Topic: Poll: Revison Clouds PaperSpace/ModelSpace

[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)