Topic: PDF

[mjfarrell]

Because it takes a lot less work to have the desired output and it doesn't take multiple paragraphs to debug it.

Actually if one understands the process fully, there is no need to do excessive debugging.

[ronjonp]

...
it allows for lazy practices

Can you explain why it's lazy.

Perhaps lazy in terms of adapting ones thinking to accept that 0,0 in paperspace is the limits of thee printable area.
And that 0,0 could change depending upon what one set margins for in the paper sizes.

That being said one would still need to adopt or adjust title block borders to fit various page size, and margin combinations
only using the edge of the paper as the origin. 

However there is then the legacy method of placing plot dots, or other reference devices so that one could simple plot 'extents'
and not bother with setting up ones plotting to any more exacting(predictable) methods.

Then the cad manager and the users need not bother with learning about how to better control their plot processes using named page setups
for that task.

I've been using named pagesetups for many years. How does a PLOTOFFSET variable negate the 'need' to learn about them?
Also, if I remember correctly at some point changing the variable fixed an offset bug when using Publish.

[mjfarrell]

Unaware of any 'bug' that adding PLOTOFFSET as a variable 'fixed'.

Am aware that a great number of users had a hard time adjusting to Printable Area defining 0,0 for paperspace.
While doing training at the time Page Setups were introduced.

And then with the introduction of PLOTOFFSET variable, it sort of acted as a 'bug' when some peoples plots no longer worked correctly
when that setting was switched on or off by some user not knowing any better.

[Bethrine]

...
it allows for lazy practices

Can you explain why it's lazy.

Perhaps lazy in terms of adapting ones thinking to accept that 0,0 in paperspace is the limits of thee printable area.
And that 0,0 could change depending upon what one set margins for in the paper sizes.

That being said one would still need to adopt or adjust title block borders to fit various page size, and margin combinations
only using the edge of the paper as the origin. 

However there is then the legacy method of placing plot dots, or other reference devices so that one could simple plot 'extents'
and not bother with setting up ones plotting to any more exacting(predictable) methods.

Then the cad manager and the users need not bother with learning about how to better control their plot processes using named page setups
for that task.

I've been using named pagesetups for many years. How does a PLOTOFFSET variable negate the 'need' to learn about them?
Also, if I remember correctly at some point changing the variable fixed an offset bug when using Publish.

I get this when I click on that link:

[Rob...]

Click advanced and proceed.

[ChrisCarlson]

I'm not sure what all this hassle is, if your page plots perfectly to your plotter of choice, simply change the plotter to DWG to PDF and the relevant page sizes and offsets should transfer over, at least on 2015/2016 Vanilla here it does.

[mjfarrell]

that has a lot to do with how one has this set...

[Bethrine]

I'm not sure what all this hassle is, if your page plots perfectly to your plotter of choice, simply change the plotter to DWG to PDF and the relevant page sizes and offsets should transfer over, at least on 2015/2016 Vanilla here it does.

I tried that and it did not. I got it printing perfectly, maybe not properly, but perfectly. I now have a new PDF page setup for layouts that works just fine. And, if I have a problem later on, I have a pretty good idea what I'm doing so that I can probably get it to plot at least.

[Bethrine]

By the way, thank you all for the help here!