Topic: Project 3D to 2D with AutoCAD?

[KewlToyZ]

I found this one concept fairly simple and quick with Rhinocerous.
But AutoCAD it seems to be neglected.
Export Layout to Model is a nice feature for simpler drawings.
But it is still the 3D objects instead of a flattened 2d drawing.

I tried SuperFlatten and the Legacy Z-Zero process without any real effect.
I exploded the 3d objects and tried both commands again with no help.
All connecting lines disappear if I explode any more and I end up with nothing useful.
What would seem simple is escaping me once again.
Am I missing something or is this just the nature of AutoCAD after so many generations still in 2009?

[KewlToyZ]

Here is an example file for what I am trying to flatten to a 2D projected image.
Cross Section doesnt work either.

[MickD]

Have you tried solview/solprof/soldraw?

[deegeecees]

Have you tried solview/solprof/soldraw?

Or this:

http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=11661.msg254435#msg254435

[deegeecees]

Here is an example file for what I am trying to flatten to a 2D projected image.
Cross Section doesnt work either.

What created all those Proxy Objects?

[Tom]

Have you tried Flatshot? this creates a 2d plan of solids and regions

[MickD]

Have you tried solview/solprof/soldraw?

Or this:

http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=11661.msg254435#msg254435

heh, thanks, that saved me finding it

I think it's a good idea to use the built in tools first as you don't always have custom tools to hand when you need them most!

Solview and soldraw are pretty good once you get into a rythym, I used them all the time before I created my own tools. I'd hate to go back though

[deegeecees]

I opened KT's drawing and (I believe) the portion he wants to flatten is made up of proxy objects, not solids. I haven't had to deal with proxy objects in a while, and not sure as to how/if he needs to convert them to regions, or solids first. I could recreate the cable tray, but time is always an issue with me.

[Maverick®]

.... but time is always an issue with me.

*Pink Floyd starts playing in the background*

[KewlToyZ]

Thanks for the tips gang!
I beleive the proxy objects came from either me exploding it once or the actual AutoCAD Export Layout To Model.
I'll take a look at this tomorrow morning with the original file and see if i can assess what is really going on here.
I'm buried in creating Dynamic Blocks from Details to make my Networked Palettes issues history instead of waiting on Autodesk to fix them.

[Joe Burke]

Just to confirm what you already found, the design intent of SuperFlatten does not include the example file you posted containing solid objects.

[deegeecees]

I opened KT's drawing and (I believe) the portion he wants to flatten is made up of proxy objects, not solids. I haven't had to deal with proxy objects in a while, and not sure as to how/if he needs to convert them to regions, or solids first. I could recreate the cable tray, but time is always an issue with me.

D'oh! I was able to create solprof entities using '09.

[deegeecees]

.... but time is always an issue with me.

*Pink Floyd starts playing in the background*

"Ticking away... the moments that make up a dull day..."

[KewlToyZ]

Thanks Joe.
It's been awhile since I had a mechanical manufacturing 3D AutoCAD product drawing.
I tried SuperFlatten out of haste. It was a solid model.
Curious how exploding it makes it a surface model/proxy objects.

I haven't worked with AutoCAD's actual 3D for awhile other than aec content in MEP.
The current production standard requires the backgrounds being used must be flattened.

Thanks DGCS
solview/solprof/soldraw all appear to be layout tab only tools.
Doesn't quite give me what I needed.

flatshot did the trick just fine once I ran _exportlayout.
Took me a few times to figure out the options in it.
But really a handy pair of tools.
What I wanted was all of the notes and object views in one simple 2D model layout.
These two did most of the work.
I wish they had a command line switch with options.
I may try and see if I can get to them in another way to call in a routine.

[KewlToyZ]

Thanks for the other references as well.
With MEP I get the usual AEC Object warnings as well.

[Matt__W]

Thanks for the other references as well.
With MEP I get the usual AEC Object warnings as well.

What about the regular export command or AECTOACAD?

[KewlToyZ]

I used it after getting that message.
It didn't hurt the objects or appearances thankfully.
I have actually integrated -ExportToAutoCAD with most of our project setup routines.
The formatting of BIM is so various from Clients that 80-90% of the data is utterly useless.
Except to the authors.
It doesn't pay to bog down projects with it.
Also it can invariably cause doubling issues in XREF display at times.

[CADaver]

seems like a lot of work to break something ....



sorry, I can't help it

[MP]

Not if a client is paying you $$$ to do it.

[MickD]

Randy, and with all due respect, when you can show me how to get from the model to the detail drg as shown easily I'll be all ears.
Creating views straight from a 3d model may well work for some disciplines and it makes a lot of sense but for detailing you need to pull things apart somewhat to make things easier to make. Even Inventor does the same thing only it does have a 'live' link from the model to the details which is very good.

[KewlToyZ]

Well in the case of having multiple disciplines working on a very large project, one file isn't going to function for the half dozen people trying to work on it at once. File separation is a necessity in that respect.

I redesigned a manufacturing facility using 3D in R14 back in 1997.
It was dreadfully slow and the interface became very clunky back then.
But there are aspects of complexity that 2D just can't communicate when you try to virtualize the ergonomics in redesigning a manufacturing process to fit into a building half the previous size.

Exporting the 2D layouts of the views generated back then would have saved a considerable amount of time for production plotting and sharing files with contractors.
3D has came a long way since then.
But the type of design I look at now is more schematic than raw mechanically critical detailing.

[CADaver]

Not if a client is paying you $$$ to do it.

Whether you're getting paid or not, its still a lot of work just to break something

[CADaver]

Randy, and with all due respect, when you can show me how to get from the model to the detail drg as shown easily I'll be all ears.
Creating views straight from a 3d model may well work for some disciplines and it makes a lot of sense but for detailing you need to pull things apart somewhat to make things easier to make. Even Inventor does the same thing only it does have a 'live' link from the model to the details which is very good.

First off there are much better tools for detailing, but if you're still sticking with autocad, viewports and layer control can do that quite nicely, we did it for years

[CADaver]

Well in the case of having multiple disciplines working on a very large project, one file isn't going to function for the half dozen people trying to work on it at once. File separation is a necessity in that respect.

Not at all "necessary", in fact it then becomes less useful.  Xrefs allow for dozens of people to access the same models at the same time.

I redesigned a manufacturing facility using 3D in R14 back in 1997.
It was dreadfully slow and the interface became very clunky back then.

We executed several full refinery projects using 3D in R14, with an increased productivity of over 20% over the same projects executed in 2D.  We also saved nearly 35 of the total installed cost of the project in vastly improved clash avoidance

Exporting the 2D layouts of the views generated back then would have saved a considerable amount of time for production plotting and sharing files with contractors.

A few subs balked at first, but quickly saw the benefits.

3D has came a long way since then.
But the type of design I look at now is more schematic than raw mechanically critical detailing.

"True" schematic type work, electrical or instrument schematics or process flow diagrams will always remain a 2D source file (although P&IDs and PFDs may move 3D eventually).  But anything with physical size and location that requires measured materials benefits from 3D, and automated production of drawings means they are merely a report from the 3D model along with material reports and any other intelligence you care to embed in the modeled components.

[KewlToyZ]

Good points CADAVER.
Granted I was using 3D design on nearly everything back then.
My points were machine time during that period, and the benefits did outweigh those hours waiting.
But it was often long hours in the evenings to make it pay off.
Comparativley now things can still become quite daunting.
The volume of data that can be associated and used from todays packages has distinct advantages.
The equipment is much more capable as well as affordable to reach those tasks in reasonable production time.
2D can never expose design flaws as readily as 3D.
BIM is one augmentation to 3D that became a reality.
It may not be perfect of course.
Human flaws abound will bring as much chaos as it does ingenuity at times.

It is a just a question of scope where it poses the most uses.
Eventually nearly everything in terms of documentation will be schematics generated from the 3D simulated virtual objects.
Parametric design has came a very long way the last 15 years.

[James Cannon]

Randy, and with all due respect, when you can show me how to get from the model to the detail drg as shown easily I'll be all ears.
Creating views straight from a 3d model may well work for some disciplines and it makes a lot of sense but for detailing you need to pull things apart somewhat to make things easier to make. Even Inventor does the same thing only it does have a 'live' link from the model to the details which is very good.

First off there are much better tools for detailing, but if you're still sticking with autocad, viewports and layer control can do that quite nicely, we did it for years

I call bull.

Autocad sucks at presenting the model in a layout to make connections and pieces show right.  They can't even handle line-display hierarchy decent enough to know not to show beams that are under other beams.

I've gotten the reply from Autodesk techs saying "Oh yea, I see what problem  you're having.  Sorry, I get it too, and there's no solution.  Maybe next release..."

Example for illustration purposes: I have one angle crossing atop a W-beam, in a top view, for example, it'll show the w-beam top flanges OVER the bottom leg of the angle.

For detailing things like this, I -often- resort to showing "flattened" or "solprof'd" views because it works.  I often have to create -disassociated- 2d geometry from my nice, neat, accurate 3d-model, to get the job done.

Because in the end, that's what it's about... getting the job done, not maintaining some Holy Order of the CAD File.

[KewlToyZ]

I am curious, does Revit handle these 2D details any better?
I'm not talking about the Kool Aid, I have had enough.
I really wonder if it handles 2D detailing any better in its format?

[CADaver]

Randy, and with all due respect, when you can show me how to get from the model to the detail drg as shown easily I'll be all ears.
Creating views straight from a 3d model may well work for some disciplines and it makes a lot of sense but for detailing you need to pull things apart somewhat to make things easier to make. Even Inventor does the same thing only it does have a 'live' link from the model to the details which is very good.

First off there are much better tools for detailing, but if you're still sticking with autocad, viewports and layer control can do that quite nicely, we did it for years

I call bull.

Call it anything you like, it won't alter the fact that we produced piping design drawings, piping fabrication iso's, structural design drawings and steel fabrication drawings from 3d AutoCAD models for years quite effectively  I think there may be samples somewhere on these boards.

Autocad sucks at presenting the model in a layout to make connections and pieces show right.  They can't even handle line-display hierarchy decent enough to know not to show beams that are under other beams.

Just cuz' you haven't figured out how to do it yet, doesn't mean it can't be done.  Hiding 3D models in viewports is really very simple, dunno about LINEs though, haven't drawn a LINE in nearly ten years.

I've gotten the reply from Autodesk techs saying "Oh yea, I see what problem  you're having.  Sorry, I get it too, and there's no solution.  Maybe next release..."

Well there's your problem, which "Autodesk tech" did you ask about detailing steel?? 

Example for illustration purposes: I have one angle crossing atop a W-beam, in a top view, for example, it'll show the w-beam top flanges OVER the bottom leg of the angle.

Did you try HIDE??  Haven't had the problem since R13.  R14 and R2000 had some issues with cylinders not plotting correctly sometimes, but that's been a while.

For detailing things like this, I -often- resort to showing "flattened" or "solprof'd" views because it works.  I often have to create -disassociated- 2d geometry from my nice, neat, accurate 3d-model, to get the job done.

Waste of time, and only works for SOLIDs, won't work on blocks (or anything else), meaning you have to waste even more time during the initial build.

Because in the end, that's what it's about... getting the job done, not maintaining some Holy Order of the CAD File.

Its not about any order of the cad file, its about productivity, or in the case of the scenario above the lack of productivity.  With the "stepped on " "stupid graphics", you've divorced the drawings from the model destroying any intelligence in the model, doubling the work required to maintain the files and quadrupling the chance of screwing something up, and then revisions have to be nearly completely re-built from scratch.  Sorry that's just not productive, at least it isn't for us.

I love it when people tell us its impossible to do the stuff we've been doing for nearly a decade.

[CADaver]

I am curious, does Revit handle these 2D details any better?
I'm not talking about the Kool Aid, I have had enough.
I really wonder if it handles 2D detailing any better in its format?

Dunno, we by-passed Revit and went straight to Tekla for Steel modeling and drawing production.  Modeling the initial structure is waaayyy too easy, and once your connection catalog is designed, fully detailing to components is a snap.  Drawings are then automatically produced and annotated from template presets as true reports.  Married with FabTrol and tied to the warehouse inventory, we can also control shop material usage much more efficiently.

[James Cannon]

Randy, and with all due respect, when you can show me how to get from the model to the detail drg as shown easily I'll be all ears.
Creating views straight from a 3d model may well work for some disciplines and it makes a lot of sense but for detailing you need to pull things apart somewhat to make things easier to make. Even Inventor does the same thing only it does have a 'live' link from the model to the details which is very good.

First off there are much better tools for detailing, but if you're still sticking with autocad, viewports and layer control can do that quite nicely, we did it for years

I call bull.

Call it anything you like, it won't alter the fact that we produced piping design drawings, piping fabrication iso's, structural design drawings and steel fabrication drawings from 3d AutoCAD models for years quite effectively  I think there may be samples somewhere on these boards.

I even bolded what I was specifically replying to, and you still managed to take my reply into a whole context I never intended.  I don't care what you did, or what you say "you" did.  I spoke specifically about Autocad's competence in displaying 3D models in viewports.

Autocad sucks at presenting the model in a layout to make connections and pieces show right.  They can't even handle line-display hierarchy decent enough to know not to show beams that are under other beams.

Just cuz' you haven't figured out how to do it yet, doesn't mean it can't be done.  Hiding 3D models in viewports is really very simple, dunno about LINEs though, haven't drawn a LINE in nearly ten years.

I said "line-display" as referring to the lines it generates from the model to visually represent the 3d objects on pdf/paper/plot.  Sorry if that was unclear.  I wasn't talking about a line object specifically, but thanks for the arbitrary trivia.

I've gotten the reply from Autodesk techs saying "Oh yea, I see what problem  you're having.  Sorry, I get it too, and there's no solution.  Maybe next release..."

Well there's your problem, which "Autodesk tech" did you ask about detailing steel?? 

Didn't talk to anyone about detailing steel.  I talking to some of the techs who had intimate knowledge of the visualization programming about conflicts in object display in various visual styles, including 'hidden'

Example for illustration purposes: I have one angle crossing atop a W-beam, in a top view, for example, it'll show the w-beam top flanges OVER the bottom leg of the angle.

Did you try HIDE??  Haven't had the problem since R13.  R14 and R2000 had some issues with cylinders not plotting correctly sometimes, but that's been a while.

Probably best I ignore that question.

For detailing things like this, I -often- resort to showing "flattened" or "solprof'd" views because it works.  I often have to create -disassociated- 2d geometry from my nice, neat, accurate 3d-model, to get the job done.

Waste of time, and only works for SOLIDs, won't work on blocks (or anything else), meaning you have to waste even more time during the initial build.

Gotta send out drawings.  When faced with "finish the job" or "don't finish the job" I found the choice quite simple.

Because in the end, that's what it's about... getting the job done, not maintaining some Holy Order of the CAD File.

Its not about any order of the cad file, its about productivity, or in the case of the scenario above the lack of productivity.  With the "stepped on " "stupid graphics", you've divorced the drawings from the model destroying any intelligence in the model, doubling the work required to maintain the files and quadrupling the chance of screwing something up, and then revisions have to be nearly completely re-built from scratch.

Yea, well, I guess I'm just good.  Funny, how stuff even got built before computers were even around, when -everything- was divorced from eachother.  I managed to do just fine as well.  

  Sorry that's just not productive, at least it isn't for us.

Want a cookie?

I love it when people tell us its impossible to do the stuff we've been doing for nearly a decade.

Another arbitrary bit of trivia, or are you replying to something I missed?

[Sjano]

All this trouble to try to use autodesk?

like you said in your first post Rhinoceros can do it easy, why not start and stay there or like CADaver says  Tekla runs circles around anything other BIM can do for steel fab

[CADaver]

Randy, and with all due respect, when you can show me how to get from the model to the detail drg as shown easily I'll be all ears.
Creating views straight from a 3d model may well work for some disciplines and it makes a lot of sense but for detailing you need to pull things apart somewhat to make things easier to make. Even Inventor does the same thing only it does have a 'live' link from the model to the details which is very good.

First off there are much better tools for detailing, but if you're still sticking with autocad, viewports and layer control can do that quite nicely, we did it for years

I call bull.

Call it anything you like, it won't alter the fact that we produced piping design drawings, piping fabrication iso's, structural design drawings and steel fabrication drawings from 3d AutoCAD models for years quite effectively  I think there may be samples somewhere on these boards.

I even bolded what I was specifically replying to, and you still managed to take my reply into a whole context I never intended.  I don't care what you did, or what you say "you" did.  I spoke specifically about Autocad's competence in displaying 3D models in viewports.

??  and my reply was specifically directed to using AutoCAD 3D models in paperspace viewports.  Showing 3D models in viewports is quite easy ... at least it is for us.

Views of AutoCAD models done in R2002 several years ago (I no longer have copies of the drawings we produced):

http://www.theswamp.org/screens/cadaver/render-exch6.png
http://www.theswamp.org/screens/cadaver/ULSD-ALL.png
http://www.theswamp.org/screens/cadaver/ULSD-ALL2.png

Autocad sucks at presenting the model in a layout to make connections and pieces show right.  They can't even handle line-display hierarchy decent enough to know not to show beams that are under other beams.

Just cuz' you haven't figured out how to do it yet, doesn't mean it can't be done.  Hiding 3D models in viewports is really very simple, dunno about LINEs though, haven't drawn a LINE in nearly ten years.

I said "line-display" as referring to the lines it generates from the model to visually represent the 3d objects on pdf/paper/plot.  Sorry if that was unclear.  I wasn't talking about a line object specifically, but thanks for the arbitrary trivia.

We have no issue with the display of 3D steel models in paperspace, you do know how to hide viewports, right?

I've gotten the reply from Autodesk techs saying "Oh yea, I see what problem  you're having.  Sorry, I get it too, and there's no solution.  Maybe next release..."

Well there's your problem, which "Autodesk tech" did you ask about detailing steel?? 

Didn't talk to anyone about detailing steel.  I talking to some of the techs who had intimate knowledge of the visualization programming about conflicts in object display in various visual styles, including 'hidden'

You found someone at Autodesk like that??  What was the specific issue?  I'm serous here, we don't have an issue with lines in hidden viewports.

Example for illustration purposes: I have one angle crossing atop a W-beam, in a top view, for example, it'll show the w-beam top flanges OVER the bottom leg of the angle.

Did you try HIDE??  Haven't had the problem since R13.  R14 and R2000 had some issues with cylinders not plotting correctly sometimes, but that's been a while.

Probably best I ignore that question.

okay, but it sounds like you igmored the feature.

For detailing things like this, I -often- resort to showing "flattened" or "solprof'd" views because it works.  I often have to create -disassociated- 2d geometry from my nice, neat, accurate 3d-model, to get the job done.

Waste of time, and only works for SOLIDs, won't work on blocks (or anything else), meaning you have to waste even more time during the initial build.

Gotta send out drawings.  When faced with "finish the job" or "don't finish the job" I found the choice quite simple.

ahhh ... the age old excuse for failing to learn how to use all the tools available.  I was wondering how long it would take for you to trot it out.  I think the second post in the discussion may be a new record. Congrats

Because in the end, that's what it's about... getting the job done, not maintaining some Holy Order of the CAD File.

Its not about any order of the cad file, its about productivity, or in the case of the scenario above the lack of productivity.  With the "stepped on " "stupid graphics", you've divorced the drawings from the model destroying any intelligence in the model, doubling the work required to maintain the files and quadrupling the chance of screwing something up, and then revisions have to be nearly completely re-built from scratch.

Yea, well, I guess I'm just good.  Funny, how stuff even got built before computers were even around, when -everything- was divorced from eachother.  I managed to do just fine as well.  

  Sorry that's just not productive, at least it isn't for us.

Want a cookie?

Not at alll, I want more competitors just like you.

I love it when people tell us its impossible to do the stuff we've been doing for nearly a decade.

Another arbitrary bit of trivia, or are you replying to something I missed?

Obviously, you seem to have missed quite a bit.