Topic: Poll: Revison Clouds PaperSpace/ModelSpace

[Oak3s]

My apologize for being late on a discussion of this topic. i did a quick search and read a little about revison clouds and layers used and such but didnt find this particular standard discussed.

The standard is not yet established in the company i am currently working for. some are clouding a revision in paper space all the time. others do all there clouding in model space except when the change is something in paper space.

I prefer to do all my clouding in model space particularly because 95% of the work we do is in model space. i like to cloud where the change occurs (meaning in what space it occurs). so if the change is something in paper space that is where i do the change. we rarely have cases in which multiple view ports (with different scales) are used or even referencing each other. but if they were i would probably cloud in model space and have different layers for each cloud scale. that way i could just freeze the layer that is the wrong scale for a particular view port.

What would you prefer?

[whdjr]

95% of all of our work goes in Modelspace.

[Oak3s]

all that talking and i didnt get the fundemental question out...
Why do you prefer that method?
Why dont you prefer the other?

[t-bear]

Hmmmmmm....a 3-way tie.  I do all my rev-clouds in PS on a revcloud layer.  With as many as 15-20 vports on some sheets, layer management is already a nightmare, I don't need THAT added burden.

BTW  When is Autodork gonna get their act together and let you dim an object in split (2+) vport?  A 30' piece of C10X20 with seven 1 5/16 holes needs multiple vports....(or its own sheet for petes sake!) to dim.  PITA!!

[Birdy]

Hmmmmmm....a 3-way tie.  I do all my rev-clouds in PS on a revcloud layer.  With as many as 15-20 vports on some sheets, layer management is already a nightmare, I don't need THAT added burden.

BTW  When is Autodork gonna get their act together and let you dim an object in split (2+) vport?  A 30' piece of C10X20 with seven 1 5/16 holes needs multiple vports....(or its own sheet for petes sake!) to dim.  PITA!!

<driftingofftopic>
Exactly why we do all our dimensioning in model space.  Were we to do all our work in 3d, I think it'd force the issue of dims in PS. ...then we'd have to scale our viewports to "undesirable" settings.

Maybe this is a good Swamp project for all the "crack" coders here?  Create a method of associative PS dimensions that'll span multiple viewports.

<backontopic>
my vote would be to revcloud in PS, for the layer management issues mentioned.
<goingtocastmyvotenow>

[CADaver]

clouds are annotation, all annotation goes in PS.

[CADaver]

Were we to do all our work in 3d, I think it'd force the issue of dims in PS. ...then we'd have to scale our viewports to "undesirable" settings.

undesirable settings???, whatever for??

[MP]

Maybe this is a good Swamp project for all the "crack" coders here?

Quit that years ago mang.

[dubb]

i usually put revision clouds on model...however i have routine where it creates a layer for the cloud to go on...so the first revision would be
"s-rev1-cloud" and the delta or revision block with the revision number is on a layer that stays the same....if there are more than one type of revision number i put them on separate paper space if i need to separate them....usually when it comes to making sevaral revisions with new numbers, the delta  is seldomly omitted.....rather the cloud would be omitted in event where new clouds were added

[whdjr]

clouds are annotation, all annotation goes in PS.

Not in my Office!

[VerticalMojo]

Paper space..... Helps that you dont have tweak the rev cloud or triangle cuase of scale... just makes it easier.

[ronjonp]

Depends on the circumstance:

I put them in modelspace for any changes on the baseplan (1 xref different views many sheets) as the changes are made. On our detail sheets I put them in paperspace since each detail is a separate xref onto the titleblocks (10-20 xrefs 4-6 per sheet).

The main thing I don't like about PS annotation is when you do all your work in model space, many times the paperspace annotations are sitting on top of your linework When you have many sheets this really gets to be a pain in the A$$.

Ron

[CADaver]

clouds are annotation, all annotation goes in PS.

Not in my Office!

it will when you go 3D.

[CADaver]

The main thing I don't like about PS annotation is when you do all your work in model space, many times the paperspace annotations are sitting on top of your linework When you have many sheets this really gets to be a pain in the A$$.

then don't put the annotation on top of the linework.  it's your drawing, put it where you need it.

[whdjr]

clouds are annotation, all annotation goes in PS.

Not in my Office!

it will when you go 3D.

hehe...we're trying to figure that out now. ADT2006

[Oak3s]

Im enjoying the responses. i know we all have our fields of drafting we work. different rules for different games as it would be.
besides cases where there is a basic model that is xref'd, why cloud in paper space if the change is in model space. my thought on that is there is a chance of user error. the change might not be clouded. the same applies to annotaion but i will try to stay on topic of just revison clouds. (this could possibly head in a annotaion discussion which has already been born, buried, dug up....and buried again)

[ronjonp]

then don't put the annotation on top of the linework. it's your drawing, put it where you need it.

I don't annotate in ps.....but a couple of my clients do and I use their titleblock setups so I don't have to recreate everything.

They also put matchlines in paperspace which I can't find the logic behind.

[Birdy]

Were we to do all our work in 3d, I think it'd force the issue of dims in PS. ...then we'd have to scale our viewports to "undesirable" settings.

undesirable settings???, whatever for??

Kinda figured you'd hit on this one.

It is "preferred" at our company that all cabinetry sections be at 3" scale.  We only plot on D sheets.  Therefore anything over (about) 90" (give or take) wont fit unless I turn it sideways.  Have done that on occasion, but I try to avoid it.  Often we'll get stuff that's over 10' tall, so the only way to keep it in a single VP is to plot at 1 1/2" scale.  Have done that  too, and incurred a lot of wrath cause "it's too small."  

I know, I know.... but folks here are kinda anal about some stuff.  Just a small sample of the carp I constantly fight against.  But to clarify: Nothing is EVER plotted at other than a standard architectural scale.

[CADaver]

Were we to do all our work in 3d, I think it'd force the issue of dims in PS. ...then we'd have to scale our viewports to "undesirable" settings.

undesirable settings???, whatever for??

Kinda figured you'd hit on this one.

It is "preferred" at our company that all cabinetry sections be at 3" scale.  We only plot on D sheets.  Therefore anything over (about) 90" (give or take) wont fit unless I turn it sideways.  Have done that on occasion, but I try to avoid it.  Often we'll get stuff that's over 10' tall, so the only way to keep it in a single VP is to plot at 1 1/2" scale.  Have done that  too, and incurred a lot of wrath cause "it's too small."  

I know, I know.... but folks here are kinda anal about some stuff.  Just a small sample of the carp I constantly fight against.  But to clarify: Nothing is EVER plotted at other than a standard architectural scale.

but what does any of that have to do with PS/MS annotation??  if the cabinet is 120" tall it won't fit regardless of location of annotation.

btw, is there a problem with dview twist to rotate the view on it's side??

[CADaver]

then don't put the annotation on top of the linework. it's your drawing, put it where you need it.

I don't annotate in ps.....but a couple of my clients do and I use their titleblock setups so I don't have to recreate everything.

but why would that mean annotations are on top of linework??

They also put matchlines in paperspace which I can't find the logic behind.

it's annotation, it goes in PS, why not?

[Birdy]

if the cabinet is 120" tall it won't fit regardless of location of annotation.

Correct, so anything that won't fit at the desired scale gets multiple viewports with breaklines.

but what does any of that have to do with PS/MS annotation??

I annotate in MS for 2 reasons:
   1. cause I have yet to find a way to dim in PS that will span across 2 (or more) viewports.
   2. I like to see the dimensions that I'm changing when I edit the Model. Just personal preference, but for our 2d methods, I feel it makes it easier to edit the model.  We're preparing to go 3d, and therefore I feel annotations MUST go in PS. This'll cause a (slight) problem that I'm sure we can overcome. "We never used to do it that way!" Is now plastered on my wall.  Things here WILL change. Resistence is futile.

btw, is there a problem with dview twist to rotate the view on it's side??

Not that I'm aware of. Will check it out (TIA).  Currently I do MVSETUP/align/rotate to turn stuff on it's side.  Works fine, but I may be missing something.

[Birdy]

dview/twist vs. mvsetup/align/rotate
seems they do the same thing.
Which is preferred and why?

[daron]

Depends on how things are set up. If you have many vp's you'd either put them in pspace or create a rev-layer for each vport. If you use pspace only once, merely for printing purposes, then I'd say model, but it's all personal preference there. I don't currently have to use them.

[CADaver]

dview/twist vs. mvsetup/align/rotate
seems they do the same thing.
Which is preferred and why?

either works as well as the other.  dview twist was around before mvsetup, so my hands learned it first.  the reson i brought it up was to avoid splitting viewports for the larger cabinets.

[Birdy]

dview/twist vs. mvsetup/align/rotate
seems they do the same thing.
Which is preferred and why?

either works as well as the other.  dview twist was around before mvsetup, so my hands learned it first.  the reson i brought it up was to avoid splitting viewports for the larger cabinets.

I usually do that (rotate view) for large doors with transoms.  I don't get too much grief for that.  It amazes me how much guys in the shop whine and cry about stuff sometimes.  Personally, I'd prefer NOT to split vp's but with the legacy attitudes around here............. well, I gotta choose my battles, ya know.

[ronjonp]

but why would that mean annotations are on top of linework??

Because the drawings I receive from the clients are a base that we do our linework on. Their annotation may not conflict with their plans but it most likely does with ours since our drawings are so much busier than theirs.

As far as matchlines in paperspace.....if you are not truly looking at a matchline through a viewport, how can you be certain that there aren't any gaps missed? Does the plan have conflicts with the matchline? If so, you won't know it till you tab through all the sheets and find them. I'd rather draft in modelspace and adjust as I go rather than have to look at each sheet with a fine tooth com afterwards.

Here is a sample of what one of my plans looks like.



Ron

[CADaver]

but with the legacy attitudes around here............. well, I gotta choose my battles, ya know.

I don't battle anymore, i just do it.  when they whine, i have a bag of individually wrapped hunks of cheese in the break-room fridge.  i used to be pretty good at bouncing them off the monitors.

[CADaver]

but why would that mean annotations are on top of linework??

Because the drawings I receive from the clients are a base that we do our linework on. Their annotation may not conflict with their plans but it most likely does with ours since our drawings are so much busier than theirs.

umm... freeze their layers in that viewport, maybe.

As far as matchlines in paperspace.....if you are not truly looking at a matchline through a viewport, how can you be certain that there aren't any gaps missed?

cuz' we pay attention, maybe?

Does the plan have conflicts with the matchline? If so, you won't know it till you tab through all the sheets and find them. I'd rather draft in modelspace and adjust as I go rather than have to look at each sheet with a fine tooth com afterwards.

we coordinate the matchlines, so we'll see the change .

[ronjonp]

umm... freeze their layers in that viewport, maybe

.

I can't freeze in the viewport because they are sitting in paper space remember?

cuz' we pay attention, maybe?

You've lost me... I don't even have to pay attention if gaps are missed if my matchlines are in modelspace WYSIWYG not WYSIMSMBWYSIPS.

we coordinate the matchlines, so we'll see the change .

Our matchlines don't change. If your model is in modelspace and your matchlines are in paperspace, how can you see matchlines? Do you draft through a locked floating vport? I think we have very different views on this subject because you are strictly 3d and I am strictly 2d.

[Oak3s]

I'd rather draft in modelspace and adjust as I go rather than have to look at each sheet with a fine tooth com afterwards.

Ron

agreed. even if people 'pay attention' things are missed in paper space. perhaps no one here would miss something in paper space cause we are so darn good at what we do. mistakes are not exceptable  
but the guy right next to me has a problem putting a beam on the beam layer. he sees colors, not layers....and hes color blind. the point im trying to make is there are bad drafters who dont 'pay attention'. flipping between spaces and doing work in both is something they simply cant 'pay attention' to.
in the line of work im in:
single vport scales
no xrefing of 'our' work
it just makes sense for us to label in model space where the thing is we are labeling.
(sliding off topic again)
(revision clouds revision clouds revision clouds)

[CADaver]

umm... freeze their layers in that viewport, maybe

.

I can't freeze in the viewport because they are sitting in paper space remember?

okay, lost me here.  you get a file from somebody else, when xref'd into your drawings, PS stuff is gone. if it's in MS and it's a problem, freeze that layer.

cuz' we pay attention, maybe?

You've lost me... I don't even have to pay attention if gaps are missed if my matchlines are in modelspace WYSIWYG not WYSIMSMBWYSIPS.

so when your matchline is in the middle of the viewport... what?

we coordinate the matchlines, so we'll see the change .

Our matchlines don't change. If your model is in modelspace and your matchlines are in paperspace, how can you see matchlines?

no need to see 'em.

Do you draft through a locked floating vport?

yes, very often we do.  but usually, by the time we've started annotation, modeling in very nearly complete, so there is little to edit in the model itself.

[I think we have very different views on this subject because you are strictly 3d and I am strictly 2d.

could be.  it could also be that i have done it your way 7 or 8 years ago. and as the tools got better and users improved and we saw where we could improve productivity, we jumped on it.

[ronjonp]

okay, lost me here. you get a file from somebody else, when xref'd into your drawings, PS stuff is gone. if it's in MS and it's a problem, freeze that layer.

Their annotation is in paperspace when I get the titleblock setups. This was the problem. Modelspace doesn't matter because our base files are shaded back (as well as the annotation and and does not conflict with our work. (we work on top of the xref).

so when your matchline is in the middle of the viewport... what?

I pay attention that it isn't in the middle J/K.  First process....setup sheets (matchlines), then work on plans. This way I know where I'm at when I'm working on the plans and nothing will conflict with my matchlines because  can see them.

no need to see 'em.

Wish it were that way here.

yes, very often we do. but usually, by the time we've started annotation, modeling in very nearly complete, so there is little to edit in the model itself.

I can see annotation in paperspace being useful for 3d since you probably have many different angled views for what you are trying to portray.

could be. it could also be that i have done it your way 7 or 8 years ago. and as the tools got better and users improved and we saw where we could improve productivity, we jumped on it.

Have you done it my way? If so, what are these tools I'm missing to improve my productivity? I deem myself a fairly efficient drafter but I'm always looking for a better way.

Ron

[CADaver]

agreed. even if people 'pay attention' things are missed in paper space. perhaps no one here would miss something in paper space cause we are so darn good at what we do. mistakes are not exceptable  

we have checkers to make sure the drawings are constructable

but the guy right next to me has a problem putting a beam on the beam layer.

we've autmated that procedure to eliminate the user's need to make that happen.  But if the drafter has a problem placing objects on the proper layer he won't be here long.

the point im trying to make is there are bad drafters who dont 'pay attention'.

they don't stay here long. for the kind of money we pay our designers, they dagged well better be paying attention.  i can understand the odd brain-fart here or there or an oversight, that's what checkers are for.  but if it happens with any kind of regularity, i start hangin' paper. 3rd notice is pink.

flipping between spaces and doing work in both is something they simply cant 'pay attention' to.

then they won't be working here.  i'm not gonna be payin' some guy $60K-$100K a year if he can't pay attention to what he's doing.  he can go be the greeter at wal-mart.

in the line of work im in:
single vport scales no xrefing of 'our' work

what line of work is that??

it just makes sense for us to label in model space where the thing is we are labeling.

if the label is in PS, it's still where the "thing" is you're labeling.

[MP]

You know Mr. Culp, the more you talk ...

... the more I wish I could stand the humidity in Texas, 'cause it would be a pleasure to write programs for someone who has such a clear vision of the deliverables.

In other words, it truly makes it easier for bitheads when the target is stationary. It also fairs well for others on the project.

To the inexperienced you sound like a hard nose, to the experienced you are making it easier for everyone to perform their work to spec.

1½¢

[CADaver]

Their annotation is in paperspace when I get the titleblock setups. This was the problem. Modelspace doesn't matter because our base files are shaded back (as well as the annotation and and does not conflict with our work. (we work on top of the xref).

then i've totally lost the point you were trying to make about annotation being on top of linework

I pay attention that it isn't in the middle J/K.  First process....setup sheets (matchlines), then work on plans. This way I know where I'm at when I'm working on the plans and nothing will conflict with my matchlines because  can see them.

see our first process is build the model.  settting up sheets and matchlines won't happen for another couple weeks. heck, i won't even be able guess at the number of sheets (layout tabs) i'm gonna need until the model is well on the way to completion.  once the model is nearly done, we xref that into the annotation model and begin making views (if necessary). then we move to the layout tabs and begin making viewports and scaling them and annotating them.  i still don't see what would conflict with my matchlines, i draw them at the ends of the viewport and i'm done with 'em.

I can see annotation in paperspace being useful for 3d since you probably have many different angled views for what you are trying to portray.

nearly everything we do is 3d, but we still have plan type drawings for civil work that are singular in their view direction. even these are just easier to annotate in PS.

Have you done it my way? If so, what are these tools I'm missing to improve my productivity?

lesee, 3D and annotation in ps to start with.

I deem myself a fairly efficient drafter but I'm always looking for a better way.

i've seen guys that were among the most efficient drafters in the world, certainly the most efficient i'd ever seen.... with a pencil.  i mean these guys could really hammer out a drawing using their methods and skills.  right now our least efficient CAD designer would beat 'em by about half the time.

being efficient with YOUR methods and tools is one thing, but being as efficient as possible by adapting/modifying any and all methods and tools is something else.

[ronjonp]

then i've totally lost the point you were trying to make about annotation being on top of linework

When printing.

see our first process is build the model. settting up sheets and matchlines won't happen for another couple weeks. heck, i won't even be able guess at the number of sheets (layout tabs) i'm gonna need until the model is well on the way to completion. once the model is nearly done, we xref that into the annotation model and begin making views (if necessary). then we move to the layout tabs and begin making viewports and scaling them and annotating them. i still don't see what would conflict with my matchlines, i draw them at the ends of the viewport and i'm done with 'em.

We have different scopes of work. We do the work within pre-specified boundaries. This makes is easy for project setup at the beginning. Your way sounds like it works but wouldn't work here.

nearly everything we do is 3d, but we still have plan type drawings for civil work that are singular in their view direction. even these are just easier to annotate in PS.

We don't "annotate" we have a cover sheet with Key Notes or Flag notes a These are placed accordingly in the modelspace plan. The flagnote symbol is a attributed circled letter or number block to correspond to the note number.

lesee, 3D and annotation in ps to start with.

Still don't see the benefits....

i've seen guys that were among the most efficient drafters in the world, certainly the most efficient i'd ever seen.... with a pencil. i mean these guys could really hammer out a drawing using their methods and skills. right now our least efficient CAD designer would beat 'em by about half the time.

Sounds like you crack the whip if they don't perform:).

being efficient with YOUR methods and tools is one thing, but being as efficient as possible by adapting/modifying any and all methods and tools is something else.

Agreed...that's why I'm on this forum all the time. There is always room for improvement and the only way to really improve is to listen outside point of views. As for annotating in paperpace, you still don't have me convinced that is the best way to do things here.

[Royalchill]

Model space. We use cloud1, cloud2 etc, clout delta1, cloud delta2 etc. Example for my buttons.

This one for clouds
^C^C-layer;m;cloud1;c;1;;s;cloud1;;;;revcloud

This one for rev delta's
^C^C-layer;m;cloud-delta1;c;4;;s;cloud-delta1;;;;ortho;on;-insert;rev1;\(getvar "dimscale");;\te;

I go up to 12 plum some RFI delta's and clouds

hope this helps