Topic: Text is usually placed in to Paper SPACE

[BREZI]

don't agree with this one, all text should be in model space with non specific drawing notes only being placed in paper space.

I would agree with that.

We tend to put revisiosn clouds & notes in paper space only.

Basically anything to do with the drawing sheet.

We also do schematics in paper space, as theya re not to scale, so what have a viewport?

[Royalchill]

We put everything in model space, paper space is just for plotitng. The reason is that we sometimes have to send out revisions by sketch. By putting everything in model space there is no need to copy anything to the sketch. Just make a new tab and presto. What changes in the main dwg changes in the sketch. Thats my take and I'm sticking to it. 

[CADaver]

We put everything in model space, paper space is just for plotitng. The reason is that we sometimes have to send out revisions by sketch. By putting everything in model space there is no need to copy anything to the sketch. Just make a new tab and presto. What changes in the main dwg changes in the sketch. Thats my take and I'm sticking to it. 

ummm... if i'm understanding you correctly, the same can be done with PS annotations.

[Dinosaur]

CADaver, you convinced me of the merits of paperspace annotation of the model last year.  Given any option, I want to enforce a paperspace annotation only policy at work.  I can make it stick for much of our work too, until submittal requests from approving agencies and our vertical design software gets in the way.
We rarely use dimensioning for any of the annotation elements except for leadered notes and the rare aligned dimension.  Both Land Desktop and Civil 3D generate the majority of it and they do so in modelspace only.  In the case of LDT, I could overcome this by changing the space of the labels with Express Tools, but Civil 3D defeats even this method by making the label only one part of a complex object that can be made only visible or not and that has a limited flexibility in positioning and content.
A new issue concerning submittals has caused me to surrender my policy for plats as well. I can force the annotation to paperspace as described above, but we are now required to submit a dwg file with full annotation all in model space for the various utility agencies to devise their services layout.  All of the ranting about inferior technology and unreasonable demands by reviewers I can muster will not change the facts - if I don't provide the required files my project will not be approved.
And so, as I am lacking a convincing argument for the noble cause of keeping all text the heck out of my model, my policy will be in effect only for small site plans and surveys that are not dependent on automated annotation or the whims of stubborn bureaucrats.  The only workarounds would require extra time and introduce the chance of errors, particularly should a staff member I have reported about extensively here try to do it (which is usually exactly the case).

[CADaver]

Sorry to hear that Dino.  As long as the client is willing to pay for slow and stupid :ugly:, give him what he wants.

[Jim Yadon]

Zombie threads are cool. Especially ones that actually discuss a topic  :kewl:

Just to throw my 2¢ in on this one...

I pretty much agree with CADaver on this one. Text and dimensions really should be paper space. When I keep them paper space, I only have to worry about 1 text height, 1 dimension style (if you set your settings right, anything 2k5 and above reads just fine through the viewport), and 1 layer for each type of object. This frees up alot for not only dealing with the overall management but I find I have more time to actually focus on what I'm drawing and not on operating the program (i.e. switching layers, changing dimstyles, etc.). I also think that if you step back from an anylitical stand point, you will see that for 3d use, it's necessary. It frees you up to acutally model something and then use the paper to document it.

***restraining myself from smarty-pants quips here***

Again, just my 2¢.

[BREZI]

In my experience, people who don't use paperspace, have just not been shwon by somebody who deos. I used model space only for 8 years, before I was shown the ways of paper space.

Now I understand I can see the benfits.

[Chuck Gabriel]

I can see how paperspace annotation would be useful for 3d work, but the benefits seem less tangible for strictly 2d work.  In fact, the disconnect between the annotation and the model seems like it would be a distinct disadvantage.

I understand that some people display the same modelspace geometry at different scales using multiple viewports, and paperspace annotation makes sense to me in that situation as well.  I just don't happen to draw that way.

The fact is, we are a bunch of heretics where I work.  We do everything in modelspace (even plotting).  I'm perfectly capable of using paperspace, but my employer had a alternate system already in place when I came to work here.  I balked at it at first, but eventually came to see that was just as effective as paperspace and, more importantly, the other folks here seemed to have no problem understanding it.  Considering how much difficulty I had getting people to understand paperspace at my previous job, I didn't see much point in trying to make the case for it here.

[Bryco]

We like the dims and notes in modelspace. But I can see that if you always drew in 3d they would be in paperspace.
The thread could be divided into 3
1) If you draw in 3d, text is placed in-
2) If you allow only one layout per file, text is placed in-
3) If you allow multiple layouts per file, text is placed in-

as they all seem to be better suited to different solutions.

[BREZI]

I suppose its simple for us, as it is mostly 2d plans for building services, all drawing notes go in model space. General notes and revision notes go in paper space. We don't dimension anything, so that is not an issue.

If we are doing a detail \ blow up at a different scale, we do a seperate layer for text at different scale, and is then frozen off. or we copy the xref & xclip it.

 

[Jim Yadon]

I can see how paperspace annotation would be useful for 3d work, but the benefits seem less tangible for strictly 2d work.  In fact, the disconnect between the annotation and the model seems like it would be a distinct disadvantage.

I understand that some people display the same modelspace geometry at different scales using multiple viewports, and paperspace annotation makes sense to me in that situation as well.  I just don't happen to draw that way.

The fact is, we are a bunch of heretics where I work.  We do everything in modelspace (even plotting).  I'm perfectly capable of using paperspace, but my employer had a alternate system already in place when I came to work here.  I balked at it at first, but eventually came to see that was just as effective as paperspace and, more importantly, the other folks here seemed to have no problem understanding it.  Considering how much difficulty I had getting people to understand paperspace at my previous job, I didn't see much point in trying to make the case for it here.

Your a good man for a heretic Chuck. I see your point. At my last 'job' I went through a similar struggle. It was the new engineering mgr who had chosen to get the rest of the team tomove to PS though. After that experience... let's just say I see your point