TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => CAD Standards => Topic started by: MSTG007 on June 24, 2004, 07:17:04 PM
-
Text is usually placed in to Paper SPACE . .. .. .?
what do you think
-
NO! NO! NO!! When AutoCad first came out they STRESSED that paper space was primarialy a plotting tool. I do not believe in doing ANY drawing in paper space. In my field I don't have much call for paper space, I use it to break large projects into individual sheets. But that is a dying trend. The days of the paper or mylar prints are numbered. Most clients want the topos all in one file as one big drawing. They prefer to do their own sheet layouts. They use the ecopy on a laptop like we used to use blue prints.
-
My take on this is all annotation (text, dimensions, blocks w/attribute data) shall be placed consistantly in the space indicated by the spec, not a mish mash.
We have had clients that wanted MS, others that wanted PS. There are compelling reasons for either (if Matt sees this I challenge him not to join in) which I care not to entertain here.
The bottom line is consistancy, and a spec must address the issue or suffer the whims of CADD Operators who sport widely varying ideas of where annotation should go. You do want all your drawings to be the same.
-
I agree that it is probably up to the company to determine whether notes, call-outs etc... are in MS or PS, but it needs to be CONSISTANT!. We had a drafter (sorta) who placed leadered notes in whichever "space" he happened to be in at the time....I wonder whatever happened to him............
The industry trend is towards modeling in MS (scaled 1=1) and everything else in PS (Scaled to the sheet size), but until AutoDORK fixes their PS dimensioning set-up, We'll do THAT in MS too.
Like MP said.....consistancy is the key....
-
don't agree with this one, all text should be in model space with non specific drawing notes only being placed in paper space.
-
don't agree with this one, all text should be in model space with non specific drawing notes only being placed in paper space.
I think discussions that include words like "should" are good and contribute to our collective understanding of the pros and cons of various techniques, but let me ask you this -- what do you do when your client, who has awarded you a huge contract that will provide you 3 years of employ, indicates that his specification mandates all annotation will be in paperspace; not negotiable? Do you argue with him "why your way is better" or do you ensure that all your ducks are in a row because he has the right as a customer to specify the deliverable? :)
-
well how can you be consistent with this...
lets talk... what are the pros for text and notes dims in paper space and model space
and the cons
-
his specification mandates all annotation will be in paperspace; not negotiable?
If i was working directly for him, it's his call, but if my company are producing our layouts then it's as per our standards.
Text in paper space is ok, if you don't move anything, but when things revise, which they often do, its a lot easier to relocate text on the model space layer when you are moving equipment than afterwards in paper space.
-
Ease of revision, if your notes & dimensions are in ModelSpace with the entities they are describing, it is much faster and less confussing to most new drafters (we do seem to go through quite a few).
We try to keep it simple and easy to duplicate, the stanadards we have.
-
Personally, I like to be able to see the annotation when I'm working on the drawing, to make sure that I don't accidentally draw on top of a note. Besides, it would make rearranging a crowded detail sheet a nightmare -- with text/dimensions in model space, you can do it with one click on the viewport.
-
WHOA NELLY!? I can see this getting into a heated discussion. ...Im in!
Entities should be drawn full scale in Model space.
Text "associated" with entities in model space. (Like leaders and their text) should also be in model.
All notes pertaining to the TTLBLK and titles (schedules, details, and misc non scalable things) should be in paperspace.
-
WHOA NELLY!? I can see this getting into a heated discussion. ...Im in!
Entities should be drawn full scale in Model space.
Text "associated" with entities in model space. (Like leaders and their text) should also be in model.
All notes pertaining to the TTLBLK and titles (schedules, details, and misc non scalable things) should be in paperspace.
How heated can it get when I agree with you? :D
-
How heated can it get when I agree with you? :D
Oh yeah?! Well you ...you ...you dummy head!
*Se7en tries to 'Heat things up a bit'*
-
How heated can it get when I agree with you? :D
Oh yeah?! Well you ...you ...you dummy head!
*Se7en tries to 'Heat things up a bit'*
Easy there, I've got my Teflon suit on today. :D
-
lmao! smarta55!
-
lmao! smarta55!
Careful, Careful... :wink:
-
YOU'RE NUTS, TEXT SHOULD BE IN MODEL SPACE!!!!!!
-
He's yellin at us fellas.....
I grant you the right to your opinion, AVCAD, but not the right to call me "nuts". That privelege is granted ONLY to my wife!
-
99% of our text is in Model Space but I can see a reason why people put text in Paper Space. It really depends on your application. This definetly varies from company to company
-
YOUR NUTS TEXT SHOULD BE IN MODEL SPACE!!!!!!
Ummm...?! I think you missed some punctuation that sentence.
-
WHOA NELLY!? I can see this getting into a heated discussion. ...Im in!
Entities should be drawn full scale in Model space.
Text "associated" with entities in model space. (Like leaders and their text) should also be in model.
All notes pertaining to the TTLBLK and titles (schedules, details, and misc non scalable things) should be in paperspace.
I totally agree. This is how I work with text, and the drawing is much more flexable towards layouts and views.
-
^
It makes it so much easier when it comes to "Facility Mgmt." when only the text relatd to the "system" is present. You dont have to worry about details and schedules, and general notes pertaining to the contract document.
-
FOR US All annotation is in PS. It reduces the clutter in the model as well as reduces the layers and their maintenance required for annotation.
We do exclusively 3D and used to annotate on MS. It required annotation layers for plans, the a set of layers for the North elevations, then a set for the west elevations, then a set for each scale of detail in the model. While setting up the viewports much time was spent insuring that the proper layers were thawed/frozen in the proper viewports for presentation. A large equipment streucture became a real nightmare of over-lapping annotation layers.
With the annotations in PAPERSPACE, the model itself is clean, which not only makes it considerably easier to edit, but improves it's production value as an XREF in other files.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Now all that aside, I'm left wondering what my testes have to do with any of it???
-
Text in paperspace is OK, and I use it sometimes, but the majority of the time I put it in MS, Why, because this way I don't have to put it on the drawing in 5 different layouts for all of the different page plots I have to do....
-
are there tools which we can use to help make annotation from PS to MS or MS to PS easier?
-
Copying text that is identical or similar from one layout to another is very nearly as easy as it is to copy from one place to another in MS.
We can have as many as 20 or 30 LAYOUTS in a file.
-
are there tools which we can use to help make annotation from PS to MS or MS to PS easier?
Not really out of the box, but we've put together several to make annotation as idiot-proof as possible.
-
Copying text that is identical or similar from one layout to another is very nearly as easy as it is to copy from one place to another in MS.
We can have as many as 20 or 30 LAYOUTS in a file.
True enough and I utilize that on a regular basis, for a limited amount of items. The only real argument I see for not putting them in MS is the xref reason. It DOES make it easier to use it for an xref, however, if I might point out, generally a model is done representing the object, and it is xrefed into a drawing, different diciplines are added in the new drawing (as not to corrupt the xref) and notes pertaining to each dicipline is put in a layer dealing with that dicipline.
I regularly use 5 different paper sizes, each having its' need and none being disposable, if I put all text for example at 3/16" on a C size sheet and then the same size on a D size and then again on an E size, I would have issues with geometry interfering with the readability of the text on the smaller pages, because the plot is at a different scale, thus the text is not at a different scale. Perhaps my thought process is not correct but it has worked for a great deal of time and if I can place notes ONCE and have them reflected efficiently in ALL plots, it then becomes less efficient, more time consuming, and more costly to place them in all layouts, for example 20 times.
-
The only real argument I see for not putting them in MS is the xref reason.
For us, that is secondary to the multiple layer issue in 3D models.
It DOES make it easier to use it for an xref, however, if I might point out, generally a model is done representing the object, and it is xrefed into a drawing,
I keep seeing that posted around, and I'm wondering to what advantage is the second file? Why not annotate the in the same file as the model?
I regularly use 5 different paper sizes, each having its' need and none being disposable, if I put all text for example at 3/16" on a C size sheet and then the same size on a D size and then again on an E size, I would have issues with geometry interfering with the readability of the text on the smaller pages, because the plot is at a different scale, thus the text is not at a different scale. Perhaps my thought process is not correct but it has worked for a great deal of time and if I can place notes ONCE and have them reflected efficiently in ALL plots, it then becomes less efficient, more time consuming, and more costly to place them in all layouts, for example 20 times.
We use page setups and just plot the same layout at different sizes, seems a lot simpler for us.
-
We use page setups and just plot the same layout at different sizes, seems a lot simpler for us.
Try plotting a PS setup for D size on 11x17 when the PS text is set to 1/4" ... you won't be able to see anything on the paper... the text will cover it all up or will hang off of the paper ... either that or you are using a "plot to fit" which does absolutely nothing for scaling drawings... Believe me ... if I can see a way around it, I will gladly have a single PS model to plot ... but alas I have not seen one that is effective
-
How about this for a topic.....
"you should never use a scale on a plotted drawing."
Your thoughts?
-
either that or you are using a "plot to fit"
Exactly
which does absolutely nothing for scaling drawings...
covered extensivly on another thread. No intelligent reason to scale a plot, the information should be available from the content of the drawing, IMO
[Believe me ... if I can see a way around it, I will gladly have a single PS model to plot ... but alas I have not seen one that is effective
We use a 34x22 sheet, assume that the plot scale for a viewport is 1/4" = 1'-0" for a page setup that plots 1:1. A page setup for that same sheet at 1:2 will produce an 11x17 plot, scalable at 1/8" = 1'-0"
-
How about this for a topic.....
"you should never use a scale on a plotted drawing."
Your thoughts?
New thread
-
either that or you are using a "plot to fit"
Exactly
We always plot to scale using the apropriate scale factor as we have found that if you plot to fit, the scaling frequently ends up being off by about 1' in 40' .... based on a 1/4"=1'-0" plot (i.e. plotting 1:1)
which does absolutely nothing for scaling drawings...
covered extensivly on another thread. No intelligent reason to scale a plot, the information should be available from the content of the drawing, IMO
Perhaps I misstated my point or perhaps it was misunderstood. The drawing itself is not scaled. It is 1:1, but if it is plotted to fit... frequently the plotted drawing scale will be off. I see no option other than specifying 1:1 on plots
Believe me ... if I can see a way around it, I will gladly have a single PS model to plot ... but alas I have not seen one that is effective
We use a 34x22 sheet, assume that the plot scale for a viewport is 1/4" = 1'-0" for a page setup that plots 1:1. A page setup for that same sheet at 1:2 will produce an 11x17 plot, scalable at 1/8" = 1'-0"
I'll have to try that, it just might work....If'n it does, I will have one less layout to deal with...I will simply plot the Arch D at 1:2 to 11x17
-
Keith....
I don't know about archD (24X36...right?) but it works great on MechD (22X34). We use it all the time. Our standard (there's that word again) text size is .09 and even scaled 1/2 it is quite legible. In fact, this is the size we employ in our User Manuals.....
We only have one TB, and three "page setups" ... a-size for inhouse chks and faxes, b-size for submittals, as builts and manuals, and d-size for in-house dwgs. VERY simple!
-
Perhaps I misstated my point or perhaps it was misunderstood. The drawing itself is not scaled. It is 1:1, but if it is plotted to fit... frequently the plotted drawing scale will be off. I see no option other than specifying 1:1 on plots
...
I'll have to try that, it just might work....If'n it does, I will have one less layout to deal with...I will simply plot the Arch D at 1:2 to 11x17
We use it in pre-defined page setups in our templates, but we use ANSI D, not ARCH D. ARCH D is a 24X36 sheet that is not evenly scaleable to 11x17. You would plot to fit. And as you say, the scale would be off. See the thread on scaling plots
-
See the thread on scaling plots
Already did ... I posted the main reason I need them to be to scale on the plot .... essentially contractors who are too lazy to add 2+2
-
See the thread on scaling plots
Already did ... I posted the main reason I need them to be to scale on the plot .... essentially contractors who are too lazy to add 2+2
They shouldn't have to, that information, if necessary should be reflected in the content of the drawing. But more to the point, you're going to trust these same guys to ACCURATELY scale a print, whose accuracy is at best a guess? If they are "too lazy to add 2+2", I don't want them guessing about any dimesions with their "Dollar Store" 3' tape measure.
-
See the thread on scaling plots
Already did ... I posted the main reason I need them to be to scale on the plot .... essentially contractors who are too lazy to add 2+2
They shouldn't have to, that information, if necessary should be reflected in the content of the drawing. But more to the point, you're going to trust these same guys to ACCURATELY scale a print, whose accuracy is at best a guess? If they are "too lazy to add 2+2", I don't want them guessing about any dimesions with their "Dollar Store" 3' tape measure.
I don't trust them as far as I could pick up their butt at throw it up in the air. You must understand, these contractors are not employed by us (my company), they are employed by the client (our company's client). Frequently the customer hires Bubba and Forest to build their house because they are second cousins on their mother's side and uncles on their fathers side. Rather than have the client be mad at us because the drawings didn't work (they can't be mad at Bubba and Forest cause they're family so it must be or fault) we provide them accurately scaled, always.
Oh, and the builder needing to add 2X2, if you have ever seen a set of architectural plans you would know it is not possible to give a dimension in every conceivable direction, some by neccessity (because of lack of room on the paper) must be determined by adding adjacent dimensions.
If I presume that Bubba can't add those together, then I should also presume since he can't add he probably cannot use a measuring tape, so he probably don't have one anyway.
Incedently if he can scale the drawing (with a Dollar Store 3' tape measure) and do the multiplication, why on earth would he not simply say 9'-4" + 2'-8" = 12'-0" ??
I MUST out of neccessity prepare these drawings for ANY idiot that happens to end up using them, to the best of my abilities.
Oh, and one more thing ....
It is neither efficient nor inefficient to plot at 1/4" = 1'-0" anymore than it is to "plot to fit", but I'll bet that given a drawing plotted to 1/4"=1'-0" scale I can build it without the first dimension at all. That aside, in Florida the building code requires scale plotted drawings.
§104.2 Drawings and specifications
§104.2.1 Requirements. As required by §104.3.1.1 of the code, two or more copies of specifications, and of drawings drawn to scale with sufficient clarity and detail to indicate the nature and character of the work, shall accompany the application for a permit. .......
And ...
9B-1.009 Design Plan and Systems Approval.
(2)(b)
......Plans drawn to a scale less than 1/8 inch to the foot are not acceptable.
So besides having to meet the requirements of Bubba & Forest (by being able to scale the drawing in the field) I must also meet the requirements of the Florida Building Code.
To that end I will not even entertain the thought of plotting to fit, ever....
I still wonder then, if you could plot either "scale to fit" or to 1/4"=1'-0" then what is the thought process behind selecting scale to fit? If I plot 1/4"=1'-0" with the proper tools, anyone can build it even without dimensions.
Remember we are talking about construction where the AIA has determined that the tolerence for construction is 1/4" in 12'-0" .. not quite tight enough for me but the industry standard none the less, besides, you can buy 2 pieces of lumber from the same mill and same run and there can be 1/4" difference in their size.
-
We use a 34x22 sheet, assume that the plot scale for a viewport is 1/4" = 1'-0" for a page setup that plots 1:1. A page setup for that same sheet at 1:2 will produce an 11x17 plot, scalable at 1/8" = 1'-0"
This sheet size is great. :D
I hate when I get a titleblock that is drawn the same size as the sheet it is supposed to be printed on. This does not allow for printer margins, and cannot be printed to a true half scale on 11x17 paper. Our 34x22 tblock is really 33x21.
-
I don't trust them as far as I could pick up their butt at throw it up in the air. You must understand, these contractors are not employed by us (my company), they are employed by the client (our company's client). Frequently the customer hires Bubba and Forest to build their house because they are second cousins on their mother's side and uncles on their fathers side. Rather than have the client be mad at us because the drawings didn't work (they can't be mad at Bubba and Forest cause they're family so it must be or fault) we provide them accurately scaled, always.
And trust them to scale it rather than use the content of the drawing to control construction???? If Bubba and Forrest con't read the bloody drawing, how is it being to scale gonna help??
Oh, and the builder needing to add 2X2, if you have ever seen a set of architectural plans you would know it is not possible to give a dimension in every conceivable direction, some by neccessity (because of lack of room on the paper) must be determined by adding adjacent dimensions.
True, but then our contractors can add. If I was concerned that the contractor could not sufficiently read and add the the dimensions, I would find a way to annotate the drawing for him. I certainly would NOT rely on that same guy pulling a tape across a 3rd generation print.
Incedently if he can scale the drawing (with a Dollar Store 3' tape measure) and do the multiplication, why on earth would he not simply say 9'-4" + 2'-8" = 12'-0" ??
You were the one who said they couldn't add 2+2.
I MUST out of neccessity prepare these drawings for ANY idiot that happens to end up using them, to the best of my abilities.
Within reason, sure.
It is neither efficient nor inefficient to plot at 1/4" = 1'-0" anymore than it is to "plot to fit", but I'll bet that given a drawing plotted to 1/4"=1'-0" scale I can build it without the first dimension at all.
Not as accurately as you would with the dimensions, and not within the tolerances required, considering all the factors that effect the scale of the drawing that finally gets to the field.
Construction site in Houston texas. Show me 1/2 on a 1/4" scaled plot, at 6:30am first Monday in May, then find it again on that same print at 3:30pm in August. You 1/4" in 12' will get blown away just by the humidity shift. And that assumes the print was to scale to begin with. Every photocopy uses optics that can and will effect the scale of the original to the copy, assuming the original hasn't been efected by temperature and humidity.
That aside, in Florida the building code requires scale plotted drawings.
So besides having to meet the requirements of Bubba & Forest (by being able to scale the drawing in the field) I must also meet the requirements of the Florida Building Code.
Have they provided you with some method for accomplishing such?
We plot the drawings of record "to scale", if for no other reason than it's easy to do. But that is more out of habit than anything else. We certainly don't do it with the expectation that anyone in his right mind would attempt to build it by scaling it rather than by the dimensions on the drawing.
If I plot 1/4"=1'-0" with the proper tools, anyone can build it even without dimensions.
Not within the posted tolerances below.
Remember we are talking about construction where the AIA has determined that the tolerence for construction is 1/4" in 12'-0"
I dug around earlier and finally found my old arch scale (high-dollar bamboo core bit o' work, set me back $40 in 1965). On the 1/4"=1'-0" side, it doesn't show graduations less than 1". So it would be real hard to find that 1/4" tolerance, even if everythng was perfectly calibrated and controlled for scale.
So my question remains, what purpose (other than code) is plotting to scale??
-
Keith....
According to your building code:
§104.2 Drawings and specifications
§104.2.1 Requirements. As required by §104.3.1.1 of the code, two or more copies of specifications, and of drawings drawn to scale with sufficient clarity and detail to indicate the nature and character of the work, shall accompany the application for a permit. .......
Now I'm sure you DRAW to scale and nothing has been said about "plotted to scale"..............
Mebbe that's your out.
-
And trust them to scale it rather than use the content of the drawing to control construction???? If Bubba and Forrest con't read the bloody drawing, how is it being to scale gonna help??
I keep all of our master drawings in a controlled environment, AND regardless of whether the field drawings are to scale or not, mine are and we frequently use them.
True, but then our contractors can add. If I was concerned that the contractor could not sufficiently read and add the the dimensions, I would find a way to annotate the drawing for him. I certainly would NOT rely on that same guy pulling a tape across a 3rd generation print.
We do not copy plans.... The client does not copy plans, if they do, it is at their risk, not mine(ours) We provide as many sets of plans as needed for the completion of the project, and the final set of plans are exactly like the first set of plans. Copying plans produce unexpected results, it is neither encouraged nor condoned.
Incedently if he can scale the drawing (with a Dollar Store 3' tape measure) and do the multiplication, why on earth would he not simply say 9'-4" + 2'-8" = 12'-0" ??
You were the one who said they couldn't add 2+2.
Precisely, and regardless of the reasons the contractor decides to use a scale instead of add dimensions, if he does, so be it. It is his decision. So in your words, I am simply finding a way to "annotate" the drawing for him, only this annotation is contained on a scale rule.
I MUST out of neccessity prepare these drawings for ANY idiot that happens to end up using them, to the best of my abilities.
Within reason, sure.
Are you suggesting that plotting to scale is unreasonable?
It is neither efficient nor inefficient to plot at 1/4" = 1'-0" anymore than it is to "plot to fit", but I'll bet that given a drawing plotted to 1/4"=1'-0" scale I can build it without the first dimension at all.
Not as accurately as you would with the dimensions, and not within the tolerances required, considering all the factors that effect the scale of the drawing that finally gets to the field.
I have use many drawings in the field for 25 years and I have yet to see ANY that was originally plotted to scale that I could not get a decent dimension from with a scale rule.
Construction site in Houston texas. Show me 1/2 on a 1/4" scaled plot, at 6:30am first Monday in May, then find it again on that same print at 3:30pm in August. You 1/4" in 12' will get blown away just by the humidity shift. And that assumes the print was to scale to begin with. Every photocopy uses optics that can and will effect the scale of the original to the copy, assuming the original hasn't been efected by temperature and humidity.
I am left wondering where this supposed expansion and contraction of paper is happening, is surely does not happen here in Florida, the humidity capital of the world!
At best a 36x24 piece of paper will grow (or shrink) less than 1/8" in the long dimension, given the average size house is around 60'-0" if we presume that 1/8" growth in the paper the change per inch is a mere .003% and the change over the length of a 60'-0" (15 scaled inches) building is a mere .043 of an inch, scaled to 60'-0" it represents 2" overall length, but even then that is in the worst case, and I have never experienced anything like that.
That aside, in Florida the building code requires scale plotted drawings.
So besides having to meet the requirements of Bubba & Forest (by being able to scale the drawing in the field) I must also meet the requirements of the Florida Building Code.
Have they provided you with some method for accomplishing such?
It must be plotted to scale, period. If it is not you will not obtain a building permit, as such you would never be able to obtain a building permit in Florida, the building department would laugh you out of the doors, and tell you that when you figure out how to plot to scale come back and talk to them.
We plot the drawings of record "to scale", if for no other reason than it's easy to do. But that is more out of habit than anything else. We certainly don't do it with the expectation that anyone in his right mind would attempt to build it by scaling it rather than by the dimensions on the drawing.
So if I were to use a scale rule I would be what? crazy? out of my mind? I guess our ancestors were all out of their mind too, using slide rules ans scales......
If I plot 1/4"=1'-0" with the proper tools, anyone can build it even without dimensions.
Not within the posted tolerances below.
I'd be willing to put a wager on that one but it would be a sucker bet. There are many things you evidently do not understand about architectural construction.
I dug around earlier and finally found my old arch scale (high-dollar bamboo core bit o' work, set me back $40 in 1965). On the 1/4"=1'-0" side, it doesn't show graduations less than 1". So it would be real hard to find that 1/4" tolerance, even if everythng was perfectly calibrated and controlled for scale.
So my question remains, what purpose (other than code) is plotting to scale??
The only answer I can offer you is that plotting to scale is a tool that is both effective and simple, it has worked for many years and I doubt it will change anytime soon, much like rubber tires, they work, don't worry about it. Besides you are not the one getting his hind end chewed out because Bubba scaled a drawing and built something wrong because the drawing was plotted to fit, not to scale.
So, riddle me this ....do you print a scale factor on your plans? After all if you pring 1/4" = 1'-0" and plot it to fit, it is no longet 1/4" = 1'-0" now is it.
Now I'm sure you DRAW to scale and nothing has been said about "plotted to scale"..............
The building code makes no distinction between hand drawn and CAD drawn plans, to it all plans are equal as far as scale is concerned, the building officials charged with administering the code will refuse any drawings not able to be scaled with a standard scale rule. There are no exceptions.
If I were to challenge the Southern Building Code Congress and/or the Department of Community Affairs (which administers the FBC) I would see my license revoked so fast I wouldn't know what happened. If that didn't happen, I would be given preferential treatment by the local building officials in the "deviation" department, and you never want that, it can cost you thousands upon thousands of dollars on the project. It is essentially a no win situation. Even if you win, it will cost you big time the next time you go into the building department office.
-
The only assumption that a drafter should make is that the PM's and end users are all total friggin idiots and thus evey line in the drawing MUST be labeled and/or dimensioned. The second rule to remember is, when preparing a drawing for an Architect you must take GREAT PAINS to insure that the overall exterior dimension NEVER equals the sum of the interior dimensions. They are not used to this. Never confuse an architect. It's not a pretty sight. The third rule is take your site plan and mirror it. Erase the original lines. By the time you get it back from the Architect and he has rotated it to "fit his sheet" and has moved the world to 0,0, it will be back on the original coordinate system. :twisted:
-
Actually I just like to make everything anonymous blocks, then mirror them left to right and top to bottom so they look right, then put them in another anonymous block, one this is done if the next user trys to explode it, AutoCAD locks up tighter than well... a drum...
mirrored nested anonymous blocks plays hell with exploding ... it gets 'em every time.
-
Open your buddy's drawnig, Set LARGE text. Type really nasty comments about the Boss all across the drawing. Set that text color to black. He won't see it until he plots the drawing. When he goes to plot, run and tell the boss, "You gotta see this plot!! This guy is a real artist!" When the Boss goes to look at it, go outside for a smoke. That way you won't ger hit by flying pieces.
-
Ok then. (quietly stepping away from the computer ...)
-
I keep all of our master drawings in a controlled environment, AND regardless of whether the field drawings are to scale or not, mine are and we frequently use them.
With a scale instead of the content dimensions?
We provide as many sets of plans as needed for the completion of the project,
All original plots? When was the last time you calibrated your plotters?
Precisely, and regardless of the reasons the contractor decides to use a scale instead of add dimensions, if he does, so be it. It is his decision. So in your words, I am simply finding a way to "annotate" the drawing for him, only this annotation is contained on a scale rule.
And as we've discussed, it's a method less accurate than using the content of the drawing.
Are you suggesting that plotting to scale is unreasonable?
no, unnecessary
I have use many drawings in the field for 25 years and I have yet to see ANY that was originally plotted to scale that I could not get a decent dimension from with a scale rule.
You can't get anything less than a full inch on 1/4"=1'-0" plans. I don't know about your drawings, but we frequently use fractional dimensions to a 1/16". And often these are critical for fit-up.
I am left wondering where this supposed expansion and contraction of paper is happening, is surely does not happen here in Florida, the humidity capital of the world!... and I have never experienced anything like that.
The plot bond we use picks up about a 1/4" over 36" from the plotter to the construction shack, but let's say it's 1/8" in 36". Now lets say we have a 72' long building at 1/4"=1'-0", that should plot 18" long, but by your expansion number it's now 18.0625" long. Scaling it says the building is 72'-3", considerably outside the 1/4" in 12' tolerance you've posted. I rest my case.
So if I were to use a scale rule I would be what? crazy? out of my mind?
no, just inaccurate, see above.
I'd be willing to put a wager on that one but it would be a sucker bet. There are many things you evidently do not understand about architectural construction.
maybe not, but I do understand that scaling drawings produces inaccurate results, see above.
The only answer I can offer you is that plotting to scale is a tool that is both effective and simple,...
simple yes, effective? for what? other than meeting a more stringent than necessary code, nothing.
-
I keep all of our master drawings in a controlled environment, AND regardless of whether the field drawings are to scale or not, mine are and we frequently use them.
With a scale instead of the content dimensions?
Yes we use a scale, and it is quite accurate, particularly for our uses.
We provide as many sets of plans as needed for the completion of the project,
All original plots? When was the last time you calibrated your plotters?
Yes ALL originals, and our plotter is checked for calibration monthly.
Precisely, and regardless of the reasons the contractor decides to use a scale instead of add dimensions, if he does, so be it. It is his decision. So in your words, I am simply finding a way to "annotate" the drawing for him, only this annotation is contained on a scale rule.
And as we've discussed, it's a method less accurate than using the content of the drawing.
It does not matter how accurate the final plot is, if the contractor requires it to be plotted to scale, it is done, and since the contractor IS an extension of the client, if the contractor rejects plans that are not plotted to scale, then we have a real problem.
Are you suggesting that plotting to scale is unreasonable?
no, unnecessary
You should qualify that with "in my opinion", since it is indeed your opinion, and in the real world it does not count outside of your realm of influence.
I have use many drawings in the field for 25 years and I have yet to see ANY that was originally plotted to scale that I could not get a decent dimension from with a scale rule.
You can't get anything less than a full inch on 1/4"=1'-0" plans. I don't know about your drawings, but we frequently use fractional dimensions to a 1/16". And often these are critical for fit-up.
In Architectural construction, there are only a very few "critical" measurements, the main ones being, hallway width, and stairwell width. All others are subject to change depending upon the materials selected. For example, a window is called out as a 3050 i.e. 3'-0"x5'-0" the opening for that window will vary from 36 1/2"x60 1/2" to 39 1/2"x63 1/2" depending upon the manufacturer.
I am left wondering where this supposed expansion and contraction of paper is happening, is surely does not happen here in Florida, the humidity capital of the world!... and I have never experienced anything like that.
The plot bond we use picks up about a 1/4" over 36" from the plotter to the construction shack, but let's say it's 1/8" in 36". Now lets say we have a 72' long building at 1/4"=1'-0", that should plot 18" long, but by your expansion number it's now 18.0625" long. Scaling it says the building is 72'-3", considerably outside the 1/4" in 12' tolerance you've posted. I rest my case.
Yes, but the dimension that states 72'-0" would be a clue, besides how many times are you going to get a drawing with absolutely no dimensions.
So if I were to use a scale rule I would be what? crazy? out of my mind?
no, just inaccurate, see above.
As far as accuracy is concerned, how accurate is the final product anyway, typically a building framing is the only thing that requires planned dimensions and everything else is measured from the final product, not from a piece of paper. If I scale a drawing and find a 4" wall, I utilize a 2x4 (1 1/2x3 1/2) and if I find a 6" wall I use a 2x6 (1 1/2x5 1/2) These stud sizes are also only typical, I have seen them vary in size from 3 3/8 to 3 3/4. Some things just don't need the nth degree. Construction just happens to need only basic dimensions. The rest is based on variations in available product and the general view of the plans.
I'd be willing to put a wager on that one but it would be a sucker bet. There are many things you evidently do not understand about architectural construction.
maybe not, but I do understand that scaling drawings produces inaccurate results, see above.
Who's to ay what is accurate. I'll bet the house you live is is not accurate according to the plans. How can it be, since such things as finish are not even considered on typical plans. Inside room dimensions are rounded to the nearest inch, how accurate is that? I suppose not very, but it works and it works well.
The only answer I can offer you is that plotting to scale is a tool that is both effective and simple,...
simple yes, effective? for what? other than meeting a more stringent than necessary code, nothing.
It is a good thing you don't do architectural drawings....you would spend your profits replotting plans to a scale, or you would quickly adopt the obvious. Besides, if the client's agent requires them plotted to scale, who am I to argue. If he wants them drawn on a paper bag with a purple crayon, and he is willing to pay for it, then who am I to argue?
-
Yes we use a scale, and it is quite accurate, particularly for our uses.
plus or minus 3" in 72'
It does not matter how accurate the final plot is,
Wait a minute, you're the promoting "to scale" plots, if they are not accurate, they are not "to scale"
if the contractor requires it to be plotted to scale, it is done, and since the contractor IS an extension of the client, if the contractor rejects plans that are not plotted to scale, then we have a real problem.
If such is required, then you ALWAYS have a problem, as we have proved here with your numbers they are outside the 1/4" in 12' tolerance.
You should qualify that with "in my opinion", since it is indeed your opinion, and in the real world it does not count outside of your realm of influence.
no, it's always unnecessary, even if required by someone who fails to understand the limitations of scaled drawings, it is unnecessary.
In Architectural construction, there are only a very few "critical" measurements, the main ones being, hallway width, and stairwell width. All others are subject to change depending upon the materials selected. For example, a window is called out as a 3050 i.e. 3'-0"x5'-0" the opening for that window will vary from 36 1/2"x60 1/2" to 39 1/2"x63 1/2" depending upon the manufacturer.
So you're not even DRAWING "to scale" to begin with. How can you determine if it's plotted "to scale", if the original data is not "to scale"????
Yes, but the dimension that states 72'-0" would be a clue, besides how many times are you going to get a drawing with absolutely no dimensions.
You should get a drawing with ALL necessary dimensions for construction. If there is a dimensions missing, that is required, the drawing is incomplete and in error.
As far as accuracy is concerned, how accurate is the final product anyway, typically a building framing is the only thing that requires planned dimensions and everything else is measured from the final product, not from a piece of paper. If I scale a drawing and find a 4" wall, I utilize a 2x4 (1 1/2x3 1/2) and if I find a 6" wall I use a 2x6 (1 1/2x5 1/2) These stud sizes are also only typical, I have seen them vary in size from 3 3/8 to 3 3/4. Some things just don't need the nth degree. Construction just happens to need only basic dimensions. The rest is based on variations in available product and the general view of the plans.
Again, you're not "to scale" to begin with, how can plotting a NOT TO SCALE drawing "to scale" be of any use?? How is the Florida code going to apply to a drawing that is not "to scale" to start??
Who's to ay what is accurate. I'll bet the house you live is is not accurate according to the plans. How can it be, since such things as finish are not even considered on typical plans. Inside room dimensions are rounded to the nearest inch, how accurate is that? I suppose not very, but it works and it works well.
Ahh, but the NECESSARY dimensions on the drawings (did 'em myself) accurately portray the model and the desired results. Out-to-outs and wall centerlines are accurate, in the drawing, the contractor built it from 18x22 plots of 22x34 drawings, never needed a plastic stick. I was the GC, and every necessary dimension was checked against the drawings and was within specified construction tolerances. Are you sure you wanna bet $200k on this??
It is a good thing you don't do architectural drawings....
But I do.
you would spend your profits replotting plans to a scale, or you would quickly adopt the obvious.
Not as yet, nor in the last 30 some odd years.
Besides, if the client's agent requires them plotted to scale, who am I to argue. If he wants them drawn on a paper bag with a purple crayon, and he is willing to pay for it, then who am I to argue?
Oh, when I plot, I click the little box that says 1/4" = 1'-0", I just understand that what comes off the plotter is NOT a "to scale" plot. It's accidental if it is "to scale" and won't remain so long.
-
CADaver, I fail to see why you continually insist that if your clients want it then it must be ok, while if anyone elses client wants it then it is unneccesary and hence wrong to do so. Perhaps you are the only one with smart clients...
Like you have said so many times .... IF THE CLIENT REQUIRES IT, THEN IT IS WHAT THE CLIENT GETS, NO QUESTIONS ASKED, but you perhaps put it a bit more eloquently, something rediculous about a crayon and paper bag if my memory serves me correctly. Plus you fail to acknowledge that it is required by law, at least for me ... I personally believe that there are many laws that are not justifiable, but if I don't follow them, the powers that be WILL feel justified to enact whatever conveyance is prescribed by law.
-
CADaver, I fail to see why you continually insist that if your clients want it then it must be ok, while if anyone elses client wants it then it is unneccesary and hence wrong to do so. Perhaps you are the only one with smart clients...
Like you have said so many times .... IF THE CLIENT REQUIRES IT, THEN IT IS WHAT THE CLIENT GETS, NO QUESTIONS ASKED, but you perhaps put it a bit more eloquently, something rediculous about a crayon and paper bag if my memory serves me correctly. Plus you fail to acknowledge that it is required by law, at least for me ... I personally believe that there are many laws that are not justifiable, but if I don't follow them, the powers that be WILL feel justified to enact whatever conveyance is prescribed by law.
Two different topics, "required" and "necessary". "Necessary" means it's needed to build whatever. "required" may be either necessary or unnecessary. The client may require that all text be on layer "peanutbutter", that is unnecessary, but it is required. We will provide all text on layer "peanutbutter".
Scalable plots, however, are a whole nuther banana. As we've shown here, it is impossible to provide such. It's like asking surveyors to provide 8 decimal place accuracy. It may be required, but it's unnecessary, and more to the point, impossible to achieve. But if the client "requires" it, I will hit the little button in the dialog box that says 1/4"=1'-0", and pretend that I've accomplished something.
Then when the client calls next month and wants to know why, when he lays his lil' plastic stick on the photocopy of the plot, it says 72'3" but the dimensin says 72', I'll spend the next half hour explaining the limitations of plotters, copiers, scales, media, and the effect of temperture and humidity on each. He'll mumble something about "why'd we bother", I'll remind him it was his requirement, tell him that 18"X24" are a load easier to handle. He'll tell me that's what we'll do next time, but we won't, we'll just do this all over again with the guy that takes his place when he retires.
This is nothing new for me, been batting this topic around for over 30 years, long before CAD. Scaling a print has always been a bad guess.
-
ok...there are so many posts to this topic
but i just wana say that i use model space 95% of the time. whenever i use paper space i only use it with the objects that dont require me to scaleup. like titleblock and north arrow or general notes.in most of my work i xref title blocks into model space and i check my overall drawing scale by listing my title block to see what scale it is scaled up to, to determine what scale i used. as for my co-workers who decide to do whatever they want to do in cad., they put text everywhere..paper model., whatever they want to do..and when i ask them to put it in model and not paper., they turn their shoulders. For all that use paper space to do 20% to 30% of their drawing i would like to hear from you in this topic because paperspace makes autocad confusing to NOobs. i took like 3 to 4 hours one time, trying to explain the aspect of model and paperspace to some guy.
-
ok...there are so many posts to this topic
but i just wana say that i use model space 95% of the time. whenever i use paper space i only use it with the objects that dont require me to scaleup. like titleblock and north arrow or general notes.in most of my work i xref title blocks into model space and i check my overall drawing scale by listing my title block to see what scale it is scaled up to, to determine what scale i used. as for my co-workers who decide to do whatever they want to do in cad., they put text everywhere..paper model., whatever they want to do..and when i ask them to put it in model and not paper., they turn their shoulders. For all that use paper space to do 20% to 30% of their drawing i would like to hear from you in this topic because paperspace makes autocad confusing to NOobs. i took like 3 to 4 hours one time, trying to explain the aspect of model and paperspace to some guy.
-
Well, As long as everyone else posted their opinion.
Text in PS is fine but we keep it limited to title blocks and general sheet notes regarding all the drawings that will be going onto that sheet. Why refernece that type of stuff from MS? It will just increase the size of the drawing.
-
Why refernece that type of stuff from MS? It will just increase the size of the drawing.
?? increase the size?? how so?
-
Why refernece that type of stuff from MS? It will just increase the size of the drawing.
?? increase the size?? how so?
Maybe I am incorrect but I was always told that when you open a window (Mview) into model space it makes the drawings a bit larger and takes that much longer to open it. Is this incorrect? I got this from someone when I was working on r14 and I am no genius. I might have mispoken. If so, sorry.
-
maybe youre talking about regeneration process in a viewport....imagine you have a drawing with one big viewport versus a drawing with 30 viewports. autocad has to regenerall all views before. in that case you might want to turn off regenauto. try it on a drawing, each viewport is regenerated indivdually.
-
Why refernece that type of stuff from MS? It will just increase the size of the drawing.
?? increase the size?? how so?
Maybe I am incorrect but I was always told that when you open a window (Mview) into model space it makes the drawings a bit larger and takes that much longer to open it. Is this incorrect? I got this from someone when I was working on r14 and I am no genius. I might have mispoken. If so, sorry.
There is a minute file size increase due to the viewport elements but considering file size averages of 3-10 MB you can't see it. Even in old 2D files the file size increase was negligible. Try this test, start a new drawing from scratch,delete one of the layout tabs and save it as TEST.dwg. The file size should be around 25KB. Add a viewport with the MVIEW command and save again. The file size will bump 1KB to 26KB. Array the viewport 10 rowsX10 col for 100 viewports and save the file again. File size will still be un 45KB, so 100 viewports will add about 20KILOBYTES to the file size.
-
maybe youre talking about regeneration process in a viewport....imagine you have a drawing with one big viewport versus a drawing with 30 viewports. autocad has to regenerall all views before. in that case you might want to turn off regenauto. try it on a drawing, each viewport is regenerated indivdually.
But unless you're working with hardware from the last century, or extremely large models, regen times should not be a problem. I'm running an old P4-2.4GHz and regen times on 5MB models are under 3 seconds.
-
I have a file with I'd say 25 odd viewports in it. Total file size is about 6mb. Running a dual 3ghz with a gig of ram, it takes about 90 seconds to open the drawing.. I went in and made a copy and removed all the viewports and it loads in about 20 seconds. File size only changes a few hundred K..
-
I have a file with I'd say 25 odd viewports in it. Total file size is about 6mb. Running a dual 3ghz with a gig of ram, it takes about 90 seconds to open the drawing.. I went in and made a copy and removed all the viewports and it loads in about 20 seconds. File size only changes a few hundred K..
Yep rebuilding the viewport graphics initially may take a little time (minute and a half), but once cached they should pop pretty quick.
BTW, 90 seconds is fast people, very fast for a large file. Okay show of hands, who remembers V1.4 on a 8088 processor, 512k RAM, running at a blinding 0.4 MHz... 90 second loads, yeah right, try 45 minutes for a 200K file,
a n d
i t
r e g e n e d
f o r
e v e r y
z o o m
o r
p a n......
-
Un-necessary to plot to scale? How about drawing? Is it necessary to draw to scale? Since the dims can tell it all, we can draw the object at any length and made the dim say 3".
-
Un-necessary to plot to scale? How about drawing? Is it necessary to draw to scale? Since the dims can tell it all, we can draw the object at any length and made the dim say 3".
Old arguement, covered several times in this thread, read ALL the posts, answered there.
-
That kinda cuts his argunent cold :)
-
Don't you want all anotation in PS so that it does not clutter up your model when you xref?
-
NO NO NO NO NO.
I have 3 things only in paperspace.
1. The title block.
2. My viewport, created on defpoints layer so it won't plot.
3. any revision clouds so they are easily deleted using a window without endangering anything else on the drawing.
-
I tried putting text in paper space,but it can be a pain in the butt.If you have someone use your drawing afterwards and they unlock the viewport and go into floating model space the scale/drawing postion within the viewport can be accidently be changed.Also what if you wnat multiple viewports,whereby you have to show the text as well.
-
we are still having this discussion?
-
I think the discussion has gone on so long that members dont trall all the way through the entire post to see whats been said.Im guilty of that. :) Just skimmed over some of it.
-
ok...well for me it comes down to this.... I just want whatever i plot to come out almost exactly the same whether or not its doen in paper or model.
if there are any changes in the future done by anybody else. it should be the same thing.
-
Don't you want all anotation in PS so that it does not clutter up your model when you xref?
I do.
-
NO NO NO NO NO.
I have 3 things only in paperspace.
.
hmmm... How do you handle layer control when annotating different scales? ... or views of a 3D model?
-
If you have someone use your drawing afterwards and they unlock the viewport and go into floating model space the scale/drawing postion within the viewport can be accidently be changed.Also what if you wnat multiple viewports,whereby you have to show the text as well.
That's an issue with training, not with the location of annotation, What if someone uses your drawing afterwards and they change it to a design that doesn't work??
Also what if you wnat multiple viewports,whereby you have to show the text as well.
That's the reason we annotate in PS. We'll have a plan annotated at 1/4" = 1'-0", then we need to zoom in on a corner for a detail at 1" = 1'-0". If I annotate in MS, I require 2 sets of annotation layers so that one scale won't show through the other. Throw in 3D, and you can have several dozen annotation layers that must be controlled in each individual viewport. Now thats a PITB.
-
hmmm... How do you handle layer control when annotating different scales? ... or views of a 3D model?
Quite simple. We don't do either one.
Also we don't dimension, we are consultants, not builders, if you want dimensions you dimension it. That way if it's wrong it's your fault. :D
-
Were consultants to and dont use dimmensions,was beginning to think we were the only company.That is weird you draw a scale drawing and still have to dimension it. :)
-
......we are consultants, not builders.......
Ahhhh an insultant! I've had to work around them before! PITB....... LOL And all this time I thought you were DRAFTers......silly me!
-
Someone's gotta keep you on your toes,make your job seem more challenging :lol:
-
Here at our company we put everything in model space. After a job goes out you may have many revisions later, it's much easier to make 8.5x11 sketches. We save our sheet as a new layout, bring in our sketch border, stretch the view port to fit, bam out the door.
-
hmmm... How do you handle layer control when annotating different scales? ...
We have a different layer for each scale and thus we have almost 200 layers in our template dwg.
-
We save our sheet as a new layout, bring in our sketch border, stretch the view port to fit, bam out the door.
Same can be done with PS annotation.
-
hmmm... How do you handle layer control when annotating different scales? ...
We have a different layer for each scale and thus we have almost 200 layers in our template dwg.
So you have to play a freeze thaw game in all the viewports to make sure you have the right layers shown in the right viewport? Seems counter-productive to me.
-
no more so than 200 layers
-
I'm limited to using pspace for printing only. Everything is drawn in mspace. I'm the only one who uses pspace, even though the others draw everything already set to take advantage of pspace. While they're turning layers on and off all the time, all I have to do is select a tab. At the same rate, I have no idea why anybody would put anything except viewports in pspace.
-
hmmm... How do you handle layer control when annotating different scales? ...
We have a different layer for each scale and thus we have almost 200 layers in our template dwg.
So you have to play a freeze thaw game in all the viewports to make sure you have the right layers shown in the right viewport? Seems counter-productive to me.
It's not too terible if the Layerstates are set up properly before hand, but definitely not the ideal solution.
-
I have no idea why anybody would put anything except viewports in pspace.
Okay fair question. I have a 3D structure that's 40'-50' wide, 200' long and 50' high. Columns spaced 30' wide and at 20'-25' down the length of the structure. No two column lines have the same configuration, depending on where you are there may be 4 to 7 different levels of steel.
Now I have to annotate, four or five plan views of this model at 1/8" scale, 3 or 4 enlarged plans at 1/4" scale, two longitudinal and nine transverse sections at 1/8", misc enlarged sections in both directions at 1/4", dozen details at 1/2"(looking 3 directions), and twenty details at 1" scale (looking 3 directions).
To make sure the the annotation layers can be frozen in the right viewports I need a set of annotation layers (we use 2 one for text, one for dims) for each of the following:
1/8" plan
1/4" plan
1/2" plan
1" plan
1/8" section looking north
1/8" section looking west
1/4" section looking north
1/4" section looking west
1/2" section looking north
1/2" section looking west
1" section looking north
1" section looking west
That's 12 sets of annotation layers to deal with, making sure that each is properly active at the right time (pretty easy done programatically). But imagine the display of several tons of steel overlaid with hundreds dimensions and text elements flying at a multitude of levels and directions in the model. Each requires it's own UCS to insure it's proper location in the model and these require maintenance as well. Becomes a PITB to work with in a hurry.
Now only one set of these layers is to be visible in each viewport, so an inordinate amout of time is expended on keeping the layer display under control over 10-12 layouts. The PITB becomes regal.
Throw in a revision or two that relocate a couple of col. lines or changes the elevation of a plan, and the PITB spreads to vital organs
________________________________________________
Better solution: Model in MODELSPACE, annotation on the paper (in PAPERSPACE) requires only ONE set of annotation layers, NO UCS requirements at all and NO layer visibility issues at all.
-
And that is why you really can't say that anyone's ONE way, is the best or only way. Thank you Randy. My head is now sufficiently spinning, but in the end, I think I understood what you said.
-
Thank you Randy. My head is now sufficiently spinning, but in the end, I think I understood what you said.
You oughta try doing a set of drawings like that, yer head'll spin one way while yer eyes spin the other.
-
i cant beleive we are still on this topic but i use model space for most of plans....and use about 20 to 30 layers...thats it...if i used paperspace to draw each floor with layer managers...i would probably have triple the layers...i dont depend on paperspace...but it works for well with layering...thats my opinion
-
Why would the use of PAPERSPACE add any layers to a drawing? My experience is that it reduces layers by 2/3's
-
don't agree with this one, all text should be in model space with non specific drawing notes only being placed in paper space.
I would agree with that.
We tend to put revisiosn clouds & notes in paper space only.
Basically anything to do with the drawing sheet.
We also do schematics in paper space, as theya re not to scale, so what have a viewport?
-
We put everything in model space, paper space is just for plotitng. The reason is that we sometimes have to send out revisions by sketch. By putting everything in model space there is no need to copy anything to the sketch. Just make a new tab and presto. What changes in the main dwg changes in the sketch. Thats my take and I'm sticking to it. :-D
-
We put everything in model space, paper space is just for plotitng. The reason is that we sometimes have to send out revisions by sketch. By putting everything in model space there is no need to copy anything to the sketch. Just make a new tab and presto. What changes in the main dwg changes in the sketch. Thats my take and I'm sticking to it. :-D
ummm... if i'm understanding you correctly, the same can be done with PS annotations.
-
CADaver, you convinced me of the merits of paperspace annotation of the model last year. Given any option, I want to enforce a paperspace annotation only policy at work. I can make it stick for much of our work too, until submittal requests from approving agencies and our vertical design software gets in the way.
We rarely use dimensioning for any of the annotation elements except for leadered notes and the rare aligned dimension. Both Land Desktop and Civil 3D generate the majority of it and they do so in modelspace only. In the case of LDT, I could overcome this by changing the space of the labels with Express Tools, but Civil 3D defeats even this method by making the label only one part of a complex object that can be made only visible or not and that has a limited flexibility in positioning and content.
A new issue concerning submittals has caused me to surrender my policy for plats as well. I can force the annotation to paperspace as described above, but we are now required to submit a dwg file with full annotation all in model space for the various utility agencies to devise their services layout. All of the ranting about inferior technology and unreasonable demands by reviewers I can muster will not change the facts - if I don't provide the required files my project will not be approved.
And so, as I am lacking a convincing argument for the noble cause of keeping all text the heck out of my model, my policy will be in effect only for small site plans and surveys that are not dependent on automated annotation or the whims of stubborn bureaucrats. The only workarounds would require extra time and introduce the chance of errors, particularly should a staff member I have reported about extensively here try to do it (which is usually exactly the case).
-
Sorry to hear that Dino. As long as the client is willing to pay for slow and stupid :ugly:, give him what he wants.
-
Zombie threads are cool. Especially ones that actually discuss a topic :kewl:
Just to throw my 2˘ in on this one...
I pretty much agree with CADaver on this one. Text and dimensions really should be paper space. When I keep them paper space, I only have to worry about 1 text height, 1 dimension style (if you set your settings right, anything 2k5 and above reads just fine through the viewport), and 1 layer for each type of object. This frees up alot for not only dealing with the overall management but I find I have more time to actually focus on what I'm drawing and not on operating the program (i.e. switching layers, changing dimstyles, etc.). I also think that if you step back from an anylitical stand point, you will see that for 3d use, it's necessary. It frees you up to acutally model something and then use the paper to document it.
***restraining myself from smarty-pants quips here***
Again, just my 2˘.
-
In my experience, people who don't use paperspace, have just not been shwon by somebody who deos. I used model space only for 8 years, before I was shown the ways of paper space.
Now I understand I can see the benfits.
-
I can see how paperspace annotation would be useful for 3d work, but the benefits seem less tangible for strictly 2d work. In fact, the disconnect between the annotation and the model seems like it would be a distinct disadvantage.
I understand that some people display the same modelspace geometry at different scales using multiple viewports, and paperspace annotation makes sense to me in that situation as well. I just don't happen to draw that way.
The fact is, we are a bunch of heretics where I work. We do everything in modelspace (even plotting). I'm perfectly capable of using paperspace, but my employer had a alternate system already in place when I came to work here. I balked at it at first, but eventually came to see that was just as effective as paperspace and, more importantly, the other folks here seemed to have no problem understanding it. Considering how much difficulty I had getting people to understand paperspace at my previous job, I didn't see much point in trying to make the case for it here.
-
We like the dims and notes in modelspace. But I can see that if you always drew in 3d they would be in paperspace.
The thread could be divided into 3
1) If you draw in 3d, text is placed in-
2) If you allow only one layout per file, text is placed in-
3) If you allow multiple layouts per file, text is placed in-
as they all seem to be better suited to different solutions.
-
I suppose its simple for us, as it is mostly 2d plans for building services, all drawing notes go in model space. General notes and revision notes go in paper space. We don't dimension anything, so that is not an issue.
If we are doing a detail \ blow up at a different scale, we do a seperate layer for text at different scale, and is then frozen off. or we copy the xref & xclip it.
-
I can see how paperspace annotation would be useful for 3d work, but the benefits seem less tangible for strictly 2d work. In fact, the disconnect between the annotation and the model seems like it would be a distinct disadvantage.
I understand that some people display the same modelspace geometry at different scales using multiple viewports, and paperspace annotation makes sense to me in that situation as well. I just don't happen to draw that way.
The fact is, we are a bunch of heretics where I work. We do everything in modelspace (even plotting). I'm perfectly capable of using paperspace, but my employer had a alternate system already in place when I came to work here. I balked at it at first, but eventually came to see that was just as effective as paperspace and, more importantly, the other folks here seemed to have no problem understanding it. Considering how much difficulty I had getting people to understand paperspace at my previous job, I didn't see much point in trying to make the case for it here.
Your a good man for a heretic Chuck. I see your point. At my last 'job' I went through a similar struggle. It was the new engineering mgr who had chosen to get the rest of the team tomove to PS though. After that experience... let's just say I see your point :)