Topic: closing out dwg.s

[rude dog]

Does anyone else get annoyed when a drawing is saved without doing a zoom extents on the puppy first . I also get annoyed when I open a drawing and layer "0" was not set current....or.....how bout this one.....when layer zero's native white color has been changed to some god awful color....PHEW I needed to get that off my chest  
does anyone else feel the same....or am I just being labeled a trouble maker again?

[Craig]

Oh, I agree rude!  This prolly could have been put in The Vent forum but anywho, what I hate as much is when the plot sheets are saved in MS and not PS.

[Keith™]

I frequently save my drawings when they are not zoomed extents, but I must qualify that by stating that this is when I finish working on a drawing for a time and need to come back to it. It allows me to "remember" where I left off....

As far as the layer is concerned, I don't worry about which is current, I generally purge all layers when closing a drawing, and my housekeeping routines help maintain layer standards so which layer is current typically is not a concern.

[sestes]

Does anyone else get annoyed when a drawing is saved without doing a zoom extents on the puppy first .

I agree.  I have a menu item I call [Wrap it up!] Pspace;Zoom;All;Qsave;Close;  I supose you could and a purge all in there.

[VerticalMojo]

I agree.  I have a menu item I call [Wrap it up!] Pspace;Zoom;All;Qsave;Close;  I supose you could and a purge all in there.

Yeah have the same thing.... kinda

^C^Cz;e;-layer;S;0;;-purge all  no;_qsave;

[CADaver]

Does anyone else get annoyed when a drawing is saved without doing a zoom extents on the puppy first . I also get annoyed when I open a drawing and layer "0" was not set current....or.....how bout this one.....when layer zero's native white color has been changed to some god awful color....PHEW I needed to get that off my chest  
does anyone else feel the same....or am I just being labeled a trouble maker again?

Being labeled a trouble maker isn't a problem is it?

but....

....ummm

at the ...um risk of....   :horror:

We plot from a page setup from the layout tab for each drawing and hardly ever zoom extents prior to closing the file.  We usually just leave it where it was worked on last.  

Same with the layer.  Is there any real advantage to setting the layer to 0 before leaving??

And as far as purging goes, we don't until archival.

[t-bear]

We have a routine that sets to PS, zooms extents, q-saves and closes.  It's a bit neater to open in PS at extents, especially with xrefs and vports....yuo can see the whole sheet and know which environment you're in..... Layers? whatever........  you're guaranteed to have to change layers to work if it opens to "0".... one extra step opening AND closing.

[nivuahc]

Here's what I use, based on some ideas I got from a thread on this board:

Code: [Select]

(defun c:qc (/)
  (vl-Load-Com)
  (vl-Catch-All-Apply
    '(lambda ()
       (vla-Remove
(vla-GetExtensionDictionary
  (vla-Get-Layers
    (vla-Get-ActiveDocument
      (vlax-Get-Acad-Object)
    )
  )
)
"ACAD_LAYERFILTERS"
       )
     )
  )

  (setvar "cmdecho" 0)
  (setq A (reverse (dictsearch (namedobjdict) "ACAD_GROUP")))
  (while (setq B (cdr (assoc 350 A)))
    (setq C (entget B))
    (setq D (assoc 340 C))
    (if (= D nil)
      (entdel B)
    )
    (setq A (cdr (cdr A)))
  )

  (setvar "cmdecho" 0)
  (command "-dimstyle" "r" "standard")
  (setvar "TEXTSTYLE" "standard")
  (setvar "CLAYER" "0")
  (command "-purge" "a" "*" "n")
  (command "-purge" "a" "*" "n")
  (command "-purge" "a" "*" "n")
  (command "qsave")
  (princ)
  (princ
    "\nAll layer filters have been deleted, all empty groups have been deleted and everything else has been purged. Drawing has been saved."
  )
  (princ)
)

On average, at least in my experience, it reduces a drawing file size by about half.

But I can't take credit for it, I stole/chopped/copied/pasted that together.

[TR]

We don't use layer zero at all (with the exception of blocks) nor do we use paperspace. Anyone who does will be choked out.

[sestes]

We don't use layer zero at all (with the exception of blocks) nor do we use paperspace. Anyone who does will be choked out.

You print from model space......ewwww!

[TR]

What's wrong with printing from modelspace?

[CADaver]

What's wrong with printing from modelspace?

Lesee:

1.) Differently scaled pictures on the same drawing is a royal PITB for annotation and plotting.

2.) Impossible to plot different views of the same 3D model on the same plot.

3.) Layer control by viewport is impossible

4.) Multiple sheets can't be plotted at the same time from one drawing file.

5.) Plotting scale changes with every drawing

6.) No ability for irregular viewports to clip out extraneous data.

and that's just off the top of my head.  Basically it would cost us about 20% of our productivity.

Now my question; why not use LAYOUTs?

[Keith™]

What's wrong with printing from modelspace?

Lesee:

1.) Differently scaled pictures on the same drawing is a royal PITB for annotation and plotting.

2.) Impossible to plot different views of the same 3D model on the same plot.

3.) Layer control by viewport is impossible

4.) Multiple sheets can't be plotted at the same time from one drawing file.

5.) Plotting scale changes with every drawing

6.) No ability for irregular viewports to clip out extraneous data.

and that's just off the top of my head.  Basically it would cost us about 20% of our productivity.

Now my question; why not use LAYOUTs?

Now first let me say that before I start another debate, that I am simply being devil's advocate for a minute.....

1.) Modelspace contains only 2d data, different views are not required

2.) Title block is defined in MS thus allowing the user to be assured the object will fit in the desired plotting scale properly

3.) You are using R1x and A2kx (paperspace was a real PITB before R14)

4.) Your drawings are all inclusive and all layers are plotted at the same time

5.) Extraneous data is not in the drawing (extraneous meaning not needed for that particular plan)

6.) The client is stupid and never learned PS, so requires everything in MS

Ok, that is a few I thought of at the moment....incedently ... PS is very easy to work with once you understand the positives and negatives of both PS and MS.... you might decide you like it....Ok, I will not post on this subject again.....

[TR]

1.) Differently scaled pictures on the same drawing is a royal PITB for annotation and plotting.

We draw everything 1 to 1 and then scale the title block accordingly. The only exception to this is the occasional 2x or 4x detail, and for that we have different dimstyles set up. Not that scale makes a difference anyhow. Everything we make is cut with either a plasma cutter or cnc machine from dxf files we export. As long as the drawing is 1 to 1 the piece will come out correct.

2.) Impossible to plot different views of the same 3D model on the same plot.

We don't use 3D. The people here are too old.

3.) Layer control by viewport is impossible

We only use 1 viewport.

4.) Multiple sheets can't be plotted at the same time from one drawing file.

It doesn't matter. Each sheet is automatically plotted from our document management system based on values entered in our transmittal forms. The lady in the print room wouldn't care if it opens a thousand drawings and plots them.

5.) Plotting scale changes with every drawing

What's wrong with that?

6.) No ability for irregular viewports to clip out extraneous data.

We only use 1 viewport.

Now my question; why not use LAYOUTs?

I don't see a need to. The way we do things now works out quite well.

[CADaver]

Now first let me say that before I start another debate, that I am simply being devil's advocate for a minute.....

1.) Modelspace contains only 2d data, different views are not required

"Your" modelspace contains only 2D data, is what I assume you mean.  But even then, how do you handle a plan that spans multiple drawings?

2.) Title block is defined in MS thus allowing the user to be assured the object will fit in the desired plotting scale properly

What doesn't fit is ... what?  Viewports are zoomed to scale, indicating what will fit in a 1:1 border.  What doesn't fit is placed in another viewport on another layout tab.

3.) You are using R1x and A2kx (paperspace was a real PITB before R14)

We've been using it effectively since R11.  It gets better with each release.

4.) Your drawings are all inclusive and all layers are plotted at the same time

I assume you mean "your" drawings plot all the layers all the time.  Ours will show different aspects of the same model in different viewports.

5.) Extraneous data is not in the drawing (extraneous meaning not needed for that particular plan)

Correct, it's needed in the detail to the right of the plan.

6.) The client is stupid and never learned PS, so requires everything in MS

Not a fault with PS, but rather with the client.

Ok, that is a few I thought of at the moment....incedently ... PS is very easy to work with once you understand the positives and negatives of both PS and MS.... you might decide you like it....

If it fits your needs.

Ok, I will not post on this subject again.....

That's a bet  

[CADaver]

Wooohooo, two on!!

 We draw everything 1 to 1 and then scale the title block accordingly. The only exception to this is the occasional 2x or 4x detail, and for that we have different dimstyles set up.

How do you plot those along with the rest fof the drawing?

Everything we make is cut with either a plasma cutter or cnc machine from dxf files we export.

Would be done from the model in our case, which requires no annotation

We don't use 3D. The people here are too old.

hmmm... I'm one of the oldest guys posting on these boards so I'm not sure what you mean by that.

It doesn't matter. Each sheet is automatically plotted from our document management system

Each sheet then requires a separate file, for us, fewer files are considerably easier to manage.

{each plot has different scale}What's wrong with that?

You then have to determine somehow the plot scale prior to plotting.  With PS everything plots the same.

Now my question; why not use LAYOUTs?

I don't see a need to. The way we do things now works out quite well.

The way we did things when we used a pencil worked quite well at the time also.  But we found production advantages with CAD, then we found production advantages with PS.  You may as well.

[Keith™]

                                   

[nivuahc]

[what_you_talkin_bout_willis]
Now, the world don't move to the beat of just one drum,
What might be right for you, may not be right for some.
A man is born, he's a man of means.
Then along come two, they got nothing but their jeans.
 
But they got, Diff'rent Strokes.
It takes, Diff'rent Strokes.
It takes, Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.
 
Everybody's got a special kind of story
Everybody finds a way to shine,
It don't matter that you got not alot
So what,
They'll have theirs, and you'll have yours, and I'll have mine.
And together we'll be fine....
 
Because it takes, Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.
Yes it does.
It takes, Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.
[/what_you_talkin_bout_willis]

[CADaver]

                                   

See, see, Itoldjaso, Itoldjaso  
               

[CADaver]

[what_you_talkin_bout_willis]

The spooky part about that is somebody knows all the words to that theme song.

[nivuahc]

Well it ain't me, I had to look 'em up.

Thing is, we rarely see things how they are, we see them how we are.

Maybe I'm using a program that takes and AutoCAD drawing and follows it to makes cuts in metal on a plasma table. That program can't handle PS. So should I go out and buy software that can, or rewrite the code in that software so that proponents of MS/PS will be happy and accept me as a good little drafter?

Just because something is right for you, doesn't mean that it's right for everybody.

[CADaver]

Well it ain't me, I had to look 'em up.

Thing is, we rarely see things how they are, we see them how we are.

Maybe I'm using a program that takes and AutoCAD drawing and follows it to makes cuts in metal on a plasma table. That program can't handle PS. So should I go out and buy software that can, or rewrite the code in that software so that proponents of MS/PS will be happy and accept me as a good little drafter?

Just because something is right for you, doesn't mean that it's right for everybody.

Having been known to thump a person or two, I went back to make sure.  Nope, no thump intended, I was answering a question, then followed with my own question.  I don't think I claimed that his way was not right for him, but there ya' go.

Anyway, I do a lot of work that gets pushed through machine control, either for the plasma cutter, the "Flowjet" or the Model-Milling machine, and I've had no trouble utilizing PS for the production of the drawings.  The control is extracted from the model, PS is ignored.

[nivuahc]

Wow, re-reading what I wrote I guess it came across like I was complaining or fussing, neither of which is the case. I, personally, prefer MS/PS but learned the hard way that getting people to change is sometimes not worth the effort.

My Brother, on the other hand, works at a metal fab shop and they are using older software for what he does. It's not worth the effort or cost for him to change the way they do things simply to conform to a new 'idea' that won't save them any time or money in the long run.

Sorry about that CADaver, I didn't mean to come across so harshly. You have my sincerest apologies.  

[CADaver]

Sorry about that CADaver, I didn't mean to come across so harshly. You have my sincerest apologies.  

 Hey, no problem.  There's more than few posters here who have been unintentionally (sometimes) jabbed a bit hard by the "Swamp Bunny", so I understand how something posted with one emotion in mind can be misconstrued by the reader for a completely different "tone".  It is difficult to convey "tone" with a written word.  And sometimes I have to be reminded that just because it's "my way or the highway" here doesn't mean that works everywhere.

 My Brother, on the other hand, works at a metal fab shop and they are using older software for what he does. It's not worth the effort or cost for him to change the way they do things simply to conform to a new 'idea' that won't save them any time or money in the long run.

What software is he using?  Most of the older stuff we were using was upgradable pretty cheap (one was free) and along with the upgrade there were several extremely productive tools added, especially for the Flowjet.

[nivuahc]

What software is he using?  Most of the older stuff we were using was upgradable pretty cheap (one was free) and along with the upgrade there were several extremely productive tools added, especially for the Flowjet.

I have no idea. I haven't talked to him in over 2 years 'cuz he's an idjit.  

[CADaver]

What software is he using?  Most of the older stuff we were using was upgradable pretty cheap (one was free) and along with the upgrade there were several extremely productive tools added, especially for the Flowjet.

I have no idea. I haven't talked to him in over 2 years 'cuz he's an idjit.  

Hey, I have a brother just like that.... ??
er...
Say...
um...  
what's yer real name, anyway?  Bubba is that you again??

[TR]

 We draw everything 1 to 1 and then scale the title block accordingly. The only exception to this is the occasional 2x or 4x detail, and for that we have different dimstyles set up.

How do you plot those along with the rest fof the drawing?

These are part of the drawing.

We don't use 3D. The people here are too old.

hmmm... I'm one of the oldest guys posting on these boards so I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I mean that once you reach a certian age 95% of the people lose the ability to learn anything (or at least that's the way it is where I work).

It doesn't matter. Each sheet is automatically plotted from our document management system

Each sheet then requires a separate file, for us, fewer files are considerably easier to manage.

The key words in that reply were "for us". The way we do it is easier to manage "for us".

{each plot has different scale}What's wrong with that?

You then have to determine somehow the plot scale prior to plotting.  With PS everything plots the same.

Anyone who isn't dead from the neck up can figure out the scale of a detail drawing (or have a pretty close idea) before they start the drawing.

We don't worry about plot scales either. Our batch plot program finds the titleblock in the drawing and plots the extents of that scale to fit.

Now my question; why not use LAYOUTs?

I don't see a need to. The way we do things now works out quite well.

The way we did things when we used a pencil worked quite well at the time also.  But we found production advantages with CAD, then we found production advantages with PS.  You may as well.

We've found plenty of production advantages in CAD as well, However what's a production advantage for you may not be a production advantage for my company.

[CADaver]

How do you plot those [scaled details] along with the rest fof the drawing?

These are part of the drawing.

At a different scale?? So you have to scale them up prior to plotting? What does that do to the assoc. dimens? Do you have to scale them back down to edit them?? Isn't that a pain in the keester??

I mean that once you reach a certian age 95% of the people lose the ability to learn anything (or at least that's the way it is where I work).

You need to get out more.  Just looking around this forum, there are several guys who are a little "long in the tooth" posting here that are extremely adaptable.  The average age for designers in my dept. is above 45, and the company has several dozen designers over 50 that are the most projific users we have.  Age bias is as bad s any other bias.

Anyone who isn't dead from the neck up can figure out the scale of a detail drawing (or have a pretty close idea) before they start the drawing.

Still everything plots the same from PS, even for those who are dead from the neck up.

We don't worry about plot scales either. Our batch plot program finds the titleblock in the drawing and plots the extents of that scale to fit.

Whole 'nuther thread

We've found plenty of production advantages in CAD as well, However what's a production advantage for you may not be a production advantage for my company.

Quite right.  However, this is not a new discussion.  Over the last 10 or so years, I've run into literally dozens of folks who avoid PS for the same reasons you've posted here.  With a little cajoling and just a little training, I've talked many of them into at least trying it for several jobs.  None who have truly tried it have ever gone back.  Just the fact that you can stop fooling around with scaled details and dimstyles is enough for most, controlling layer display in different viewports sold the rest.  But if you wish to continue with R10 methods, carry on.

[TR]

On of these days I'll try paperspace, but I doubt it'll be anytime soon. It would require reconfiguring our batch plot program, our document management system, and roughly 30,000 standard drawings.

And as for the old people remark, It is true at my company. I'm the youngest at 23 and the next youngest are 45, 48. Most are over over 55 though (and these are the guys that have trouble learning new stuff).

And oh yeah. Even though it doesn't seem like it would work, our method of batch ploting actually comes out to scale.