Topic: Text is usually placed in to Paper SPACE

[Slim©]

lmao! smarta55!

Careful, Careful...  

[AVCAD]

YOU'RE NUTS, TEXT SHOULD BE IN MODEL SPACE!!!!!!

[t-bear]

He's yellin at us fellas.....
I grant you the right to your opinion, AVCAD, but not the right to call me "nuts".  That privelege is granted ONLY to my wife!

[Craig]

99% of our text is in Model Space but I can see a reason why people put text in Paper Space. It really depends on your application. This definetly varies from company to company

[JohnK]

YOUR NUTS TEXT SHOULD BE IN MODEL SPACE!!!!!!

Ummm...?! I think you missed some punctuation that sentence.

[sestes]

WHOA NELLY!? I can see this getting into a heated discussion. ...Im in!

Entities should be drawn full scale in Model space.
Text "associated" with entities in model space. (Like leaders and their text) should also be in model.

All notes pertaining to the TTLBLK and titles (schedules, details, and misc non scalable things) should be in paperspace.

I totally agree.  This is how I work with text, and the drawing is much more flexable towards layouts and views.

[JohnK]

^

It makes it so much easier when it comes to "Facility Mgmt." when only the text relatd to the "system" is present. You dont have to worry about details and schedules, and general notes pertaining to the contract document.

[CADaver]

FOR US All annotation is in PS.  It reduces the clutter in the model as well as reduces the layers and their maintenance required for annotation.  

We do exclusively 3D and used to annotate on MS.  It required annotation layers for plans, the a set of layers for the North elevations, then a set for the west elevations, then a set for each scale of detail in the model.  While setting up the viewports much time was spent insuring that the proper layers were thawed/frozen in the proper viewports for presentation. A large equipment streucture became a real nightmare of over-lapping annotation layers.

With the annotations in PAPERSPACE, the model itself is clean, which not only makes it considerably easier to edit, but improves it's production value as an XREF in other files.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Now all that aside, I'm left wondering what my testes have to do with any of it???

[Keith™]

Text in paperspace is OK, and I use it sometimes, but the majority of the time I put it in MS,  Why, because this way I don't have to put it on the drawing in 5 different layouts for all of the different page plots I have to do....

[MSTG007]

are there tools which we can use to help make annotation from PS to MS or MS to PS easier?

[CADaver]

Copying text that is identical or similar from one layout to another is very nearly as easy as it is to copy from one place to another in MS.
We can have as many as 20 or 30 LAYOUTS in a file.

[CADaver]

are there tools which we can use to help make annotation from PS to MS or MS to PS easier?

Not really out of the box, but we've put together several to make annotation as idiot-proof as possible.

[Keith™]

Copying text that is identical or similar from one layout to another is very nearly as easy as it is to copy from one place to another in MS.
We can have as many as 20 or 30 LAYOUTS in a file.

True enough and I utilize that on a regular basis, for a limited amount of items. The only real argument I see for not putting them in MS is the xref reason. It DOES make it easier to use it for an xref, however, if I might point out, generally a model is done representing the object, and it is xrefed into a drawing, different diciplines are added in the new drawing (as not to corrupt the xref) and notes pertaining to each dicipline is put in a layer dealing with that dicipline.
I regularly use 5 different paper sizes, each having its' need and none being disposable, if I put all text for example at 3/16" on a C size sheet and then the same size on a D size and then again on an E size, I would have issues with geometry interfering with the readability of the text on the smaller pages, because the plot is at a different scale, thus the text is not at a different scale. Perhaps my thought process is not correct but it has worked for a great deal of time and if I can place notes ONCE and have them reflected efficiently in ALL plots, it then becomes less efficient, more time consuming, and more costly to place them in all layouts, for example 20 times.

[CADaver]

The only real argument I see for not putting them in MS is the xref reason.

For us, that is secondary to the multiple layer issue in 3D models.

It DOES make it easier to use it for an xref, however, if I might point out, generally a model is done representing the object, and it is xrefed into a drawing,

I keep seeing that posted around, and I'm wondering to what advantage is the second file?  Why not annotate the in the same file as the model?

I regularly use 5 different paper sizes, each having its' need and none being disposable, if I put all text for example at 3/16" on a C size sheet and then the same size on a D size and then again on an E size, I would have issues with geometry interfering with the readability of the text on the smaller pages, because the plot is at a different scale, thus the text is not at a different scale. Perhaps my thought process is not correct but it has worked for a great deal of time and if I can place notes ONCE and have them reflected efficiently in ALL plots, it then becomes less efficient, more time consuming, and more costly to place them in all layouts, for example 20 times.

We use page setups and just plot the same layout at different sizes, seems a lot simpler for us.

[Keith™]

We use page setups and just plot the same layout at different sizes, seems a lot simpler for us.

Try plotting a PS setup for D size on 11x17 when the PS text is set to 1/4" ... you won't be able to see anything on the paper... the text will cover it all up or will hang off of the paper ... either that or you are using a "plot to fit" which does absolutely nothing for scaling drawings... Believe me ... if I can see a way around it, I will gladly have a single PS model to plot ... but alas I have not seen one that is effective