Author Topic: Flattening drawings.  (Read 49565 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Krushert

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 13679
  • FREE BEER Tomorrow!!
SuperFlatten
« Reply #15 on: August 13, 2007, 10:38:07 AM »
I feel like exploding some dimensions...

I think I'm going to explode all my blocks and do a superpurge too.

Get a here, ya bunch of Luddites.   :lol: :lol:
I + XI = X is true ...  ... if you change your perspective.

I no longer CAD or Model, I just hang out here picking up the empties beer cans

kentium3k

  • Newt
  • Posts: 54
  • Adopt a Greyhound! No, not a bus.
SuperFlatten
« Reply #16 on: August 13, 2007, 11:05:37 AM »
Nice job on the routine, thanks for posting.

BTW, perhaps a better term for you know who is curmudgeon.

Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshiped. C. Coolidge

CADaver

  • Guest
SuperFlatten
« Reply #17 on: August 13, 2007, 12:00:07 PM »
1.)  Joe has been doing this for quite some time and is more than capable of taking care of himself.

2.)  I’m still curious how questioning an application becomes misanthropic.

3.)  Dogged adherence to an arcane method does seem Luddite now that you mention it.  Maybe someday we’ll leave the “Dark Ages” and break the wasteful mindset of the duplication of effort required for 2D modeling.

4.)  Even in pencil drafting, the data required for the third dimension is required to construct.  There is no such thing as a 2D construction.  Crippling the 3D data in a file requires that information be transmitted in some other format, no longer connected to the original data.  Sorry, but that INCREASES liability.

5.)  Incorrect 3D information will still be incorrect once flattened, only it’ll now be incorrect 2D information.  Not sure how that helps. A drawing that is a “total hazard” will not become magically pristine by being stepped upon.

6.)  Even a wood frame school house needs an elevation and that information must be passed to the constructor in some fashion.  (See note #4 above)

7.)  If you will read my post very carefully you will notice that I did not denigrate his work, but his concept.  Knowing Joe’s capabilities as I do, I’m quite sure the program is exemplary.  However, I’m not looking forward to even more returning files with empty elevation viewports.

CaddmannQ

  • Guest
SuperFlatten
« Reply #18 on: August 13, 2007, 01:07:46 PM »
1.)  Joe has been doing this for quite some time and is more than capable of taking care of himself.

Point taken.

2.)  I’m still curious how questioning an application becomes misanthropic.

OK, "misanthropic" has been addressed, but you didn't "question it". You compared it to some truly stupid maneuver.

3.)  Dogged adherence to an arcane method does seem Luddite now that you mention it.  Maybe someday we’ll leave the “Dark Ages” and break the wasteful mindset of the duplication of effort required for 2D modeling.

Right now, that duplication of effort is less effort than constructing a 3D model. Perhaps if our clients supplied us with a reasonably good 3D model of their work to start from, this wouldn't be the issue that it is. So far, this has never happened.

4.)  Even in pencil drafting, the data required for the third dimension is required to construct.  There is no such thing as a 2D construction.  Crippling the 3D data in a file requires that information be transmitted in some other format, no longer connected to the original data.  Sorry, but that INCREASES liability.

"Crippling 3D data in a file" was not my issue. Getting rid of incorrect and dead-weight 3D data is our problem. I don't doubt that a good 3D model is far more useful than any 2D model. Again, we've never received one. What we do receive, on a regular basis, is dangerous stuff to the unwary. I'm not about to pass that on from my office.

5.)  Incorrect 3D information will still be incorrect once flattened, only it’ll now be incorrect 2D information.  Not sure how that helps. A drawing that is a “total hazard” will not become magically pristine by being stepped upon.

The 2D coordinates are usually very good. An 8' high toilet, however is more correct once flattened, and I won't even mention the idiocy of 8' tall text in the model. (oops!) Rake walls that  are flat on top in the 3D view are worse than wrong. They are misleading. So much of the "data" we receive is like this. A good dose of flatten and overkill removes the incorrect part of the data, leaving data people can actually use without being mislead.

6.)  Even a wood frame school house needs an elevation and that information must be passed to the constructor in some fashion.  (See note #4 above)

I've been drawing elevations for 30 years, and people have been building from them. Would I rather "view" them than "draw" them? Of course. I am no Luddite (except, I admit, when it comes to cell phones.) Again, the data we're getting is untenable for such purpose.

7.)  If you will read my post very carefully you will notice that I did not denigrate his work, but his concept.

A difference, yet not much of a distinction. You belittle the very necessity of his work and imply that it is in fact a bad idea; and I say you are wrong. Not all of us have the luxury of a world where such tools are superfluous. For some of us they are a blessing.


Guest

  • Guest
SuperFlatten
« Reply #19 on: August 13, 2007, 01:44:18 PM »
Step right up folks.  Grab a snack.  I have a feeling this is just the beginning!


Bealerusa

  • Guest
SuperFlatten
« Reply #20 on: August 13, 2007, 01:50:15 PM »
how many boxes of Dots can I get for 3.75$ ???

Maverick®

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 14778
SuperFlatten
« Reply #21 on: August 13, 2007, 02:02:01 PM »

deegeecees

  • Guest
SuperFlatten
« Reply #22 on: August 13, 2007, 02:12:36 PM »
I'll take a Crunch bar, and a Large Sprite please.

<Fanning the flames> I don't know, I think Cadaver has a good point. It's just that some things that work for one do not necessarily work for all. If I actually took the time to create all my work "Correctly", things wouldn't get done as timely as they do. So I take shortcuts. Will this bite me in the arse later, probably.<Fanning the flames>

Josh Nieman

  • Guest
SuperFlatten
« Reply #23 on: August 13, 2007, 02:22:43 PM »
If I have a simple equipment skid, I draw it in 2D.

Say it's 25' long, 8' wide... I drawn all my beams and braces in 2D, despite my love of 3d for structural projects... why?  Because it's a simple skid, and it does take me less time to draw it 2D.  If the equipment manufacturer or client sends me a 3d model of the equipment to go on this skid, I'm going to flatten it.  Why?  Because if I draw a line and snap to any point on that 3d model, I have no idea what elevation it will snap to.  In plan it may look fine, but if I use "di"stance command to check some lengths, I might end up with incorrect values that are a hassle to deal with.

Flatten has it's quite valid and useful applications, and to deny the validity of the existence of a tool across the board just because you do things differently in your own little world, is ludicrous.   ...dangit now I have a crappy rap song in my head.

Guest

  • Guest
SuperFlatten
« Reply #24 on: August 13, 2007, 02:25:08 PM »
If I have a simple equipment skid, I draw it in 2D.

Say it's 25' long, 8' wide... I drawn all my beams and braces in 2D, despite my love of 3d for structural projects... why?  Because it's a simple skid, and it does take me less time to draw it 2D.  If the equipment manufacturer or client sends me a 3d model of the equipment to go on this skid, I'm going to flatten it.  Why?  Because if I draw a line and snap to any point on that 3d model, I have no idea what elevation it will snap to.  In plan it may look fine, but if I use "di"stance command to check some lengths, I might end up with incorrect values that are a hassle to deal with.

Flatten has it's quite valid and useful applications, and to deny the validity of the existence of a tool across the board just because you do things differently in your own little world, is ludicrous.   ...dangit now I have a crappy rap song in my head.

*cough* OSNAPZ *cough*

deegeecees

  • Guest
SuperFlatten
« Reply #25 on: August 13, 2007, 02:26:10 PM »
Quote
...I have no idea what elevation it will snap to...

It'll snap to the nearest end/mid etc. of the current UCS.

Josh Nieman

  • Guest
SuperFlatten
« Reply #26 on: August 13, 2007, 02:26:36 PM »
If I have a simple equipment skid, I draw it in 2D.

Say it's 25' long, 8' wide... I drawn all my beams and braces in 2D, despite my love of 3d for structural projects... why?  Because it's a simple skid, and it does take me less time to draw it 2D.  If the equipment manufacturer or client sends me a 3d model of the equipment to go on this skid, I'm going to flatten it.  Why?  Because if I draw a line and snap to any point on that 3d model, I have no idea what elevation it will snap to.  In plan it may look fine, but if I use "di"stance command to check some lengths, I might end up with incorrect values that are a hassle to deal with.

Flatten has it's quite valid and useful applications, and to deny the validity of the existence of a tool across the board just because you do things differently in your own little world, is ludicrous.   ...dangit now I have a crappy rap song in my head.

*cough* OSNAPZ *cough*

Yes, but I guarantee I wouldn't remember that until after I was done and saw lines returning values 10x the length they should be.

Josh Nieman

  • Guest
SuperFlatten
« Reply #27 on: August 13, 2007, 02:27:10 PM »
Quote
...I have no idea what elevation it will snap to...

It'll snap to the nearest end/mid etc. of the current UCS.

Only if using 2d drawing tools.  Simply lines can be drawn across all 3 axes.

CADaver

  • Guest
SuperFlatten
« Reply #28 on: August 13, 2007, 07:23:51 PM »
2.)  I’m still curious how questioning an application becomes misanthropic.

OK, "misanthropic" has been addressed, but you didn't "question it". You compared it to some truly stupid maneuver.
hmmm… I’ve heard many arguments for exploding dimensions that are every bit as valid as those offered here for stepping on a 3D file.  Why is that “stupid” and this not??

3.)  Dogged adherence to an arcane method does seem Luddite now that you mention it.  Maybe someday we’ll leave the “Dark Ages” and break the wasteful mindset of the duplication of effort required for 2D modeling.

Right now, that duplication of effort is less effort than constructing a 3D model.
??  Doing something twice is less effort than doing it once?? … okay.

Perhaps if our clients supplied us with a reasonably good 3D model of their work to start from, this wouldn't be the issue that it is. So far, this has never happened.
maybe they’re Luddites??

"Crippling 3D data in a file" was not my issue. Getting rid of incorrect and dead-weight 3D data is our problem. I don't doubt that a good 3D model is far more useful than any 2D model. Again, we've never received one. What we do receive, on a regular basis, is dangerous stuff to the unwary. I'm not about to pass that on from my office.
Stepping on it will NOT make it suddenly “safe”.  If the data is incorrect, it will remain incorrect.

5.)  Incorrect 3D information will still be incorrect once flattened, only it’ll now be incorrect 2D information.  Not sure how that helps. A drawing that is a “total hazard” will not become magically pristine by being stepped upon.

The 2D coordinates are usually very good. An 8' high toilet, however is more correct once flattened, and I won't even mention the idiocy of 8' tall text in the model. (oops!) Rake walls that  are flat on top in the 3D view are worse than wrong. They are misleading. So much of the "data" we receive is like this. A good dose of flatten and overkill removes the incorrect part of the data, leaving data people can actually use without being mislead.
If the designer building the data, can NOT place the toilet in the right location vertically, what makes you so sure that he can place it correctly horizontally?  Knowing that fully one-third of the data is garbage, you’re willing to rely on the other two-thirds as accurate??  That’s a bad bet.

6.)  Even a wood frame school house needs an elevation and that information must be passed to the constructor in some fashion.  (See note #4 above)

I've been drawing elevations for 30 years, and people have been building from them. Would I rather "view" them than "draw" them? Of course. I am no Luddite (except, I admit, when it comes to cell phones.) Again, the data we're getting is untenable for such purpose.
You claim you’re no Luddite, and yet you admit to using techniques that are thirty years old. Would not failing to embrace the technological edge place you firmly under that banner??

You also admit that the files you get are untenable, and yet you’re willing to place your trust in two-thirds of  such an untenable file.

7.)  If you will read my post very carefully you will notice that I did not denigrate his work, but his concept.

A difference, yet not much of a distinction. You belittle the very necessity of his work and imply that it is in fact a bad idea; and I say you are wrong. Not all of us have the luxury of a world where such tools are superfluous. For some of us they are a blessing.
You say it’s a good idea, I say it’s a bad idea; such is life is it not?  Executing his little routine on one of our files would be a VERY bad idea, leaving some three-quarters of the drawings for that construct empty and impacting several other files relying on that model.

Bryco

  • Water Moccasin
  • Posts: 1883
SuperFlatten
« Reply #29 on: August 13, 2007, 08:23:08 PM »
Randy, are you not reqd to supply a 2d plan at all?