Does anyone draw in scale 1:1?

[Petri]

My newest trainees (interior designers) think that it would be a good idea to have all design layers in scale 1:1 - because in AutoCAD you always work in 1:1.

I explained about 10 times that it is only an "apparent" paper scale and that actually you work in 1:1 scale, but to no avail.

Does anyone draw in scale 1:1? Why would anyone do it?

[Dieter @ DWorks]

Because they do not understand that they actualy draw 1:1?

Because they used to work with ACAD?

Because they do not care about seeing lineweights?

It's not important on wich scale you set your layers. The scale of the layer is just the way you want to view your drawing. So the only advantage of choosing a specific layer is that you can 'see' how you're lineweights and hatches (if they are scale dependant) will look in that scale.

So it's best to draw on a layer with the scale you most use to make prints. That way you will see beter if you're drawing will print ok. It's also good if you want to make a quick print in your design layer withouth setting up a sheet layer.

I think the person who works with the drawing should choose on which scale they like to see the drawing. It just the way you want to work.

[Pat Stanford]

Perhaps you need to approach them from the other direction, Why they should not draw at 1:1.

1:1 is simple, everything is the same, no thinking and minimum learning to do the drawing required on their part, but potentially massive problems in getting the output to look the way they want.

I have found the interior designer and landscape designer tend to be the most sensitive of all the groups as to the apperance of their drawings. Drawing at 1:1 gives you the least control (or maybe just more difficult control) over the appearance of your drawings.

By setting the layer scale at your final output (or close), you can turn on the Zoom Line Thickness pref and actually see how the drawing will look. If you draw at 1:1 and print at 1:50, then you will probably have to go back and adjust line weights to get what you want as an output image.

If they need to output at a known standard set scale, then drawing at scale also makes sense. Have they every done a drawing at 1:1 and found that because of the way they laid it out they had to either use a strang scale (1:60?), or a much larger scale (1:100) to make it fit on the desired paper size? If you draw to scale and know the paper size in advance, you can eliminate most of those problems.

If they are familiar with AC, perhaps they don't care about those issues. In which case, you either need to convince the boss to set an office standard that does use scales.

An associate of mine here in California had a similar problem, but in that case, the boss only wanted to use a single layer and no classes. The two arguments that helped change that case where 1. Why only use less than 1/2 the capabilities of a program you have paid for, and 2. That is not the way VW is used. If you try to get tech support, they will tell you you are using the program wrong and to do it the other way.

Pat

[jan15]

Tell them they're not really drawing full size in Autocad either. They're always thinking of the scale at which the drawing will be printed, and setting lineweight, text size, dimension scale, and linetype scale accordingly. The only difference is that in Autocad the user has to manage all that with a pocket calculator, and has to remember the intended scale or write it down.

The fear of not drawing full size comes from early Autocad, before viewports, when people would do very strange things to get drawings at more than one scale on the same sheet; sometimes drawing the detail many times as large as it really is so that it can be printed on the same sheet with a general view at a smaller scale.

[Petri]

Good points. Thank you.

[David Bertrand]

I found scaling in AutoCAD really easy to understand. Draw everything full scale and upscale the "notations" and "borders" times the plot scale. After a while, you memorize all the common scales. For example, if your drawing scale is 1/8"=1-0", draw at 1:1, then plot at 1/96, etc.

You can mix scales in AutoCAD by using xrefs -- so long as you know the eventual plot scale when you are drawing the xref.

I actually got more confused with Vectorworks scaling and sheet layouts, probably from my AutoCAD experience. VW is simpler than it seems.

[David Bertrand]

They're always thinking of the scale at which the drawing will be printed, and setting lineweight, text size, dimension scale, and linetype scale accordingly.

All these items can be saved in template drawings. I had a template for every scale. Or you can write scripts in Autolisp to change all the settings, though I never got around to it.

Also, I had a procedure for changing the scale of a drawing in midstream. That was not so easy as in VW unfortunately. It involved inserting the drawing into a template of the correct scale, rescaling the notations and border, and resaving.

Or, just switch to Vectorworks.

[LarryAZ]

By drawing in the scale that you plan to print your sheets, you can tell in advance how your drawing is going to fit on your sheet.

[Gerrit]

Drawing in the intended output scale of the final prints, helps me decide how much detail to add.

[matto]

using layer scale is the best of both worlds.

you still think in real world sizes like we always have drawing board.

you still draw at presentation size (WYSIWYG), like a drawing board.

The inform is accurate like Computer are for.

The information is usable and co-ordinated like computers are for.

[C. Andrew Dunning]

"the boss only wanted to use a single layer and no classes. The two arguments that helped change that case where 1. Why only use less than 1/2 the capabilities of a program you have paid for, and 2. That is not the way VW is used. If you try to get tech support, they will tell you you are using the program wrong and to do it the other way."

Pat -

I am one of those people who really prefers to work on a single Design Layer - and to use a plethora of Classes (I'm not sure I get the "no classes part.). For me, that IS the way that VW is used. I don't see that as being "right" or "wrong" - just the way I work. My thinking:

1) Light sources don't work across layers. (At least, they haven't in the past.) By using a single layer I don't have to create Layer Links to create rendered scenes.

2) I don't have to use "Align Layer Views" or the like to view all of the model geometry from the same direction and perspective. IMO, that extra step should be unnecessary.

FWIW, I don't work on multi-story building drawings and ViewPorts handle whatever scale variations I may need for things like details. Also, w. Saved Views and the tree structure potential in Class naming make handling even hundreds of Classes incredibly easy.

[Petri]

More pearls before swine wise words, thank you!

It just occurred to me that the people in question obviously do not have "Zoom line thickness" on - perhaps the warning "Beware of the panther" "Slow" has something to do with it.

[Dieter @ DWorks]

1) Light sources don't work across layers. (At least, they haven't in the past.) By using a single layer I don't have to create Layer Links to create rendered scenes.

I think your wrong on this one. I have a seperate layer for my lights, and I can render fine. You just need to turn that layer on.

[David Bertrand]

By drawing in the scale that you plan to print your sheets, you can tell in advance how your drawing is going to fit on your sheet.

You're talking about AutoCad, right?

With AutoCad, you insert the border at the scale you intend to plot (x96 for 1/8" scale, for example), and then you can see how much space you've got for the drawing. You still draw at 1:1 scale.

This topic is all over the place. We really need to be standing around a monitor to see how it's done.

[Pat Stanford]

"the boss only wanted to use a single layer and no classes. The two arguments that helped change that case where 1. Why only use less than 1/2 the capabilities of a program you have paid for, and 2. That is not the way VW is used. If you try to get tech support, they will tell you you are using the program wrong and to do it the other way."

Pat -

I am one of those people who really prefers to work on a single Design Layer - and to use a plethora of Classes (I'm not sure I get the "no classes part.). For me, that IS the way that VW is used. I don't see that as being "right" or "wrong" - just the way I work. My thinking:

1) Light sources don't work across layers. (At least, they haven't in the past.) By using a single layer I don't have to create Layer Links to create rendered scenes.

2) I don't have to use "Align Layer Views" or the like to view all of the model geometry from the same direction and perspective. IMO, that extra step should be unnecessary.

Andrew,

I have no problem with "you" deciding what workflow works best for you. The problem in this case was that the "boss" who would probably use VW 10 houra a year was trying to define how the rest of the staff should use the program. And to limit her learning curve (or lack of understanding), she was going cripple the "capabilities" of the program [OK, she was not actually going to take them away, but shw was going to try and make the staff not use them.]

You know and understand the capabilities and when it is appropriate, I am sure you would use multiple layers. If you don't need them for your work, then you don't need them. But I would not expect you to tell an architect to do a complete plan set for a 3 story building to use a single design layer when multiple layer (stories, details, legends, etc) make more sense for that application.

Pat

[jbrhwy]

As a road designer the ability have layers & classes is the reason I have VectorWorks. I can't envision having road alignment options, road surfaces, drainage, utilities, cadestral, contours, DTM, landscaping, buildings, geotechnical all on one layer. Being able to turn layers off & on well viewing various objects assigned to classes provides visualizations that ease the job of designing & providing alternatives that are much appreciated by clients & the public & especially other road designers using AutoCad.

[C. Andrew Dunning]

"I think your wrong on this one. I have a seperate layer for my lights, and I can render fine. You just need to turn that layer on."

Hmmm. Not a huge deal but I was curious enough to run a quick test: 1 extrusion on 1 layer and 4 light sources on another. I rendered the "extrusion" layer. No-go on the light sources working...

[Dieter @ DWorks]

"I think your wrong on this one. I have a seperate layer for my lights, and I can render fine. You just need to turn that layer on."

Hmmm. Not a huge deal but I was curious enough to run a quick test: 1 extrusion on 1 layer and 4 light sources on another. I rendered the "extrusion" layer. No-go on the light sources working...

How do you render? in Design layer? or with a viewport?

It always work with viewports.

[C. Andrew Dunning]

"How do you render? in Design layer? or with a viewport?"

The experiment (and the bulk of my rendering) was done w. Design Layers.

[Petri]

Don't we all do the bulk of our renderings in Design Layers? AFAIK, 3D & rendering are design tools; viewports are a printing vehicle.

[Pat Stanford]

I certainly don't do most of my rendering in design layers. I normally work in either wireframe or OpenGL in design layers. Any other kind of rendering I need is done in viewport.

Far more control over when the rendering will be updated. I can do it on my schedule not VWs.

Pat

[C. Andrew Dunning]

So...you're taking advantage of "Update All ViewPorts"? I can see that being valuable. One click and off to lunch...

Is there any quality difference between Design Layer and ViewPort rendering? How do you then get high-res exports w. the latter?

[Pat Stanford]

So...you're taking advantage of "Update All ViewPorts"? I can see that being valuable. One click and off to lunch...

Absolutely not! I think Update All Viewports is one of the most dangerous commands in VW. It should be Update All Viewport on Layer!!!!

I have a very large file of data sheets for a line of valves. There are about 20 different valves and each data sheet has about 7 viewports on it.

I acidentally selected the Update All Viewports command one night about 10PM. I decided to just let it go. At 9 AM the next morning, it was still updating.

Be very careful with the Update All Viewports command.

Pat

[Dieter @ DWorks]

So...you're taking advantage of "Update All ViewPorts"? I can see that being valuable. One click and off to lunch...

Is there any quality difference between Design Layer and ViewPort rendering? How do you then get high-res exports w. the latter?

you can choose to save the rendering with your file. And final renderings should only be done at the end.

[C. Andrew Dunning]

Hmmm... Interesting...

I was just telling a vendor that the day I quit learning is the day I'll find something different to do. Thanks for helping to keep me from rewriting my resum? for another day... ;-)