Topic: Ashade

[Keith™]

and then the story was born

[CADaver]

What you are essentially saying then... which is my point ....if I am paying you (or anyone else for that matter) and I tell you that a specific layer is not to be used (it will be clear when we sign a contract) nad you provide me with drawings with the layer intact, you will have only a few options ...
a) provide me with the drawings in the manner we have previously agreed at the previously agreed contract price
b) supply drawings that are not according to our specification and be back charged for the cost of bringing drawings into compliance
c) face a judge in civil court
either way you lose...

Not at all, with option A, you have agreed to pay me an inordinate amount of cash to do something of no worth.  In my dictionary that is not a loss, at least not for me.  You get a benign layer removed, I get a bunch of money for removing it, where do I sign?

The entire discussion is not about whether the layer (or anything for that matter) should or should not be in a drawing. The discussion hinges around "How do I" ....
It could have just as easily been a layer that the employee put in the drawing that was named smething like "My_boss_is_a_horses_ass_and_we_stole_most_of_these_drawings_from_someone_else" or "you_people_are_asswipes"

Then the disgruntled user proceeds to place information on that layer that will prevent it from being purged.

Is it then profitable to remove the layer... after all it doesn't "hurt" the drawing.. and it is counter productive to remove it and waste precious manhours.

My contention is ... and always will be....
If he does not want it htere then take it out ... it does not have to be a federal case... and if I wish to throw thousands of dollars at something that is not a problem then I will have to worry about that now won't I...if that makes me stupid so be it...I'm stupid ...

The whole discussion was NOT about providing the client what he wants.  See the title of the thread, it was about the layer ASHADE.  A layer you have chosen to be "anal" over (your word).  But okay, if you want to switch the discussion just so I'll agree with then fine, I agree.  The client will get that for which the client is willing to pay.  While there is little I can do about a client's ignorance, I can penalize him for remaining so.

[SMadsen]

Does anyone have the layer Defpoints in their standards?

*only asking*

[CADaver]

Does anyone have the layer Defpoints in their standards?

*only asking*

Only to note that nothing is to be drawn on that layer.

[SMadsen]

Only to note that nothing is to be drawn on that layer.

.. except what the software puts on that layer, hopefully?

[CADaver]

Only to note that nothing is to be drawn on that layer.

.. except what the software puts on that layer, hopefully?

Certainly, there's little we could do to stop it and remain productive.  Our spec outlines the reason for the layer and how it reflects layer 0, and restricts using it for anything "other than" what the software creates.

[One Shot]

Does anyone have the layer Defpoints in their standards?

*only asking*

Yes, we use the Defpoints layer for the drawing limits that would represent the layout space on the TB.

[SMadsen]

So, users are allowed to dimension the drawing (naturally) and thus drawings are allowed to contain a layer, which is created automatically for that purpose.

Turning this around with respect to the ASHADE layer could go like this: Drawings are not allowed to contain a layer, which is created automatically for the purpose of rendering. Thus users are not allowed to use rendering.

Solution: Remove acrender.arx from the installation.

Logical, huh?

[whdjr]

Nah...Too easy

[CADaver]

So, users are allowed to dimension the drawing (naturally) and thus drawings are allowed to contain a layer, which is created automatically for that purpose.

Turning this around with respect to the ASHADE layer could go like this: Drawings are not allowed to contain a layer, which is created automatically for the purpose of rendering. Thus users are not allowed to use rendering.

Solution: Remove acrender.arx from the installation.

Logical, huh?

Sure that would "solve??" the NON-problem of the ASHADE layer by crippling an otherwise powerful tool.  But your post brings up a question that needs to be asked.

Would the same discussion be had over the layer DEFPOINTS??  To avoid layer defpoints in drawings DIMASSOC must be set to 0.  How productive would that arbitrary decision be??  I doubt many posting here would support such, including Keith.  And if the client required it, they would certainly have to be some adjustment in remuneration, for us a substantial adjustment.

[Columbia]

Okay just to muddy the waters and maybe keep this incredibly entertaining diatribe going...

CADaver,
It's obvious that you use 3D modelling, am I right?  Then RENDER is indeed a powerful tool, in its native AutoCAD (limited) capacity.  But using SHADEMODE is actually a little more useful, in MY opinion.

Keith,
It sounds like you are providing 2D only drawings, is that right?  So RENDER is then null and void and consequently should be avoided.

So in essence here, you're both right.

With that asked/said/or commented.......
I think that anybody who tries to RENDER a 2D drawing should be fired, shot, hung, burnt at the stake, drawn and quartered, buried alive, stuck with needles like a pin cushion, suffer Chinese water toruture, starved, drowned, plagued with bad credit, made to watch 4 days of constant Partridge Family reruns (including the Anniverary Special), and last but not least tickled until they peed.

[CADaver]

Okay just to muddy the waters and maybe keep this incredibly entertaining diatribe going...

CADaver,
It's obvious that you use 3D modelling, am I right?  Then RENDER is indeed a powerful tool, in its native AutoCAD (limited) capacity.  But using SHADEMODE is actually a little more useful, in MY opinion.

Keith,
It sounds like you are providing 2D only drawings, is that right?  So RENDER is then null and void and consequently should be avoided.

So in essence here, you're both right.

With that asked/said/or commented.......
I think that anybody who tries to RENDER a 2D drawing should be fired, shot, hung, burnt at the stake, drawn and quartered, buried alive, stuck with needles like a pin cushion, suffer Chinese water toruture, starved, drowned, plagued with bad credit, made to watch 4 days of constant Partridge Family reruns (including the Anniverary Special), and last but not least tickled until they peed.

It's not a problem, even on 2D drawings, unless someone chooses to make it so.  BTW, render works quite well on regions

[Columbia]

I never meant to imply that it didn't.  I just meant to say for quickly determining interferences in a 3D model (solids or regions) I CHOOSE to you use SHADEMODE rather than RENDER.  Because I can then spin the model and see all of the intereference(s).  With a RENDERed view the view is static.

Again, this is the way I CHOOSE to use AutoCAD.  The beautiful and sometimes horrible thing about AutoCAD is that there is about 1 million different ways to do some of the simplest tasks.  We all have our ways, and no one will be able to convince us otherwise.  And you know what?  That's okay.

And what's more - although this thread has proven to be highly entertaining, I think it wandered off the useful path sometime yesterday.  It got hijacked into being less about a way to (code) the destruction of a layer created by AutoCAD and more about the philosophy of whether it should be destructed in the first place.  I'm not saying this is a bad thing, because everyone has brought valid points to the table.  I am of the opinion though, that this has gone on long enough and it should end or be moved to another Topic.  But again, that's just MY OPINION.  And opinions are like a$$holes, "Every one has one, and they all stink."  

[t-bear]

Awww,c'mon Columbia!  They was just gettin good and het up.  These two have "done this" before (MANY times....) and, so far, I think they've all been draws.  After a while they just get tired of hitting each other. I used to worry about "internet violence" but any more, I just follow along for the entertainment value.  And y'know what? More often than not, I pick up something useful from one or the other.....

(Thought)  Can you imagine these two at our "Swampfest 2005" gathering?  Look out Vegas!

[CADaver]

I never meant to imply that it didn't.  I just meant to say for quickly determining interferences in a 3D model (solids or regions) I CHOOSE to you use SHADEMODE rather than RENDER.  Because I can then spin the model and see all of the intereference(s).  With a RENDERed view the view is static.

Two different tools with radically different uses.  SHADEMODE is fine for flat shades to the drawing viewport and using 3DORBIT, but a PITB for getting a decent resolution jpeg of the view to a file, and utterly useless for material or lighting display.

Sure it wandered from the main topic, thread-jacking is what I do best.  I think Keith bailed on it several posts ago, and currently, I'm just responding to those responding to me.

As for usefullness, if we were all only concerned with "usefullness" the threead would never have been started.  But that's just my opinion.

True, opinions are like a___oles, everybody has one, some people are one.