0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
IMO ... the mask option seems like the easiest\cleanest route. Why is it that you cannot redefine the blocks? If you have a library of blocks, you spend a day adding the mask then you never have to worry about trimming again. In some of my blocks I use a solid background that is color 255 and it has worked well (even better than wipeouts). Attached is an example.
If lots of people want it modified I might consider changing the code around so that it may be called with an inserted block and will trim that block... this way, one could call it with (entlast) following a tool palette insertion...
Quote from: alanjt on January 13, 2011, 09:46:26 AMLee did this one a while back...http://lee-mac.com/autoblockbreak.htmlthat is pretty sweet! I did notice that for dynamic blocks, it defines the trimming boundary as if all geometry is turned on, not just what is visible. not a big deal to me because having to extend the lines back to the valve symbol is still less work than trimming.
Lee did this one a while back...http://lee-mac.com/autoblockbreak.html
Quote from: Nibster on January 13, 2011, 10:01:25 AMQuote from: alanjt on January 13, 2011, 09:46:26 AMLee did this one a while back...http://lee-mac.com/autoblockbreak.htmlthat is pretty sweet! I did notice that for dynamic blocks, it defines the trimming boundary as if all geometry is turned on, not just what is visible. not a big deal to me because having to extend the lines back to the valve symbol is still less work than trimming.I noticed this issue as well and thought I might try to take a look at it when I get the time, but if someone gets to it first, then so be it.
[...]I think it depends on the PDF Printer - some people report that wipeouts show up, others don't.
Quote from: Lee Mac on January 13, 2011, 01:47:35 PM[...]I think it depends on the PDF Printer - some people report that wipeouts show up, others don't.That's why you should make the color of wipeouts 255 as well.