Topic: Flattening drawings.

[Keith™]

My position remains that stepping on an accurate 3D model is a bad idea, I don't care who is using it.

That is a mighty bold statement considering some people create a 3D model, specifically for the purpose of stepping on it to create a correct 2D representation. Are you saying then that if one does just that it is bad practice? If someone wants a 2D drawing they should just draw it in 2D?

Why waste the time doing it 3D then?

Because it is much faster to draw a 3D representation, explode to oblivion, step on it, remove the offending parts and fill in the blanks

Stepping on it reduces its usefulness, even if YOU never use the data for YOUR work, someone has used it or they would not have built it that way to start with.

What if I am the one who "built it that way to start with"?

I need this clarified.  Why go to the trouble of building an accurate 3D model only to step on it?? 

Because AutoCAD cannot display or plot a correctly drawn 3D model in my line of work.

If you're saying that it is "easier" to add some stuff to the stepped on version, I'd say you should probably re-think your methods (thats how we got where we are).  Concepts like annotations belong in paperspace might be helpful.

No, it is infinitely easier to REMOVE stuff that displays incorrectly when plotting from a 3D model, in fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE to remove the offending items in a 3D model, and if we explode the item in question, it then becomes IMPOSSIBLE to edit the offending items without stepping on it.

If the plot is not accurate then the model isn't.  If the model is accurate why wouldn't the plot be so??

I didn't write the software so I wouldn't know why. I just use it, the workaround is to step on the drawing and remove the offending portions.

If the creator of the file placed inaccurate 3D data I would not rely on his 2D data.  If that works for you carry on (that's seven or nine times now)

Granted, but I am not talking about huge amounts of data here ... I am talking about something that can be checked for accuracy in less time than it takes to plot it out, not much point in redrawing something to make it useful, if I can step on it and make it much more useful.

[Arizona]

OT: Just imagine how expensive this thread really is...

The time that each person has spent (including some of that fantastic copying and pasting)
multiplied by their payrate...

And to what benefit?

[CADaver]

Because AutoCAD cannot display or plot a correctly drawn 3D model in my line of work.

What is failing? If you have an accurate model what's missing from the plot??

No, it is infinitely easier to REMOVE stuff that displays incorrectly when plotting from a 3D model, in fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE to remove the offending items in a 3D model, and if we explode the item in question, it then becomes IMPOSSIBLE to edit the offending items without stepping on it.

Which items are those??

If the creator of the file placed inaccurate 3D data I would not rely on his 2D data.  If that works for you carry on (that's seven or nine times now)

Granted, but I am not talking about huge amounts of data here ... I am talking about something that can be checked for accuracy in less time than it takes to plot it out, not much point in redrawing something to make it useful, if I can step on it and make it much more useful.

If you wish to rely on an inaccurate file, carry on.

[CADaver]

OT: Just imagine how expensive this thread really is...

The time that each person has spent (including some of that fantastic copying and pasting)
multiplied by their payrate...

I'm currently on my own time, so no harm

And to what benefit?

Every discussion, regardless of any other aspect has some benefit.  I've learned quite a bit from this thread.  Quite a bit indeed.

[Josh Nieman]

OT: Just imagine how expensive this thread really is...

The time that each person has spent (including some of that fantastic copying and pasting)
multiplied by their payrate...

And to what benefit?

I think the only benefit that can be said to have, which I indulge in (though no, I'm not saying this makes up my whole time here) is being able to finish a sheet, writing a spec, detailing something or what not... then come here, find something interesting, discuss something, thereby clearing your mind of what you were just working on... come back with a clear head, and scour for mistakes or errors.

I find a great many grammar errors, stupid mistakes, human error type things that I probably would have not noticed otherwise.  There's always that time you can look right at a mistake and because you KNOW in your HEAD what it SHOULD be... sometimes your eyes don't see otherwise.  At least that's how it is with me.  Sometimes it can say 1/2" and it should be 1/4" but I'll be expecting to see 1/4" and think I do see it.  That was a very confusing sentence to write 

[Josh Nieman]

...and yea, I do have to say that I've learned leaps and bounds that've helped me and my company by viewing discussion here and learning from methods/mistakes that others have made.  Since I'm the only CAD "expert" (laugh all you want ) here, I don't have another person to bounce ideas off of, or to gather a different view or experience from.

There's too many others here with a great magnitude more experience and knowledge than I have that I love picking at and learning from.  (CADaver, keith, Maverick, SDETERS, Tim Spangler, and well the list goes on...) I learn a great deal.  In fact the more a person writes, the more the reveal their angle of attack, and how they see problems in their mind, in order to solve them.  The way people write programs is a great learning tool for such things.  You get to see their step by step movements in attacking a problem and can learn a lot from it.

[Mark]

Have a great weekend folks!

[Keith™]

Because AutoCAD cannot display or plot a correctly drawn 3D model in my line of work.

What is failing? If you have an accurate model what's missing from the plot??

Nothing is MISSING, there are EXTRA items that cannot be hidden during a plot

No, it is infinitely easier to REMOVE stuff that displays incorrectly when plotting from a 3D model, in fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE to remove the offending items in a 3D model, and if we explode the item in question, it then becomes IMPOSSIBLE to edit the offending items without stepping on it.

Which items are those??

AutoCAD displays and plots lines where they do not appear in the model, more often than not along curved surfaces. I am looking for a drawing that I can show you the difference between the two. When I find it I will post it.

If the creator of the file placed inaccurate 3D data I would not rely on his 2D data.  If that works for you carry on (that's seven or nine times now)

Granted, but I am not talking about huge amounts of data here ... I am talking about something that can be checked for accuracy in less time than it takes to plot it out, not much point in redrawing something to make it useful, if I can step on it and make it much more useful.

If you wish to rely on an inaccurate file, carry on.

You keep insisting the file is inaccurate yet it is not ... you seem to be using 2D and inaccurate interchangeably ... while it is inaccurate in a 3D environment, once stepped on, it become an ACCURATE 2D drawing, and yes, I would rather use a "stepped on" 3D model that I can check and correct if needed in a couple of minutes than recreate the thing from scratch with several hours invested.

[Josh Nieman]

Have a great weekend folks!

You too, Mark!

[Josh Nieman]

I know just what you're talking about keith, that's one of my biggest gripes with Autocad's 3d package.  Persistent errors.  I have to say, though, that every 3d package I've run into has had very similar problems.  Autocad seems to be (as far as the release versions of others I've used) the worst at handling the plotting of 3d objects.  Too much glitches, eh!

[Arizona]

I'm currently on my own time, so no harm

To you. But what about others?

Every discussion, regardless of any other aspect has some benefit.  I've learned quite a bit from this thread.  Quite a bit indeed.

Until it turns negative and loses any benefit it may have had.

Sorry no disrespect intended, I'll step back out,
It just seemed liked one of those situations where folks should agree to disagree.
Are you going to convince them of your beliefs? Or vise versa?

[Keith™]

I know just what you're talking about keith, that's one of my biggest gripes with Autocad's 3d package.  Persistent errors.  I have to say, though, that every 3d package I've run into has had very similar problems.  Autocad seems to be (as far as the release versions of others I've used) the worst at handling the plotting of 3d objects.  Too much glitches, eh!

I think the problem is related to the ACIS technology that is licensed from Spacial .. every 3D package I know of licenses the 3D package from them, the result is the same in all of the packages I have looked at.

[Keith™]

It just seemed liked one of those situations where folks should agree to disagree.
Are you going to convince them of your beliefs? Or vise versa?

I guess this is proof that the "one size fits all" ideology does not work

[Greg B]

To you. But what about others?

Eh...for all you know we are all on our own time when we make our posts.

[Josh Nieman]

I know just what you're talking about keith, that's one of my biggest gripes with Autocad's 3d package.  Persistent errors.  I have to say, though, that every 3d package I've run into has had very similar problems.  Autocad seems to be (as far as the release versions of others I've used) the worst at handling the plotting of 3d objects.  Too much glitches, eh!

I think the problem is related to the ACIS technology that is licensed from Spacial .. every 3D package I know of licenses the 3D package from them, the result is the same in all of the packages I have looked at.

Very possible, I'd heard a bit of the difference between ACIS and parasolids and all that stuff... not enough to claim to be educated on it in any ways, but since you mention it, I do know that I think all of them do.  From what I understand of the working of the stuff, I think you're probably right.