Topic: Flattening drawings.

[Mark]

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.

[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. 

   
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.

[MickD]

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 ), 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

[Greg B]

This has become rather funny.

[Greg B]

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.

[Maverick®]

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. 

[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.

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 

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.

[CADaver]

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.

[Krushert]

  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. 

[CADaver]

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.

[M-dub]

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.

[TimSpangler]

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  )  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??

[Guest]

 

[Josh Nieman]

 

[Krushert]