Topic: Flattening drawings.

[Mark]

I think you should put his original post and code (nothing else) in the "Show Your Stuff" section.

I concur.

[Joe Burke]

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.

[Maverick®]

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

[ronjonp]

Perfect new name for this thread.....

[CADaver]

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.

[CADaver]

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 180^o for 48' and then 225^o for 30' then 135^o 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.

[CADaver]

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.

[CADaver]

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.

[TimSpangler]

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 

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??

[CADaver]

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.

[Krushert]

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?

 

[CADaver]

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.

[CADaver]

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.

[Krushert]

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.

[TimSpangler]

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 

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?