plus its Friday, and ALL the supervisors are on VAC :lol:
-
I'm a little confused by everyone's animosity towards Randy.
Are you all in the exact same type of work that Randy does? Does your business have the exact same business practices? The exact same contracts? Are they the same size as his? Use CAD the exact same way?
-
Are you saying it now??
So to sum things up, Joe's tool ( :lmao: ) would work for YOU, but as we can see by some of the other posters, it will work great for them. as long as they don't send there files to you.
their
-
I am just wondering how in the heck do you come up with the tolerances over that huge of an area. Like big petro chem plants and stuff have so many parts and components. Also how do you know when they build the plant that the workers are even paying attention to the model and or 2D drawing? I have done some home construction in the past and had a footing off a good two feet or so. We had to come up with a way of dealing with issues like that.
I am being more curious than anyting. Thanks
Everything is spec'd. Most of it by the governing codes such as API, ASME, ACI, AWS, AISC and the like, the rest by us or our client. We check facilities just like we check drawings, only we call them inspectors... dozens of them. Here, your foundation above would be inspected by at least three inspectors. Errors still happen, that's what jack-hammers come is sizes.
-
Everything is spec'd. Most of it by the governing codes such as API, ASME, ACI, AWS, AISC and the like, the rest by us or our client. We check facilities just like we check drawings, only we call them inspectors... dozens of them. Here, your foundation above would be inspected by at least three inspectors. Errors still happen, that's what jack-hammers come is sizes.
why
-
Just one question I may regret asking, but I'm well aware that 3D drawings are much more usable than 2D and accept the fact; heck I live it.
What if you're in the situation where you're doing simple site plans, and your CAD tech's don't know how to manipulate or use a 3D drawing.
Doesn't happen here. First we don't have but a couple "CAD Tech's" we use "designers" and engineers, and they are quite skilled at what we do.
Maybe it's just for a drainage analysis... whatever...
Drainage analysis requires much of the 3D data contained in the file to calculate flow rates volumes and velocities.
What's wrong with taking your model, flattening it, cleaning it up a bit, and pushin' out the drawing.
You mean, other than breaking the 3D data we've invested time and money placing in the file and making a much less usable file out of it? Nothing I guess.
There are situations where people don't know how to use a 3D drawing, and that does not make them any less successful of a CAD tech or designer or engineer than anyone else.
It may not, but they won't work here very long without becoming proficient in 3D.
This LSP routine has as valid a place in someone's arsenal of tools as any routines in yours.
As does exploding dimensions. We've seen folks post on this very forum, what they consider are very valid reasons for exploding dims.
-
But when the parts get assembled in the field the contractors and workers have tape measures or what ever to assembly and hang the parts by. I am used to tolerances to +/- .0005 to say at the most +/-.100
I can not see how one can design for something that says has a tolerance of +/- 3 feet or more. How and what position does that part take in the 3D model space?
I don't know of any construction field with a tolerance of three feet. Even highway rock blasting work.
-
Are you saying it now??
So to sum things up, Joe's tool ( :lmao: ) would work for YOU, but as we can see by some of the other posters, it will work great for them. as long as they don't send there files to you.
their
:roll:
-
I don't know of any construction field with a tolerance of three feet. Even highway rock blasting work.
What are your tolerances typically. Just being curious I know this is going out of thread a little bit (sorry for this)
With the standards you mentioned how do you spec those out? Or say this part to be inspected or made per ASME 14.673niner (I made that spec up) Is it on a word document?
-
I'm a little confused by everyone's animosity towards Randy.
Are you all in the exact same type of work that Randy does? Does your business have the exact same business practices? The exact same contracts? Are they the same size as his? Use CAD the exact same way?
Absolutely not, in fact, I know that 3D modeling can produce a tremendous amount of information that CAN be useful, however, in many diciplines, the information, although it CAN be useful, is not.
From the architectural side, I can draw a model in 3D and generate sections, but they do not meet the minimum standards.
Ok, why you might ask ...
Several reasons, but I will address one big one ... in sections we are required to show connections, fasteners, insulation, air spaces, anchors, etc. Since these almost never occur at the same location in the drawing, we would be required to have dozens of sections. Further, we would also be required to draw all of said fasteners, insulation, etc. While that might be a neat thing to do, and would make a great BOM for a structure, while we spend hundreds of hours designing a 3D model that is "completely accurate" (if the fasteners were missing it wouldn't technically be accurate), while our competitor has designed 10 structures in 2D
Ok, so lets say that you have one of those fancy ADT thingamabobs ... Autodesk says "sorry, you don't need to show plates and studs in your wall designs", ok, fine ... no plates and studs means no stud anchors, straps and fasteners. We show a wall without fasteners and some jackass builds it without fasteners, we end up being sued by some slick lawyer who contends that they were just following the plans ... hey you showed everything else, we didn't know you EXPECTED us to put fasteners THERE ...
I have seen some of the worst who are supposedly knowledgable people, try and build something without the slightest knowledge of how it is supposed to work. In the end, no matter how much more usable a 3D model is over a 2D plan, it is only usable from the design aspect, not the construction aspect, or at least it is that way in my field of architecture.
Further, as I have stated earlier, there is not one piece of software available that allows me to create a correct elevation of my 3D models. If I draw a 3D model of a log home, just so I don't have to do elevations and sections, I will sadly disappointed when I have to draw them both, this time in 2D, just to get an accurate depiction.
-
Most of our project are along the lines of some of those you've seen me post; major petro-chem projects, in the $200M-$1.8B range. We have in the past also executed several other types of 3D projects from commercial building, highway, pulp/paper, power generation/transmission.
Interesting...
You say "We" as in your company.
What kind of projects have "You" worked on?
IN some capacity or another, I've worked in all of them. My background is Civil/Structural so that is where most of my experience as a designer resides. Though I've had a turn in Piping and Mechanical, I've also covered other tasks from Civil/Structural Design Lead to Project CAD Coordinator to Project Design Coordinator to Construction Manager. Last year I was "moved" to "Corporate Manager of Design Applications" (glorified CAD manager with none of the fun).
-
Are you saying it now??
So to sum things up, Joe's tool ( :lmao: ) would work for YOU, but as we can see by some of the other posters, it will work great for them. as long as they don't send there files to you.
their
:roll:
I thought you weren't going to be around here today.
-
A LOT more work because the files were LESS usable.
If the end result is the same how are the file LESS usable??
Because to get those same results we didn't USE the files, we used pencils and calculators.
Our models are deadly accurate,
As accurate as the software they were created on. Then there is the translation to the the machine file (.iges .step, etc..) no loss there I'm sure
So far well within tolerances.
our machining is within tolerances which are noted in the spec. Keep in mind that I did NOT say that 2D was useless.
Is that a 2D spec?? :lmao:
The point I am trying to make is this: You can create a part with just a 3D model, heck its done on a daily basis
But without the 2D it cannot be accurately measured. You have yet to address this point.
AGAIN I have never said 2D was useless, no matter how much you wish I had, I haven't. I have said the 3D was MORE usable. Is that a concept that escapes you here that one thing can be MORE usable than another without impacting the others usefulness at all?? Or must it be for you that if one thing is useful the other can NOT be?? Truly they are not exclusive concepts.
You can however create and measure a part very accurately with just 2D. That to me makes the 2D more usable to me.
That makes it usable yes, 2D is usable, I have never claimed otherwise. I can place the VERY SAME data in a 3D model, so at that point they are identically useful. however I can glean even MORE data from the 3D file and therefore it is MORE useful. You may never use the data, that does not mean the data is useless. A screw driver is useful for turning screws even if you NEVER use it to do so.
3D is great if you live in a perfect world.
It's great even in mine.
We have that data, why don't you?
Absolutely, It's on the 2D print. Along with the datum structure for measuring the tolerances.
Then why do you keep asking for it??
Not anymore, all nine levels of the structure now interfere with each other at elevation zero.
So for YOUR work this may not be a tool that you take advantage of, but it doesn't discredit its use for someone else.
My position remains that stepping on an accurate 3D model is a bad idea, I don't care who is using it. Stepping on it reduces its usefulness, even if YOU never use the data for YOUR work, someone has used it or they would not have built it that way to start with.
No I don't, never have. It may in some cases for some users, in our case it would be disastrous.
Are you saying it now??
Saying what now? (your little "sign" slur butchered the quoteback)
So to sum things up, Joe's tool ( :lmao: ) would work for YOU,
No it wouldn't, as I said above it would be disastrous.
but as we can see by some of the other posters, it will work great for them. as long as they don't send there files to you.
Use it, yeah they can use it. I've seen guys use their teeth for bottle openers, doesn't follow that its a good idea. Stepping on an accurate 3D model, breaks it and makes it less usable. Stepping on an inaccurate model results in a flat inaccurate model.
-
Everything is spec'd. Most of it by the governing codes such as API, ASME, ACI, AWS, AISC and the like, the rest by us or our client. We check facilities just like we check drawings, only we call them inspectors... dozens of them. Here, your foundation above would be inspected by at least three inspectors. Errors still happen, that's what jack-hammers come is sizes.
why
A problem with VR and answering the phone and talking with folks as they pass my office. Add a deep southeast Texas twang and you never know what'll pop up on screen.
-
Grammar knotzi.
-
Just one question I may regret asking, but I'm well aware that 3D drawings are much more usable than 2D and accept the fact; heck I live it.
What if you're in the situation where you're doing simple site plans, and your CAD tech's don't know how to manipulate or use a 3D drawing.
Doesn't happen here. First we don't have but a couple "CAD Tech's" we use "designers" and engineers, and they are quite skilled at what we do.
Right, same here, but we're not talking about your house, but more "in general"
Maybe it's just for a drainage analysis... whatever...
Drainage analysis requires much of the 3D data contained in the file to calculate flow rates volumes and velocities.
That's your prefered method, sure, but many civil engineers are fine seeing a the footprint, eave heights, and roof slopes, no matter how that information is conveyed. (There may be other details to it, I'm just going off what I logically think the important numbers are off the drawings we typically send our civil guys for such things)
What's wrong with taking your model, flattening it, cleaning it up a bit, and pushin' out the drawing.
You mean, other than breaking the 3D data we've invested time and money placing in the file and making a much less usable file out of it? Nothing I guess.
There are situations where people don't know how to use a 3D drawing, and that does not make them any less successful of a CAD tech or designer or engineer than anyone else.
It may not, but they won't work here very long without becoming proficient in 3D.
Right... "here" (your house) but not "in general" which is the topic at hand. The very existence of the tool.
This LSP routine has as valid a place in someone's arsenal of tools as any routines in yours.
As does exploding dimensions. We've seen folks post on this very forum, what they consider are very valid reasons for exploding dims.
So this file doesn't work for -you-?
The topic isn't whether it works for you, Randy, you were challenging the very existence of the tool, which is why people are getting argumentative.
I have two clear simple questions that might clear up the need to argue further:
1) Are you saying this tool should not be used, ever, or just not be used on your files or in your house?
2) Do you dispute that other companies in other fields of work can quite successfully
-
I don't know of any construction field with a tolerance of three feet. Even highway rock blasting work.
What are your tolerances typically. Just being curious I know this is going out of thread a little bit (sorry for this)
I'm not sure you can take this thread anywhere that could be considered "out". The tolerances are widely varied depending on the construction activity. Some reinforcing steel placement can have a three inch tolerance, some anchor bolt placement requires no more that a sixteenth.
With the standards you mentioned how do you spec those out? Or say this part to be inspected or made per ASME 14.673niner (I made that spec up) Is it on a word document?
Most of it is big honking books purchased for big honking dollars. We also have subscription services to online versions of nearly everything.
-
My position remains that stepping on an accurate 3D model is a bad idea, I don't care who is using it.
That is a mighty bold statement considering some people create a 3D model, specifically for the purpose of stepping on it to create a correct 2D representation. Are you saying then that if one does just that it is bad practice? If someone wants a 2D drawing they should just draw it in 2D?
Stepping on it reduces its usefulness, even if YOU never use the data for YOUR work, someone has used it or they would not have built it that way to start with.
What if I am the one who "built it that way to start with"?
Stepping on an accurate 3D model, breaks it and makes it less usable.
Not if the 3D representation cannot be viewed "correctly". In my line of work, "stepping on" a 3D model is the ONLY way to get an accurate plot ... and an accurate plot is infinitely more useful than all of the data in the 3D drawing combined.
Stepping on an inaccurate model results in a flat inaccurate model.
Technically you are correct, as you cannot have a 2D model, however you can have a 2D representation of a model from a specific viewpoint. Thus if you "step on" a 3D model that is incorrect in the 3D nature, yet its appearence is correct in the "view", you will be left with a correct 2D representation. Usefulness aside, the 2D representation will be correct.
-
What tells the end user what spec to look at? Is it on the 2D drawings? Or separate from the drawings?
Yes standards are expensive and man the amount of information in standards is overwhelming.
I guess the point I am trying to get at here is that if standards are being used I think this information is more important than any 3D model and or 2D drawing that can be provided. It has tolerances, materials, testing procedures ect. So it really does not matter what the CAD data say and or is as long as it meets the standards then you are happy. But drawing and or Modeling as close to the math data of the standards is crucial. So one does not have interferences and issues down the road.
-
Just one question I may regret asking, but I'm well aware that 3D drawings are much more usable than 2D and accept the fact; heck I live it.
What if you're in the situation where you're doing simple site plans, and your CAD tech's don't know how to manipulate or use a 3D drawing.
Doesn't happen here. First we don't have but a couple "CAD Tech's" we use "designers" and engineers, and they are quite skilled at what we do.
Right, same here, but we're not talking about your house, but more "in general"
Oh, your question was "What if you're..." I don't know what "you" do. My position remains that it is a bad idea to step on an accurate 3D model.
Maybe it's just for a drainage analysis... whatever...
Drainage analysis requires much of the 3D data contained in the file to calculate flow rates volumes and velocities.
That's your prefered method, sure, but many civil engineers are fine seeing a the footprint, eave heights, and roof slopes, no matter how that information is conveyed. (There may be other details to it, I'm just going off what I logically think the important numbers are off the drawings we typically send our civil guys for such things)
We did it a 2D method for decades, it is quite doable. Just takes a lot longer and requires more input. See everyone posting here so far is still thinking with 2D methods even if they work 3D, "Numbers on a drawing". I can do drainage analysis on our sites before we ever cut the first drawing or place the first "number" as text anywhere.
What's wrong with taking your model, flattening it, cleaning it up a bit, and pushin' out the drawing.
You mean, other than breaking the 3D data we've invested time and money placing in the file and making a much less usable file out of it? Nothing I guess.
There are situations where people don't know how to use a 3D drawing, and that does not make them any less successful of a CAD tech or designer or engineer than anyone else.
It may not, but they won't work here very long without becoming proficient in 3D.
Right... "here" (your house) but not "in general" which is the topic at hand. The very existence of the tool.
Can't speak for anyone else, but my topic has always been the advisability of stepping on a 3D model. If you step on an accurate 3D model you reduce its usefulness, even if YOU aren't the one using the data. If you step on an inaccurate file, you still have an inaccurate file, only flat.
This LSP routine has as valid a place in someone's arsenal of tools as any routines in yours.
As does exploding dimensions. We've seen folks post on this very forum, what they consider are very valid reasons for exploding dims.
So this file doesn't work for -you-?
The topic isn't whether it works for you, Randy, you were challenging the very existence of the tool, which is why people are getting argumentative.
Oh I understand that very well. Any time any one challenges the status quo, people get uncomfortable. Do it with my sweet style, and people froth at the mouth.
I have two clear simple questions that might clear up the need to argue further:
1) Are you saying this tool should not be used, ever, or just not be used on your files or in your house?
Yes, I'm saying on an accurate 3D it should never be used. I question its use on an inaccurate model, but if others wish to rely on the other two-thirds being accurate, then carry on (I think I've said that six or eight times now.)
2) Do you dispute that other companies in other fields of work can quite successfully
Never have. We were quite successful using number two pencils on vellum for quite some time. Some others are quite successful using only 2D CAD, and still others are very successful using other 3D tools.
-
Not if the 3D representation cannot be viewed "correctly". In my line of work, "stepping on" a 3D model is the ONLY way to get an accurate plot ... and an accurate plot is infinitely more useful than all of the data in the 3D drawing combined.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound like a good piece of software to me.
Now I know with Softplan you draw in 3D, but have all your drawings working in 2D (so to speak).
No reason to "step" your drawing just to plot it.
DataCAD has 3D capablities that we don't use. The newest version has something we call smart walls and doors and windows that work similar to what Softplan does and this is still being developed and improved upon.
-
Anyone ever made a 3d model of an electric blanket? I wonder how that would fit into this discussion.
-
My position remains that stepping on an accurate 3D model is a bad idea, I don't care who is using it.
That is a mighty bold statement considering some people create a 3D model, specifically for the purpose of stepping on it to create a correct 2D representation. Are you saying then that if one does just that it is bad practice? If someone wants a 2D drawing they should just draw it in 2D?
Why waste the time doing it 3D then?
Stepping on it reduces its usefulness, even if YOU never use the data for YOUR work, someone has used it or they would not have built it that way to start with.
What if I am the one who "built it that way to start with"?
I need this clarified. Why go to the trouble of building an accurate 3D model only to step on it??
If you're talking about something like SOLPROF, I've been trashing that bit of coding for a decade or more. It divorces the drawing from the model and reduces the effectiveness of clash detection and increase the possibility of errors.
If you're saying that it is "easier" to add some stuff to the stepped on version, I'd say you should probably re-think your methods (thats how we got where we are). Concepts like annotations belong in paperspace might be helpful.
Stepping on an accurate 3D model, breaks it and makes it less usable.
Not if the 3D representation cannot be viewed "correctly". In my line of work, "stepping on" a 3D model is the ONLY way to get an accurate plot ... and an accurate plot is infinitely more useful than all of the data in the 3D drawing combined.
If the plot is not accurate then the model isn't. If the model is accurate why wouldn't the plot be so??
Stepping on an inaccurate model results in a flat inaccurate model.
Technically you are correct, as you cannot have a 2D model, however you can have a 2D representation of a model from a specific viewpoint. Thus if you "step on" a 3D model that is incorrect in the 3D nature, yet its appearence is correct in the "view", you will be left with a correct 2D representation. Usefulness aside, the 2D representation will be correct.
If the creator of the file placed inaccurate 3D data I would not rely on his 2D data. If that works for you carry on (that's seven or nine times now)
-
Or 3D wire harness of car
They actually do this
That would be one mess of wires a wire harness say for a big Dodge or Ford Truck Or how about the Electric Hybird cars they have now. WOW
-
Anyone ever made a 3d model of an electric blanket? I wonder how that would fit into this discussion.
I haven't, but we model wire (cable) all the time.
-
I just think of the elevations. !
-
Step on this and check its usefulness.
http://www.theswamp.org/screens/index.php?dir=cadaver/&file=REACTOR.dwg (http://www.theswamp.org/screens/index.php?dir=cadaver/&file=REACTOR.dwg)
-
Just one question I may regret asking, but I'm well aware that 3D drawings are much more usable than 2D and accept the fact; heck I live it.
What if you're in the situation where you're doing simple site plans, and your CAD tech's don't know how to manipulate or use a 3D drawing.
Doesn't happen here. First we don't have but a couple "CAD Tech's" we use "designers" and engineers, and they are quite skilled at what we do.
Right, same here, but we're not talking about your house, but more "in general"
Oh, your question was "What if you're..." I don't know what "you" do. My position remains that it is a bad idea to step on an accurate 3D model.
Maybe it's just for a drainage analysis... whatever...
Drainage analysis requires much of the 3D data contained in the file to calculate flow rates volumes and velocities.
That's your prefered method, sure, but many civil engineers are fine seeing a the footprint, eave heights, and roof slopes, no matter how that information is conveyed. (There may be other details to it, I'm just going off what I logically think the important numbers are off the drawings we typically send our civil guys for such things)
We did it a 2D method for decades, it is quite doable. Just takes a lot longer and requires more input. See everyone posting here so far is still thinking with 2D methods even if they work 3D, "Numbers on a drawing". I can do drainage analysis on our sites before we ever cut the first drawing or place the first "number" as text anywhere.
What's wrong with taking your model, flattening it, cleaning it up a bit, and pushin' out the drawing.
You mean, other than breaking the 3D data we've invested time and money placing in the file and making a much less usable file out of it? Nothing I guess.
There are situations where people don't know how to use a 3D drawing, and that does not make them any less successful of a CAD tech or designer or engineer than anyone else.
It may not, but they won't work here very long without becoming proficient in 3D.
Right... "here" (your house) but not "in general" which is the topic at hand. The very existence of the tool.
Can't speak for anyone else, but my topic has always been the advisability of stepping on a 3D model. If you step on an accurate 3D model you reduce its usefulness, even if YOU aren't the one using the data. If you step on an inaccurate file, you still have an inaccurate file, only flat.
This LSP routine has as valid a place in someone's arsenal of tools as any routines in yours.
As does exploding dimensions. We've seen folks post on this very forum, what they consider are very valid reasons for exploding dims.
So this file doesn't work for -you-?
The topic isn't whether it works for you, Randy, you were challenging the very existence of the tool, which is why people are getting argumentative.
Oh I understand that very well. Any time any one challenges the status quo, people get uncomfortable. Do it with my sweet style, and people froth at the mouth.
I have two clear simple questions that might clear up the need to argue further:
1) Are you saying this tool should not be used, ever, or just not be used on your files or in your house?
Yes, I'm saying on an accurate 3D it should never be used. I question its use on an inaccurate model, but if others wish to rely on the other two-thirds being accurate, then carry on (I think I've said that six or eight times now.)
2) Do you dispute that other companies in other fields of work can quite successfully
Never have. We were quite successful using number two pencils on vellum for quite some time. Some others are quite successful using only 2D CAD, and still others are very successful using other 3D tools.
"Do it with my sweet style, and people froth at the mouth." :-D I like how you put that ;)
Thanks for the answers. I was just trying to get better perspective and background of where you were coming from and the reasoning behind your replies.
-
My position remains that stepping on an accurate 3D model is a bad idea, I don't care who is using it.
That is a mighty bold statement considering some people create a 3D model, specifically for the purpose of stepping on it to create a correct 2D representation. Are you saying then that if one does just that it is bad practice? If someone wants a 2D drawing they should just draw it in 2D?
Why waste the time doing it 3D then?
Because it is much faster to draw a 3D representation, explode to oblivion, step on it, remove the offending parts and fill in the blanks
Stepping on it reduces its usefulness, even if YOU never use the data for YOUR work, someone has used it or they would not have built it that way to start with.
What if I am the one who "built it that way to start with"?
I need this clarified. Why go to the trouble of building an accurate 3D model only to step on it??
Because AutoCAD cannot display or plot a correctly drawn 3D model in my line of work.
If you're saying that it is "easier" to add some stuff to the stepped on version, I'd say you should probably re-think your methods (thats how we got where we are). Concepts like annotations belong in paperspace might be helpful.
No, it is infinitely easier to REMOVE stuff that displays incorrectly when plotting from a 3D model, in fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE to remove the offending items in a 3D model, and if we explode the item in question, it then becomes IMPOSSIBLE to edit the offending items without stepping on it.
If the plot is not accurate then the model isn't. If the model is accurate why wouldn't the plot be so??
I didn't write the software so I wouldn't know why. I just use it, the workaround is to step on the drawing and remove the offending portions.
If the creator of the file placed inaccurate 3D data I would not rely on his 2D data. If that works for you carry on (that's seven or nine times now)
Granted, but I am not talking about huge amounts of data here ... I am talking about something that can be checked for accuracy in less time than it takes to plot it out, not much point in redrawing something to make it useful, if I can step on it and make it much more useful.
-
OT: Just imagine how expensive this thread really is...
The time that each person has spent (including some of that fantastic copying and pasting)
multiplied by their payrate...
And to what benefit? :?
-
Because AutoCAD cannot display or plot a correctly drawn 3D model in my line of work.
What is failing? If you have an accurate model what's missing from the plot??
No, it is infinitely easier to REMOVE stuff that displays incorrectly when plotting from a 3D model, in fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE to remove the offending items in a 3D model, and if we explode the item in question, it then becomes IMPOSSIBLE to edit the offending items without stepping on it.
Which items are those??
If the creator of the file placed inaccurate 3D data I would not rely on his 2D data. If that works for you carry on (that's seven or nine times now)
Granted, but I am not talking about huge amounts of data here ... I am talking about something that can be checked for accuracy in less time than it takes to plot it out, not much point in redrawing something to make it useful, if I can step on it and make it much more useful.
If you wish to rely on an inaccurate file, carry on.
-
OT: Just imagine how expensive this thread really is...
The time that each person has spent (including some of that fantastic copying and pasting)
multiplied by their payrate...
I'm currently on my own time, so no harm
And to what benefit? :?
Every discussion, regardless of any other aspect has some benefit. I've learned quite a bit from this thread. Quite a bit indeed.
-
OT: Just imagine how expensive this thread really is...
The time that each person has spent (including some of that fantastic copying and pasting)
multiplied by their payrate...
And to what benefit? :?
I think the only benefit that can be said to have, which I indulge in (though no, I'm not saying this makes up my whole time here) is being able to finish a sheet, writing a spec, detailing something or what not... then come here, find something interesting, discuss something, thereby clearing your mind of what you were just working on... come back with a clear head, and scour for mistakes or errors.
I find a great many grammar errors, stupid mistakes, human error type things that I probably would have not noticed otherwise. There's always that time you can look right at a mistake and because you KNOW in your HEAD what it SHOULD be... sometimes your eyes don't see otherwise. At least that's how it is with me. Sometimes it can say 1/2" and it should be 1/4" but I'll be expecting to see 1/4" and think I do see it. That was a very confusing sentence to write :lol:
-
...and yea, I do have to say that I've learned leaps and bounds that've helped me and my company by viewing discussion here and learning from methods/mistakes that others have made. Since I'm the only CAD "expert" (laugh all you want ;) ) here, I don't have another person to bounce ideas off of, or to gather a different view or experience from.
There's too many others here with a great magnitude more experience and knowledge than I have that I love picking at and learning from. (CADaver, keith, Maverick, SDETERS, Tim Spangler, and well the list goes on...) I learn a great deal. In fact the more a person writes, the more the reveal their angle of attack, and how they see problems in their mind, in order to solve them. The way people write programs is a great learning tool for such things. You get to see their step by step movements in attacking a problem and can learn a lot from it.
-
Have a great weekend folks! :-)
-
Because AutoCAD cannot display or plot a correctly drawn 3D model in my line of work.
What is failing? If you have an accurate model what's missing from the plot??
Nothing is MISSING, there are EXTRA items that cannot be hidden during a plot
No, it is infinitely easier to REMOVE stuff that displays incorrectly when plotting from a 3D model, in fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE to remove the offending items in a 3D model, and if we explode the item in question, it then becomes IMPOSSIBLE to edit the offending items without stepping on it.
Which items are those??
AutoCAD displays and plots lines where they do not appear in the model, more often than not along curved surfaces. I am looking for a drawing that I can show you the difference between the two. When I find it I will post it.
If the creator of the file placed inaccurate 3D data I would not rely on his 2D data. If that works for you carry on (that's seven or nine times now)
Granted, but I am not talking about huge amounts of data here ... I am talking about something that can be checked for accuracy in less time than it takes to plot it out, not much point in redrawing something to make it useful, if I can step on it and make it much more useful.
If you wish to rely on an inaccurate file, carry on.
You keep insisting the file is inaccurate yet it is not ... you seem to be using 2D and inaccurate interchangeably ... while it is inaccurate in a 3D environment, once stepped on, it become an ACCURATE 2D drawing, and yes, I would rather use a "stepped on" 3D model that I can check and correct if needed in a couple of minutes than recreate the thing from scratch with several hours invested.
-
Have a great weekend folks! :-)
You too, Mark!
-
I know just what you're talking about keith, that's one of my biggest gripes with Autocad's 3d package. Persistent errors. I have to say, though, that every 3d package I've run into has had very similar problems. Autocad seems to be (as far as the release versions of others I've used) the worst at handling the plotting of 3d objects. Too much glitches, eh!
-
I'm currently on my own time, so no harm
To you. But what about others?
Every discussion, regardless of any other aspect has some benefit. I've learned quite a bit from this thread. Quite a bit indeed.
Until it turns negative and loses any benefit it may have had.
Sorry no disrespect intended, I'll step back out,
It just seemed liked one of those situations where folks should agree to disagree.
Are you going to convince them of your beliefs? Or vise versa?
-
I know just what you're talking about keith, that's one of my biggest gripes with Autocad's 3d package. Persistent errors. I have to say, though, that every 3d package I've run into has had very similar problems. Autocad seems to be (as far as the release versions of others I've used) the worst at handling the plotting of 3d objects. Too much glitches, eh!
I think the problem is related to the ACIS technology that is licensed from Spacial .. every 3D package I know of licenses the 3D package from them, the result is the same in all of the packages I have looked at.
-
It just seemed liked one of those situations where folks should agree to disagree.
Are you going to convince them of your beliefs? Or vise versa?
I guess this is proof that the "one size fits all" ideology does not work
-
To you. But what about others?
Eh...for all you know we are all on our own time when we make our posts.
-
I know just what you're talking about keith, that's one of my biggest gripes with Autocad's 3d package. Persistent errors. I have to say, though, that every 3d package I've run into has had very similar problems. Autocad seems to be (as far as the release versions of others I've used) the worst at handling the plotting of 3d objects. Too much glitches, eh!
I think the problem is related to the ACIS technology that is licensed from Spacial .. every 3D package I know of licenses the 3D package from them, the result is the same in all of the packages I have looked at.
Very possible, I'd heard a bit of the difference between ACIS and parasolids and all that stuff... not enough to claim to be educated on it in any ways, but since you mention it, I do know that I think all of them do. From what I understand of the working of the stuff, I think you're probably right.
-
Every discussion, regardless of any other aspect has some benefit. I've learned quite a bit from this thread. Quite a bit indeed.
Until it turns negative and loses any benefit it may have had.
Sorry no disrespect intended, I'll step back out,
It just seemed liked one of those situations where folks should agree to disagree.
Are you going to convince them of your beliefs? Or vise versa?
I usually like to explore a topic until I've learned as much from it as I can I guess (not just talking of this topic here, since I'm a relative newcomer to it) but sometimes it's hard to not get the last say, and when in a joust of ideas, back-n-forthing is hard to stop because of that :p
That's me any ways...
yea yea, let the "typical male" comments come in.. I know it's a fault of my impetuous youth, but whaddya oldbies have as an excuse? :D
-
. . . yea yea, let the "typical male" comments come in.. I know it's a fault of my impetuous youth, but whaddya oldbies have as an excuse? :D
gas
-
Randy, this PDF shows the exact same area on a 3D model and 2D representation of that model, same plot scale. The one that would be "correct" by your standards not only displays incorrectly in the viewer, it plots incorrectly, as can be seen in this plot. You should be able to see the difference between the two.
-
Because AutoCAD cannot display or plot a correctly drawn 3D model in my line of work.
What is failing? If you have an accurate model what's missing from the plot??
Nothing is MISSING, there are EXTRA items that cannot be hidden during a plot
No, it is infinitely easier to REMOVE stuff that displays incorrectly when plotting from a 3D model, in fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE to remove the offending items in a 3D model, and if we explode the item in question, it then becomes IMPOSSIBLE to edit the offending items without stepping on it.
Which items are those??
AutoCAD displays and plots lines where they do not appear in the model, more often than not along curved surfaces. I am looking for a drawing that I can show you the difference between the two. When I find it I will post it.
Sounds like a driver problem or something. We do pipe, can't get much curvier than that and ours plot just fine.
If the creator of the file placed inaccurate 3D data I would not rely on his 2D data. If that works for you carry on (that's seven or nine times now)
Granted, but I am not talking about huge amounts of data here ... I am talking about something that can be checked for accuracy in less time than it takes to plot it out, not much point in redrawing something to make it useful, if I can step on it and make it much more useful.
If you wish to rely on an inaccurate file, carry on.
You keep insisting the file is inaccurate yet it is not ... you seem to be using 2D and inaccurate interchangeably ... while it is inaccurate in a 3D environment, once stepped on, it become an ACCURATE 2D drawing, and yes, I would rather use a "stepped on" 3D model that I can check and correct if needed in a couple of minutes than recreate the thing from scratch with several hours invested.
If part of it is inaccurate I question the rest and will return it to the originator for repair. If you wish to assume their liability, carry on.
-
I know just what you're talking about keith, that's one of my biggest gripes with Autocad's 3d package. Persistent errors. I have to say, though, that every 3d package I've run into has had very similar problems. Autocad seems to be (as far as the release versions of others I've used) the worst at handling the plotting of 3d objects. Too much glitches, eh!
We had some trouble with R13 and R14, but that was a long time ago. You guys still having plotting issues??
-
I'm currently on my own time, so no harm
To you. But what about others?
Their fingers their keyboard, they don't HAVE to click on the topic.
Every discussion, regardless of any other aspect has some benefit. I've learned quite a bit from this thread. Quite a bit indeed.
Until it turns negative and loses any benefit it may have had.
I learn as much or more from those as I do from any
Sorry no disrespect intended, I'll step back out,
It just seemed liked one of those situations where folks should agree to disagree.
Sorry that's a cop out.
Are you going to convince them of your beliefs? Or vise versa?
That has never been a goal either way, nor should it ever be a goal. If we can only discuss those things with which we all agree or with which we KNOW we can sway a position, we'll be left with "Morning."
A discussion (even ones like this) about work processes educates everyone to some degree. I can bet that Joe thinks differently about his program know than he did last week. I know I do. I've learned that Keith has a completely different issue about which I was completely unaware. Even this thread did not go south (in my opinion) until it was (in my opinion) gutted. It was a little spirited, but that's not a problem, unless you want it to be a problem. Every position needs to be measured every so often to check its validity.
-
I know just what you're talking about keith, that's one of my biggest gripes with Autocad's 3d package. Persistent errors. I have to say, though, that every 3d package I've run into has had very similar problems. Autocad seems to be (as far as the release versions of others I've used) the worst at handling the plotting of 3d objects. Too much glitches, eh!
We had some trouble with R13 and R14, but that was a long time ago. You guys still having plotting issues??
I do get some derelict lines every now and then. It's kind of like an issue that keith shows, except it'll just show one or two lines, and it'd be short segment, and we get issues with lines that SHOULD plot... not plotting. I get that when I have... for say, handrails. This one happens somewhat often. I'll have the top rail union'd with the posts, and the bottom line of the top rail (when looking at the elevation) will just 'not plot' for some reason, as if it were a tangential edge to be ignored due to the 'hidden' plot style.
-
Randy, this PDF shows the exact same area on a 3D model and 2D representation of that model, same plot scale. The one that would be "correct" by your standards not only displays incorrectly in the viewer, it plots incorrectly, as can be seen in this plot. You should be able to see the difference between the two.
Can you send me the 3D model? I'd like to see what it does on our setup.
-
I know just what you're talking about keith, that's one of my biggest gripes with Autocad's 3d package. Persistent errors. I have to say, though, that every 3d package I've run into has had very similar problems. Autocad seems to be (as far as the release versions of others I've used) the worst at handling the plotting of 3d objects. Too much glitches, eh!
We had some trouble with R13 and R14, but that was a long time ago. You guys still having plotting issues??
I do get some derelict lines every now and then. It's kind of like an issue that keith shows, except it'll just show one or two lines, and it'd be short segment, and we get issues with lines that SHOULD plot... not plotting. I get that when I have... for say, handrails. This one happens somewhat often. I'll have the top rail union'd with the posts, and the bottom line of the top rail (when looking at the elevation) will just 'not plot' for some reason, as if it were a tangential edge to be ignored due to the 'hidden' plot style.
That could be why we don't see the problem. We have a different work process. We don't model with solids directly. We use unit blocks for nearly everything, like your handrail here. For visual clarity of handrail in the model, we've made rail blocks using 3dFaces of the outside of the legs. They still clash detect, but the "back-face is invisible when viewed from "outside", it helps when doing walk-thrus and fly-overs.
-
I know just what you're talking about keith, that's one of my biggest gripes with Autocad's 3d package. Persistent errors. I have to say, though, that every 3d package I've run into has had very similar problems. Autocad seems to be (as far as the release versions of others I've used) the worst at handling the plotting of 3d objects. Too much glitches, eh!
We had some trouble with R13 and R14, but that was a long time ago. You guys still having plotting issues??
I do get some derelict lines every now and then. It's kind of like an issue that keith shows, except it'll just show one or two lines, and it'd be short segment, and we get issues with lines that SHOULD plot... not plotting. I get that when I have... for say, handrails. This one happens somewhat often. I'll have the top rail union'd with the posts, and the bottom line of the top rail (when looking at the elevation) will just 'not plot' for some reason, as if it were a tangential edge to be ignored due to the 'hidden' plot style.
That could be why we don't see the problem. We have a different work process. We don't model with solids directly. We use unit blocks for nearly everything, like your handrail here. For visual clarity of handrail in the model, we've made rail blocks using 3dFaces of the outside of the legs. They still clash detect, but the "back-face is invisible when viewed from "outside", it helps when doing walk-thrus and fly-overs.
I remember you telling me about your process for doing handrails, and I haven't done a project that required very much handrail work, so I haven't tried a different way of doing it yet, because copy/paste/slice/union was faster for me atm, but I think I'm going to try what you suggested before, next time around.
-
Randy, this PDF shows the exact same area on a 3D model and 2D representation of that model, same plot scale. The one that would be "correct" by your standards not only displays incorrectly in the viewer, it plots incorrectly, as can be seen in this plot. You should be able to see the difference between the two.
Can you send me the 3D model? I'd like to see what it does on our setup.
I'll send an excerpt of the offending parts , that is if I can remember to do so on Monday
-
Randy, this PDF shows the exact same area on a 3D model and 2D representation of that model, same plot scale. The one that would be "correct" by your standards not only displays incorrectly in the viewer, it plots incorrectly, as can be seen in this plot. You should be able to see the difference between the two.
Can you send me the 3D model? I'd like to see what it does on our setup.
I'll send an excerpt of the offending parts , that is if I can remember to do so on Monday
Cool, I'll try to remind you.
-
So I started reading thru this topic and discovered that it ended up turning into a discussion on whether or not one SHOULD flatten a drawing. I gave up reading after a few pages when I noticed that the topic has 16 pages.
I absolutely don't want to discuss whether one should or not, but, what I didn't get out of the discussion / arguments is that - how does one flatten a drawing?
I have LT2008 and can't find any reference to it in the help file.
craigr
-
well, there is the flatten command in ET .. but LT doesn't have it
-
Thanks
-
But there's a macro that approximates it:
^C^C_move;_all;;0,0,0;0,0,1e99;_move;_p;;0,0,0;0,0,-1e99;
-
SWEEEET!!
Bless your heart!
craigr
-
But there's a macro that approximates it:
^C^C_move;_all;;0,0,0;0,0,1e99;_move;_p;;0,0,0;0,0,-1e99;
That solves it for the positive z-values. To remove also the negative z-values this should be:
^C^C_move;_all;;0,0,-1e99;0,0,1e99;_move;_p;;0,0,0;0,0,-1e99;
-
Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!!! This is still going on??
-
I just had to flatten a few old plans by unrolling them and placing them under our cutting mat. They should be nice and flat in a week or so. :)
(and with any luck, no one will actually cut through the cutting mat)
-
Just had the image of the Mel Brooks vampire movie (the title escapes me...), when van Helsing hands over the stake and hammer: "There may be a little blood, so I'm going to stand back over here..."