Author Topic: Thinking about flatten...  (Read 15608 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

dan19936

  • Guest
Re: Thinking about flatten...
« Reply #30 on: October 30, 2006, 09:18:43 PM »
.. a "select all" and "Z = 0.0" works wonders

hmmm - in 2005 when I select all I don't have an option for Z
just color, layer, linetype, linetype scale, plot style, lineweight, and hyperlink

Dan

Slim©

  • Needs a day job
  • Posts: 6566
  • The Dude Abides...
Re: Thinking about flatten...
« Reply #31 on: October 30, 2006, 09:25:38 PM »
Look in your Properties Pallatte, you may need to look at specific entities, but you can flatten anything from there.
I drink beer and I know things....

Kerry

  • Mesozoic relic
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 11654
  • class keyThumper<T>:ILazy<T>
Re: Thinking about flatten...
« Reply #32 on: October 30, 2006, 10:59:55 PM »
Comment as noted :

Look in your Properties Pallatte, you may need to look at specific entities, but you can flatten < almost >   anything from there.
Perfection is not optional.
Everything will work just as you expect it to, unless your expectations are incorrect.
Discipline: None at all.

--> Donate to theSwamp<--

Slim©

  • Needs a day job
  • Posts: 6566
  • The Dude Abides...
Re: Thinking about flatten...
« Reply #33 on: October 30, 2006, 11:18:58 PM »
True, Mr. Brown. Thanks.
I drink beer and I know things....

Joe Burke

  • Guest
Re: Thinking about flatten...
« Reply #34 on: October 31, 2006, 08:47:58 AM »
As usual, you presume too much.
I did not say a 3D model was involded when ET flatten returned that error.
You're absolutely correct, I had assumed that we were talking about flattening a 3D model.  Of course I have no clue why one would need to flatten anything other than 3D, but then there you are.

Randy, I can completely understand his dilemna. I have received plans (2d) where some ignoramus had set the elevation var to something other than 0 for one line, then 0 for another and then another elevation for the third line. What you get is a hodge podge of varying z elevarions where hatching is impossible, regioning is impossible,and all sorts of other meaninful data gathering becomes quite the task. Mind you we are not talking about a 3d model her, but rather a 2d plan view that looks as if someone arbitrarily changed the z elevations on endpoints of lines for no good purpose ... or as I have seen prior. Rather than use an ellipse to approximate an angled view (in a 2d drawing) the user rotated a circle in 3d to make it look about right.

Anyway, there is a valid reason for using it, if for no other reason than to fix the mess caused by employees who are no longer with us.

Keith and Randy,

There are some situations which may cause the user to inadvertantly place objects or points at a Z elevation other than zero. For instance, xref a 3D site plan into an architectural 2D floor plan. The user draws over the xref, snapping to points in the xref along the way. The user is not aware of what's happening until he/she realizes the new drawing is all over the place in terms of Z coordinates.

In that case, the new drawing could probably be fixed by simply setting the appropriate Z values to zero with code.

On top of that and relatively new is the OSNAPZ variable. Which I doubt many users are aware of.

Regards

Bryco

  • Water Moccasin
  • Posts: 1855
Re: Thinking about flatten...
« Reply #35 on: October 31, 2006, 09:13:05 AM »
I seem to be getting more and more drawings as bad or worse than the one Joe posted. I can't quite figure out why this is happening, I find a clean 2d plan nice and fast, a 3d plan drawing just slows everything down for little benefit.
Lately  we have been getting the odd mix of a 2d plan with a splattering of 3d objects thrown in here and there.  
These 3d objects are sometimes imported from vector works or some such design programme, quite crash worthy, and they are the intention rather than a build to size. It's faster for us too draw in 2d, so I'll often spend 2 days cleaning up one of these plans. Randy I see where you are coming from but badly drawn 3d models are way harder to fix than badly drawn 2d models and we draw too many details to make 3d our staple.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect a program like cad to come up with decent flatten command  or to be able to ask an architect for a 2d drawing. But like others I've written my own version of flatten (mine's only for 2d) while it is a good start vba sure sucks for changing the elevation of Dimensions.

Joe Burke

  • Guest
Re: Thinking about flatten...
« Reply #36 on: October 31, 2006, 10:22:45 AM »
I seem to be getting more and more drawings as bad or worse than the one Joe posted. I can't quite figure out why this is happening, I find a clean 2d plan nice and fast, a 3d plan drawing just slows everything down for little benefit.
Lately  we have been getting the odd mix of a 2d plan with a splattering of 3d objects thrown in here and there.  
These 3d objects are sometimes imported from vector works or some such design programme, quite crash worthy, and they are the intention rather than a build to size. It's faster for us too draw in 2d, so I'll often spend 2 days cleaning up one of these plans. Randy I see where you are coming from but badly drawn 3d models are way harder to fix than badly drawn 2d models and we draw too many details to make 3d our staple.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect a program like cad to come up with decent flatten command  or to be able to ask an architect for a 2d drawing. But like others I've written my own version of flatten (mine's only for 2d) while it is a good start vba sure sucks for changing the elevation of Dimensions.


Post an example file.

I've written a bunch of code which tries to deal with objects which are either simply at some odd Z value, and those which are out-of-plane with WCS coordinates. What's hold me back is I simply can't see how some of the objects should be dealt with.

My original question. Should a flatten routine destroy a piece of text (explode to lines) which is out of plane with WCS simply to flatten it? And that assumes the operation is possible and reliable. Which in my experience, it isn't with WMF out and WMF in.

I temporarily shelved the project.

CADaver

  • Guest
Re: Thinking about flatten...
« Reply #37 on: October 31, 2006, 12:50:57 PM »
There are some situations which may cause the user to inadvertantly place objects or points at a Z elevation other than zero. For instance, xref a 3D site plan into an architectural 2D floor plan. The user draws over the xref, snapping to points in the xref along the way. The user is not aware of what's happening until he/she realizes the new drawing is all over the place in terms of Z coordinates.
I'm familiar with the results of untrained or incompetent users, but the better solution to that is not coding, but rather training.  At least it is IMMHO.

In that case, the new drawing could probably be fixed by simply setting the appropriate Z values to zero with code.
the properties box does a fine job of that, unless the originating users is truly lame and has modified the extrusion direction of elements in some manner.  There again though, the better solution is training, IMMHO.

On top of that and relatively new is the OSNAPZ variable. Which I doubt many users are aware of.
excellent point, and now more are aware thanks to your post.

Joe Burke

  • Guest
Re: Thinking about flatten...
« Reply #38 on: November 01, 2006, 10:30:13 AM »
Comment as noted :

Look in your Properties Pallatte, you may need to look at specific entities, but you can flatten < almost >   anything from there.

Which means the Properties window is severely limited in terms of flatten with multiple object types selected. One line and one text object selected offers no option to change a Z value without what amounts to separate manual operations.

DinØsaur

  • Certified Bovine Scat Distributor...I lay it on THICK
  • Needs a day job
  • Posts: 5424
  • But I don't WANT a Day Job
Re: Thinking about flatten...
« Reply #39 on: November 01, 2006, 10:42:01 AM »
But you can isolate each object type in the selection box and alter the collective "z's" for each group en mass.
Stephen R. Sherrill,
The DinØsaur
Civil 3D Specialist Emeritus

YAY ME !!!  I made it out alive !

Joe Burke

  • Guest
Re: Thinking about flatten...
« Reply #40 on: November 01, 2006, 11:41:27 AM »
That's what I meant. It's basically a manual operation that way.

Code can do it easier and faster... if you can decide what the code should do.

CADaver

  • Guest
Re: Thinking about flatten...
« Reply #41 on: November 01, 2006, 09:12:50 PM »
That's what I meant. It's basically a manual operation that way.
I think you're missing the operation of the function.  Once you've selected the entire drawing, its a maximum of 5 or 6 picks to change them all.  That's hardly manual.

Code can do it easier and faster... if you can decide what the code should do.
Code could do it faster, thats why there have been several hundred attempts.

Bryco

  • Water Moccasin
  • Posts: 1855
Re: Thinking about flatten...
« Reply #42 on: November 02, 2006, 12:49:06 AM »
Joe, I've thought about putting all the non 0,0,1 normal entities on a separate layer, then giving the choice to change the normals.
I am sticking with the code way.
Randy I can't figure out how to fix dims with the 6 step process (Look at the nodes)

Kerry

  • Mesozoic relic
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 11654
  • class keyThumper<T>:ILazy<T>
Re: Thinking about flatten...
« Reply #43 on: November 02, 2006, 03:24:49 AM »
Comment as noted :

Look in your Properties Pallatte, you may need to look at specific entities, but you can flatten < almost >   anything from there.

Which means the Properties window is severely limited in terms of flatten with multiple object types selected. One line and one text object selected offers no option to change a Z value without what amounts to separate manual operations.
Joe, you'll get no argument from me ...
  If I thought AutoDesk took the Wish list system seriously flatten would be on my list
... so would programmatic exploding for NUS blocks
, so would ...
Perfection is not optional.
Everything will work just as you expect it to, unless your expectations are incorrect.
Discipline: None at all.

--> Donate to theSwamp<--

CADaver

  • Guest
Re: Thinking about flatten...
« Reply #44 on: November 02, 2006, 03:08:23 PM »
Randy I can't figure out how to fix dims with the 6 step process (Look at the nodes)
yet another reason to place dims in PS.