Scaling with line weights

[Sawyer]

Couple of lineweight questions if anyone can help.

 

1. We have lines for a building. We use that building base to xref into a construct doc file and into a site plan. Naturally the spacing for the lines is not going to be the same because the scale of the viewport has changed. We want the same line to look the same (dash spacing wise) of the 1/4" plan and the 1:40 site.

 

2. Simular question with details. One sheet may have 20 details and they will vary in size as they are scaled down to different sizes and placed in paper space. So if I use "dashed 2" linetype it will not look right for the print. I have found work arounds so I can get this to work but I was wondering if anyone has better ways.

 

 

All Autocad 2000

Cheers!

[kainoa]

I know you mentioned VIEWPORT above so I assume you're working in a MODEL/PAPER setup, correct? If so than if you set your LINETYPESCALE (command: ltcale) to 0.5 (or 12.7 metric) than all your linetypes (hidden, dash, etc.) should appear the same in all your viewports, no matter the scale. In the LINETYPE dialog box (command: lt), check the "Use paperspace units..." box. Also be sure you're not forcing any linetype scaling onto any of your polylines (should be set to 1.0).

 

One sheet may have 20 details and they will vary in size as they are scaled down to different sizes and placed in paper space.

Are you taking details from model space than scaling them down and putting them in paperspace? If so, why not leave them in model space at full scale and create VPs in paperspace? That way the LTs would be the same no matter the VP scale.

 

Hope this helps, but if im missing your point than perhaps post some screenshots. Cheers!

[Sawyer]

Kainoa - you sick little monkey I think you hit it. Now if I nees to change the ltscale for individual lines (say .35 on hidden lines) then it will still work.? or will it?

[Kerry Thompson]

Hi

Have a look at the system variable "psltscale". When this is set to 1, the linetype will look the same in all layout viewports whatever their zoom scale.

 

The ltscale can also be set to individual objects relative to the overall ltscale settings.

 

Hope this helps

 

Kerry

[Sawyer]

Thanks Kerry,

 

I have looked into psltscale before & it almost gets me where I want to be. Not quite. What I was lookinig for was what Kainoa pointed out.

[vizwhiz]

hi There

 

Sawyer

 

we draw the Details full-size in MS

 

insert/xref blocks/details into PS

divided by their respective LTscale

 

set the LTScale to 1.0 (or 0.5)

set the Dimscale to 1.0

 

i have used This Technique for sheets of details

which had a variety of scales both Metric & Imperial

 

1:5 1:10 1:25 1:50

1=4 1=8 1=12 1=16 1=24

 

etc

 

one project had 1.432 details

This worked just really slick

 

simple but effective

 

Thanks

 

Randy

[Sawyer]

Thanks you know that may ahve been the way we did it at another office. Where I am know there is a on-going situation where the main drafter uses microstation and the autocad drafters must match his stuff exactly. And there is really no autocad manager so there are often too many opinions. And what is a dashed line in microstation becomes hidden2 at .34 ltscale for 1/4".

[garethace]

Thanks you know that may ahve been the way we did it at another office. Where I am know there is a on-going situation where the main drafter uses microstation and the autocad drafters must match his stuff exactly. And there is really no autocad manager so there are often too many opinions. And what is a dashed line in microstation becomes hidden2 at .34 ltscale for 1/4".

 

Is that situation still the same?

 

I have often made the following point:

 

That MicroStation J is a nice piece of software, and is often more 'forgiving' on how you organise yourself and draw in CAD, than AutoCAD would be. In other words, even though MicroStation J is expensive, you will lightly be able to get more of your staff - even some who aren't CAD-savy, involved in using the computer as a drafting tool.

 

In my experience, in offices using AutoCAd, there is a much more pronounced distinction between those who use CAD and those who feed the people who use the CAD.

 

In practices using MicroStation, I have even seen company directors with a copy of MicroStation full license on their everyday system and working away drafting with MicroStation now and again.

 

I have yet to see this happen anywhere, where AutoCAd was the installed software. THere is a very clear, hands-on-deck back office.... and conversely a very clear front office, where the plots are taken and directors talk about them and redline them in their own privacy.

 

With MicroStation installed offices, I found that the CAD stations were more inclined to move into the front offices as well as the back offices - and a lot of the rules 'in how to use CAD' came from the front office, from some crack pot with a GOD-complex, down to the back office - where generally everyone 'just did what they were told' and were shit scared of the front office, 'who knew a little bit about CAD', and could open the MicroStation DGNs on their systems outside and see what you were doing in the back office over the network, without actually physically walking back to say hi, now and again.

 

As I have said, MicroStation is a smashing piece of kit, and if you really know it well you can do much more, much quicker than you might do in AutoCAd even. BUT, and here is the catch - because in the places where I have used MicroStation, because the larger proportion of people using MicroStation were NOT avid CAD/Computer users - any advantage of using a delicious piece of software like MicroStation was totally wasted by the truth that you are working alongside morons, in computing terms.

 

I.e. AutoCAd started out with some really difficult concepts, and didn't have WYSIWYG, like MicroStation did.

 

But in the long run, that was actually a blessing in disguise, since now the people who use AutoCAd generally know a bit more of how to use software, than your average MicroStation user does.

 

I had to work with a MicroStation user, who was convinced using 13 sub units per master unit, was the way to go.

 

I had to work with a MicroStation based firm, which was three generation old and never even bothered in 10 years of using CAD/MicroStation to even set up a standard layer structure.

 

I even had a whole set of construction drawings of mine deleted by a person in the front office, who had been promoted after another director had left.

 

See what I mean?

[Benoit]

This Technique for sheets of details

which had a variety of scales both Metric & Imperial