Author Topic: Working in metric (sort of)  (Read 12061 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Matt__W

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 12955
  • I like my water diluted.
Working in metric (sort of)
« on: January 26, 2009, 04:58:54 PM »
Can someone enlighten me on this... I need to create some schematic site plans that need to be in metric units.  I've got a site plan (scanned TIF file) that is supposedly scaled at 1:50 meters.  I've got a building footprint that is in architectural units.  I think I've managed to bring in the building footprint at a metric scale.  The big question I have is, how do I create a metric scaled viewport?  I know the ZOOM 1/96XP (for example) trick, but how does that translate into metric?
Autodesk Expert Elite
Revit Subject Matter Expert (SME)
Owner/FAA sUAS Pilot @ http://skyviz.io

mjfarrell

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 14444
  • Every Student their own Lesson
Re: Working in metric (sort of)
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2009, 05:02:51 PM »
metric is more like

1:10
1:500
1:1000
Be your Best


Michael Farrell
http://primeservicesglobal.com/

ronjonp

  • Needs a day job
  • Posts: 7531
Re: Working in metric (sort of)
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2009, 05:07:17 PM »

Windows 11 x64 - AutoCAD /C3D 2023

Custom Build PC

Spike Wilbury

  • Guest
Re: Working in metric (sort of)
« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2009, 05:16:06 PM »
Have been a loooooooooooooooooooong time that I stop doing drafting in metric (metros).... maybe this might help you:

Quote
zoomxp [1:500 ]'.zoom 2xp
zoomxp [1:750 ]'.zoom 1.33333xp
zoomxp [1:1000 ]'.zoom 1xp
zoomxp [1:2000 ]'.zoom 0.5xp
zoomxp [1:2500 ]'.zoom 0.4xp
zoomxp [1:5000 ]'.zoom 0.2xp
zoomxp [1:10000]'.zoom 0.1xp
zoomxp [1:20000]'.zoom 0.05xp
zoomxp [<-1:50000]'.zoom 0.02xp
[--]
zoomxp [ 1:250]'.zoom 4xp
zoomxp [ 1:200]'.zoom 5xp
zoomxp [ 1:125]'.zoom 8xp
zoomxp [ 1:100]'.zoom 10xp
zoomxp [ 1:75]'.zoom 13.33333xp
zoomxp [ 1:50]'.zoom 20xp
zoomxp [ 1:25]'.zoom 40xp
zoomxp [ 1:20]'.zoom 50xp
zoomxp [ 1:12.5]'.zoom 80xp
zoomxp [ 1:10]'.zoom 100xp
zoomxp [ 1:5 ]'.zoom 200xp
zoomxp [ 1:2 ]'.zoom 500xp
zoomxp [ 1:1 ]'.zoom 1000xp
zoomxp [ 2:1 ]'.zoom 2000xp
zoomxp [<-5:1 ]'.zoom 5000xp

mjfarrell

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 14444
  • Every Student their own Lesson
Re: Working in metric (sort of)
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2009, 05:16:43 PM »
Be your Best


Michael Farrell
http://primeservicesglobal.com/

Strucmad

  • Guest
Re: Working in metric (sort of)
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2009, 05:33:57 PM »
Matt,
Those scale factors from LE are right

They appear to be to be scaling drawn millimetres to metres as well.  e.g. [1:1000]'.zoom 1xp  this is really 1/(1000/1000)......converting it to metres

so if your units are in metres then 1:1000 -> in metres,  is zoom 1/1000xp or zoom 0.001xp

1:100 - zoom 1/100xp , or .01xp
1:200 - zoom 1/200xp , or .005xp
1:500 - zoom 1/500xp, or .002xp

give this a whirl...I dont use vports much myself so fingers crossed  :-D
 

Strucmad

  • Guest
Re: Working in metric (sort of)
« Reply #6 on: January 26, 2009, 05:35:56 PM »
MJ whoever put Centimetres in that table should be shot....There is no such thing, and they should never be spoken about.. :lol: :wink: :lmao:

mjfarrell

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 14444
  • Every Student their own Lesson
Re: Working in metric (sort of)
« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2009, 05:43:19 PM »
MJ whoever put Centimetres in that table should be shot....There is no such thing, and they should never be spoken about.. :lol: :wink: :lmao:

that would be courtesy of our friends at autodesk
Be your Best


Michael Farrell
http://primeservicesglobal.com/

Alan Cullen

  • Guest
Re: Working in metric (sort of)
« Reply #8 on: January 26, 2009, 06:46:40 PM »
Have to agree Paul...it's either millimetres or metres....I have never seen cms used....and I hate getting drawings from architects in mm too. Cause we have to rescale/move/rotate their work to get their stuff back onto the survey grid. Then every time they send us a revision (every day) we have to repeat the exercise. Aarrrggghhhh.

jnieman

  • Guest
Re: Working in metric (sort of)
« Reply #9 on: January 26, 2009, 07:03:19 PM »
It's because 'cm' is apparently used as the standard unit for scientific crap, I think.

It seems that every PRACTICAL application of the units is 'mm' as the base (or meters on things of that scale) ... when I did precision machining and our clients sent us metric drawings, we always read in mm... our tools were mm... no cm anywhere as the units.  I've not done architectural or engineering with metric, but apparently you guys seem to say it's mm too.

So other than measuring a person's height, what IS cm used for? lol...

In the USA, we're taught that 'cm' is the "base unit" for metric linear notation, and not meter for some reason.

mjfarrell

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 14444
  • Every Student their own Lesson
Re: Working in metric (sort of)
« Reply #10 on: January 26, 2009, 07:07:30 PM »
you guys be sure to let autodesk in on this will ya?    :lmao:
Be your Best


Michael Farrell
http://primeservicesglobal.com/

Strucmad

  • Guest
Re: Working in metric (sort of)
« Reply #11 on: January 26, 2009, 07:32:54 PM »

So other than measuring a person's height, what IS cm used for? lol...

In the USA, we're taught that 'cm' is the "base unit" for metric linear notation, and not meter for some reason.


The whole metric S.I. unit thing is a 10^3 concept..
e.g.
millimetre 10^-3 metres
metre 10^0 metres
kilometre 10^3 metres

Base unit is metre

works for every type of measurement

grams, kilograms, litres, kilolitres, megalitres

even computers are metric lol.

Kilobyte = 10^3 bytes
Megabyte = 10^6 bytes
Gigabyte = 10^9 bytes
Terrabyte = 10^12 bytes

so when you use centimetres its 10^-2 it screws the whole system up....

I think cm are primarily used in medicine, blood flow (cubic centimetres per second) or 5 ccs stat... :-D
bloody medical profession..gods unto themselves..

And Josh we still measure our heights in feet and inches ... go figure  :lol:
« Last Edit: January 26, 2009, 08:59:41 PM by PS_Port »

jnieman

  • Guest
Re: Working in metric (sort of)
« Reply #12 on: January 26, 2009, 07:41:09 PM »
YEA, someone told me you used feet and inches, but I was totally unaware... someone said it's only England that uses cm for height or somethign?  I may be way off.

Also, can you tell I'm American, totally oblivious to the rest of the known world? :P

thanks for the insight... it did seem to me that only scientific (like you said, medical) use cm... weird...

Alan Cullen

  • Guest
Re: Working in metric (sort of)
« Reply #13 on: January 26, 2009, 07:54:18 PM »
Yup...height in ft and ins....

Also (being the keen fisherman I am)...fish weight is still in pounds, water depth is still in feet, distance over the water is still in nautical miles, and plane heights are still in feet.

So our current generation know both imperial and metric, although the schools are trying to knock the imperial out of them. But while my generation is still alive, there will always be imperial.  :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

kdub_nz

  • Mesozoic keyThumper
  • SuperMod
  • Water Moccasin
  • Posts: 2146
  • class keyThumper<T>:ILazy<T>
Re: Working in metric (sort of)
« Reply #14 on: January 26, 2009, 09:19:04 PM »
Quote
I think cm are primarily used in medicine, blood flow (cubic centimetres per second) or 5 ccs stat...
bloody medical profession..gods unto themselves..

CM are also used for ladies sewing and for cake tin sizes .. :)  8" pie dish is 203 mm but called 20 CM
Called Kerry in my other life
Retired; but they dragged me back in !

I live at UTC + 13.00

---
some people complain about loading the dishwasher.
Sometimes the question is more important than the answer.