Discussion Groups

I tried to attached the file. I got an error saying "The content type of the file is not allowed"

With all due respect to the posters in this thread, can someone explain to me how this is a Correct answer ?

Oh ... OK ... thanx. I was just wondering ... do you mark it correct or is it marked by a bot or what?



Also, isn't the reason for this forum to share info? Perhaps you could share the answer with us.



TIA



Regards,

DJ

Well put.....

Not at all. Drawing in Model Space at 1:1 using whatever text height in the dimstyle you need for the output size to be readable you need to adjust the dimscale to accommodate that. I use .09375 (3/32") as a common text height in dimstyles. If I then have a model that takes up a distance of 33'-0" (396") of space in X, I need to set my dimscale to 12 (as a plot ratio 1:12). I'm still drawing 1:1 so my physical text height in MS is 1-1/8" using an annotation scale factor of 1:1. If you use a D (ansi) title block at 22 x 34 and one viewport for the entire model with annotations, your VP scale is 1/12 or .08333334). With annotation scaling set at 1/12 (or 0.8333334 or 1"=1'-0") the physical output of the text height on paper is 3/32".



This is not rocket science, although I don't ever use layouts in that fashion. Instead, as many may have already read, I use as many 1:1 viewports in Layouts as possible enlarging certain ones only when necessary to clarify details. All annotations, except those that need to be made in MS because of overlapping viewports, are made in the layout using DIMASSOC=2. This totally eliminates the need for annotative objects and the value differences if layout objects are inadvertently selected during dimensioning. That was the reason I stated that you throw out the notion that Layouts (PS) MUST have a paper background and MUST be scaled down to the actual paper size. Both of these "notions" create most of the confusion discussed in these forums. It makes it harder than it needs to be.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Michael Grutter

Cedar Engineering and Design Service

http://www.cedarengineering.com/

Similar but with far less headaches. You are working in metric. I work almost exclusively in imperial so some of the numbers may be different but the method is the same.



I do work with multiple dimstyles but not for scaling purposes. Each different dimstyle is assigned the same dimscale but each may have different dim* (variable) values. Such as one dimensions point to point locations (text in parenthesis, aligned to first extension line, no dim or ext line displayed), another performs running dims (text aligned to second ext line, no first dim or first ext line displayed). These are variations in dimstyle output only.



Since I'm now working in the structural discipline, there are certain conventions I now have to adhere to. Like not displaying the true length of beams or the true height of columns. Instead the detailing standard is to show the true size of a structural shape but foreshorten its length to fit onto the page and have the features attached be readable/understandable. This is a throwback from pencil cad days and 19th century standards as they applied. Structural packages such as SDS can automatically comply with these standards because it creates a static view of the actual model. The dimensions are on the modeled part and are input into the dimension when the drawing is created. AutoCAD has no such functions (unless someone has written a routine to accomplish this) so multiple viewports are required to display objects in model space in a foreshortened manner. When this happens, overall dimensions need to be generated in model space (the only time I do generate annotations there) so that they reflect the true length of the object.



Dimscale being set to be readable in model space is essential to this practice. That being said, 1:1 viewports for displaying the opposing ends of a column or beam are preferred to display the text correctly. And yes, I know that the new annotative text, dims, etc are the new wave of doing this in most peoples minds. I could do that as a 1:1 layout with a scaled down veiwport but then all the other problems with getting the correct dimension values in the layout would make life a living hell all over again not to mention the myriad of new problems that have been created by these new features.



If you do all of your annotations in MS and use the conventional wisdom when it comes to creating your drawing output in layouts, then annotative objects make sense but if you do all annotation in a layout and have the height of text, arrow sizes, etc. set in your dimstyle to the real world sizes (what you measure on paper), then annotative objects are just another reason to add fluff to the program and avoid meaningful upgrades to real life issues.



I suppose this and a couple of other threads are getting sick of hearing about this as a tangent to the OP. Maybe if it continues, it should be posted as it's own thread.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Michael Grutter

Cedar Engineering and Design Service

http://www.cedarengineering.com