krusty Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 hi, does anyone knows how to shange the units of a drawing from english to metric, inches to meters hope some one can help thanks in advance sorry for the bad english Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHalton Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Are you the classically trained actor on the simpsons? Crusty the clown? The link here converts distances and lengths from anything to anything. http://phoenix.liu.edu/~divenere/resources/js_dist_cnvrt.htm If you search for scale converter or measurement converter on Google you will find loads of tools to use. I cant really advise you on Autocad itself for this purpose. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Krusty, If you go into Dimension/style/modify, you can change the type of dims used. Hope that's what you're looking for. btw James, I liked the way you casually asked if this was Crusty the Clown. hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 hi, does anyone knows how to shange the units of a drawing from english to metric, inches to meters As another installment in my series of un-helpful rants about Autocad and Autodesk, I should point out that in MOST CAD and 3D programs, changing from english to metric is a matter of just one quick click. The programs store the data in real-world units, so if you are working in metric and want to add a doorway, but are not sure how big it should be, you just switch to feet, make it 3' x 7' and then jump back to metric and it is now .95m x 1.9m or so--takes a few seconds, does NOT have to re-scale the entire model. Those of you that pay and pay and pay for these programs need to complain to Autodesk about these things--unless you like to have to rescale a model to check a distance, or DL add-ons and LISP code to provide basic function. Sorry...I'm just bitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethace Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Those of you that pay and pay and pay for these programs need to complain to Autodesk about these things--unless you like to have to rescale a model to check a distance, or DL add-ons and LISP code to provide basic function. It is this 'open-source' kinda slant which has indeed made autocad so popular throughout the world... you would be surprised Ernest how many people actually feel it to be a benefit to customise 'their own way of doing things' rather than having a simple programme that does it in the way you described. Here is a snipet from another thread/forum/someplace.... Hello all, i ran in to a problem today that someone else im sure has also. i was send a drawing by a client that was done in millimeters. It was a finished drawing that need to be built upon to complete the project. If it had been the inverse i could have scaled the drawing by 25.4 and been ok, but i cant seem a way to get the drawing to be scaled correctly when going from inches to millimeters. Can anyone make some suggestions or give links? Thanks in advance. Reply: Scale the same way, but use the inverse of 25.4, which is 1/25.4. But AutoCAD doesn't accept decimals in a scale with fractions, so use 10/254. Reply: Cool, i forgot about the 10/254! i guess everyonce in awhile we relearn stuff that we forgot.. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethace Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 There is another system variable in AutoCAd which I have not used, but intend to learn about properly next spare 30mins I get: Snipet from somewhere else. What distance are you getting and what should it be ? Have you checked the MEASUREMENT variable ? (0 for imperial, 1 for metric) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Eloy Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 This unit problem is a real pain. I agree with Ernest, Autodesk should really work on a simple-to-use unit converter so that we can change units whenever we want. Maybe it's on their wish-list, but we never know...All we AutoCAD users can do for now is to wait for the upcoming r2005 and hope it has this kind of functionality... [] Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 It is this 'open-source' kinda slant which has indeed made autocad so popular throughout the world... you would be surprised Ernest how many people actually feel it to be a benefit to customise 'their own way of doing things' rather than having a simple programme that does it in the way you described... People LIKE having to scale an entire drawing to change working units? Fine, for them there is Autocad. Sure Autocad is customizable...the problem is that you HAVE to customize it to make it useful for the purpose for which it most often sold--architectural drafting. And that means both time and money spent on top of the already high cost. "Open source' rarely means a $3000 entry fee (or whatever ACAD costs). If you spend that kind of scratch wouldn't it be nice to not HAVE to re-write the application? I use Datacad, which costs 1/2 or so of ACAD. It uses real-world units, so the unit-of-measure convert is a non-destructive one-click. The program is very customizable, but it STARTS OUT ready to draw architecture. An iso view is called 'isometric', an elevation is called 'elevation'. You don't need a two-week training course to use it for architecture, an hour is about it. To set a perspective you use the 'perspective' command. ACAD had Dview. I could go on and on, but to no good use. Acad is a fine product, but do not suggest that it's market domination is because its the best product for the job. And I already called myself bitter, so don't even try it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethace Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 You cannot just look at units in isolation, because so many other things are directly tied up with AutoCAD 'units' in AutoCAD.... things that are already very tricky and do not always work very well - hatches, polyline thicknesses, text height and width of a block of text, dim styles.... the list is literally endless, linetype scales, all of these both in paperspace and model space... normally the width of a polyline in AutoCAd model space is in real units... i.e. if you want a good thick site boundary line at 1:500 scale plotting*, use one of a foot/300mm wide. Whereas if you want a good thick site boundary line at 1:100 scale plot... using a foot wide polyline would be huge... it would be 1 cm wide on the plot. So you tend to use things like 1:100 text layers and 1:500 text layers, and set the heights of texts accordingly. Then use freeze in layout/paperspace viewport option, in the layers dialogue box. It is head wrecking stuff, but the architects wants those plots for his/her meeting and you cannot stand in their way - you just draft, and keep everything tied up to one set of base units, some reference point... so the plots don't come out looking like Picasso repros! * But 1:500 plots don't even exist in the Imperial system. Notice that if you work mainly with Imperial scale, and think in Imperial scale, you will PLOT to a different scale than with Metric units too: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1:48 3/16" = 1'-0" 1:72 1/8" = 1'-0" 1:96 3/32" = 1'-0" 1:144 1/16" = 1'-0" 1:192 3/64" = 1'-0" 1:288 1/32" = 1'-0" 1:384 3/128" = 1'-0" 1:576 1/64" = 1'-0" 1:768 I.e. In autocad you would zoom, 1/48xp to make your paperspace viewport plot out at 1/4" = 1'-0" scale. BTW, me using metric scales and ISO metric paper sizes all my life, The only scales above which make ANY sense at all to me are as follows: 1:48, because it is almost 1:50 scale. 1:96 because it is almost 1:100 scale. 1:192 because it is almost 1:200 scale. 1:576 becasue it is 'like' 1:500 scale. Could you tell me, which scale of plot, makes sense to you looking at it Ernest, you you normally handle 1:96 prints, and instinctively know what you are looking at - what size it looks like from the drawing without any dimensions even? Because that is how I look at a 1:1000, 1:500, 1:200, 1:100, 1:50 and 1:20 drawing. On another note, read my post here: http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/showthread.php?p=36621#post36621 Kerry has made a good point there too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethace Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Sure Autocad is customizable...the problem is that you HAVE to customize it to make it useful for the purpose for which it most often sold--architectural drafting. And that means both time and money spent on top of the already high cost. " Well, a lot of people out there are very happy about this, because it gives them a feeling of 'status' and responsibility they simply would not have with MiniCAd for instance, since you can just go into a menu and change the units, and all dimensions and everything will update automatically. It is so simply even I can do it, that is why I own a license for MiniCAD and not AutoCAD I guess, since being a small operator I could not afford the time. I attempted to make your point to Kerry here: http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4869&page=2 But you simply do not tell an AutoCAD user anything - they simply 'know it all'. And are absolutely convinced their system is correct. But having working in an AutoCAd drafting production environment for a short while now, I am beginning to gain a deeper understanding of what is behind all of this units business in AutoCAd. As I said, I use MiniCAd at home - I can select a line, choose either Imperial Units or Metric, and tell MiniCAd what exact distance to make that line in either Imperial or Metric. So if I know that some sketch I got from a carpenter has to be a 10 foot width, and some other measurement I got from a European furniture manufacturer needs to 2100mm for a table etc, that is no problem in MiniCAd. You can work simultaneously in 2 dimensioning systems.... they are boht singing off the same hymn sheet, this is not possible or as easy to do with AutoCAd. The other thing with MiniCAd is printing out, I never get these horror shocks standing in front of my plotter and have to cancel it... running back to change some obscure system variable at the command prompt etc. you would not believe how much my clients actually love me for this, and it means I just get stuff out to them quicker, and cheaper/easier than I would working with ACAD LT or some similar costing programme. but as I said, my day job is usign AUTOCAD and I have learned to use that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethace Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Just another thing about the 'customisation' of AutoDesk software: You guys, yourselfs here are benefitting from the experience AutoDesk has gained it writing software to be added to, tweaked and customised to the preferences of individual corporations and users..... that experience AutoDesk has in making itself very 'open', has been enjoyed by users of VIZ, MAX etc.... where you can share these customisations between yourselfs here at a simple VBulletin board like CG Architect.... with almost no cost either.... but lots of sharing, cooperation and benefit. Quote from another thread: You may be familiar with the way that AutoCAD users around the world can customise their platform of choice, using simple LISP code routines, which you can easily copy and paste from your web browser. Well I think that the VIZ product from AutoDesk could potentially develop just like that, in fact, it is now developing just like that. Three examples of what I am talking about: http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1866&goto=nextoldest http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4874&goto=nextoldest The actual wireframe view of the interior model, with all the light objects to which parameters for light quality are carefully set out in the programme. http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4861&goto=nextoldest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Eloy Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Guys, please, let's not make this thread a flame, ok? The original question was about converting units, and has already been answered. I believe there's no point in discussing if this soft is better than the other. It's endless. So let's cool down, alright? [] Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethace Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 I am just pulling a lot of different issues together here Rick, nothing to do with what you are saying.... scales have to be looked at from many directions.... because many people will be involved with a project, and that is why scales existed in the first place. But Ernest has indeed made a very relevant point, and as I am the first to admit, I don't even use AUtoCAd for my first choice of CAD software, I use MiniCAD. Did everything I needed when I bought my first large format printer in 1998 and still is doing the business for me. However, what Krusty could clarify here, is what scale of operation he/she is working for. I.e. If it is a small operation like my own home office, then go the MiniCAd or DataCAD route. However, if working like my day job for autocad/engineers/large architect firms... then invest some time in learning about scaling things etc, etc. But if you can get away with MiniCAD or Vectorworks it is called now, you will never have to worry ever again about units and scaling etc. If you wish to link files into VIZ, then think about the thread started by Kerry in relation to VIZ world units and display units. http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/showthread.php?p=36621#post36621 I agree with leaving world units in VIZ to inches, as zoom and clipping problems are less likely to crop up in the viewport.... then you have all the radiosity units, which are world units, but as Kerry points out using inches is sometimes 'easier' for some to understand - those units of measurement are more 'real' than mm. Just something else, Now, like my arguments to Kerry as previously linked about easier WYSIWYG software.... http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4869&page=2 which means the 'front office' are more likely to use CAD, as well as the back office. I would also like to just link this post of mine here too: http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/showthread.php?t=109&page=3 It is just about how, often draftspeople are afraid to change, fix or otherwise modify something which is blaringly obviously wrong. I think that just about covers it, Phew, sorry for the length of my posting guys, but I decided to cover this issue well enough, so I will never have to do it again. All comments are welcome, gareth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethace Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 I should point out that in MOST CAD and 3D programs, changing from english to metric is a matter of just one quick click. The programs store the data in real-world units, so if you are working in metric and want to add a doorway, but are not sure how big it should be, you just switch to feet, make it 3' x 7' and then jump back to metric and it is now .95m x 1.9m or so--takes a few seconds, does NOT have to re-scale the entire model. Those of you that pay and pay and pay for these programs need to complain to Autodesk about these things--unless you like to have to rescale a model to check a distance, or DL add-ons and LISP code to provide basic function. Sorry...I'm just bitter. Just to tie in with this point: http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3806&highlight=nominal Nominal and actual dimensional drafting.... interesting thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethace Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 I couldn't end without adding this little snipet from a Linus Torvalds interview in 1994.... something Ernest may relate to. Considering AutoDESK AutoCAD, is like the 'open source' CAD programme, and subject to customisation all around the world.... here was the opinion about open source OSes by Linus 10 years ago. Linux Journal: With the end of the road for Intel's 80XXX series chips in sight (although at least a few years away), what chip or hardware platform would you like to see Linux ported to? Linus: The Amiga 680x0 (x>=3, MMU required) port is already underway and reportedly mostly functional already. I haven't been in any close contact with the developers, as they seem to know what they are doing, but I understand they track the PC versions rather closely, and have most of the features working. I'd expect something truly functional by the end of this year, even though the installed machine base is much smaller. As to other ports: I'd really enjoy some port to newer and more exotic hardware like the DEC Alpha chips or the PowerPC, but as far as I know nobody is really working on it. The main problem with non-i386 ports is simply lack of momentum: in order to get this kind of port going, you'd need hacker-type people with access to such hardware with "nothing better" to do on it. DEC or IBM has yet to show enough interest that they'd donate hardware and documentation to this worthwhile cause. I think it is that 'momentum' which Linus refers to, which is so pertenent to this discussion here Ernest... because Amiga, DEC Alpha and Power PC, all far superior designs to i386 have all died, whereas i386 stuff is still knocking about in present OSes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethace Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 I mean, if the original poster, is looking to get into a new software and needs ease of use, then read the following and think. quote from Vectorworks dispatch mag: Can I perform simple math in a numerical field, including those involving mixed units? Just about every area of the program that is expecting a number can take a simple mathematical expression. You can use +, -, *, and / to add, subtract, multiply, and divide numbers as you enter them. This means that you can enter simple mathematic equations such as 1 1/4" + 2 3/16"; the results display as 3 1/2". Mixed unit equations can also be used, such as 4" - 4 cm. If the units set for the file are fractional Feet & Inches, the results will display as 2 3/8". http://www.nemetschek.net/dispatch/Vol5/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krusty Posted March 17, 2004 Author Share Posted March 17, 2004 thanks all for your comments, but i guess there i no way to do it in autocad, the problem was that i had to insert water and gas instalation into a drawing that was done in meters and the intalation were done in inches, example there are some pipes that mesure 2 inches thats like 5cm but when i insert them in the drawing and i mesure them it say it was 2 meters, then i try to scale the objest but that dint work anyway,last night i start to drawing all the intalation, I'm almost done. thanks very much the office i work is very small only 7 employes, i think it was a waste of maney. anyway thanks see ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerry Thompson Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Set the water and gas drawing to meters using the "units" AutoCAD command, (look for the title “Drag-and-Drop Scale” in the dialogue box) and the installation drawings to inches. Inserting the water and gas drawing into installation drawing will automatically scaled it to inches. Changing the units in ADT also gives the opportunity to rescale the whole file. Kerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethace Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 That is something I am going to try myself Kerry, thanx very much for that explanation... I may even get back to you on this subject again. The insertion units, file units, etc is something completely new to me... I am getting 'back into' AutoCAd and having been trained in R14 years ago... when I used to draw in 'meters' in AutoCAd. I.e. 1mm = 0.001 AutoCAD Units. A bit like the way, you feel it is more 'natural' to use VIZ set up for Inches... because inches feel more like real world dimensions... we thought the exact same way about metres.... that drawing in millimeters wasn't as 'natural' for hte large master plans we would usually do. So I can 'think' in AutoCAd using 1mm = 0.001 AutoCAD Units, no hassle and know what to say in print dialogue etc, etc. But in VIZ, when I link the file drawn in metres, nothing works as it should unfortunately.... zooming in close makes views clip etc, etc. When drawing parametric door/window objects, which I think are one of the few good reasons to use VIZ at all for me,... is dodgy at best, when thinking in terms of 0.001 = 1mm. In Particular when you get down to doing mullions and itty bitty stuff, that makes all the difference to the appearance of a window/door. So very reluctantly, I went away from drawing in 'metres' and converted back again to 1mm = 1 AutoCAd Unit. We used to print from model space and everything... those where the days, a two-pen, pen plotter, with an A0 Tracing paper... and basically two colours in every drawing for the two pen weights! Unitless, is what I see them using most here at work now. Is that okay? Changing the units in ADT also gives the opportunity to rescale the whole file. Kerry Well I think the point Ernest was making was, it shouldn't have to scale anything, it should just be easy to jump between as one wishes. That was basically my point to Krusty, that if he/she wished to jump back and forth alot, and is a small practice, or single individual with the ability to make these kinds of choices, then you would get more fun out of using Vectorworks than using AutoCAD. Nice site here: http://www.nemetschek.net/dispatch/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now