Am I going crazy? Settle an argument!

I have recently started a new job and we have just made the change of putting titlesheets in paper space instead of model space. It's the way I have always worked and as far as I am concerned it is the correct way to work.

However, it has caused a disagreement between myself and one of the structural engineers. He says the scale written on the titlesheet should represent the scale of the titlesheet in paperspace, ie; 1:1. I have never ever seen it done this way and everywhere I have worked for the past 12 years shows the scale as the scale of the main content of the drawing when printed. So if you have a plan view at 1:50, the titlesheet should read 'SCALE 1:50', regardless of whether the titlesheet is in model space or paper space.

I'm happy to be wrong because it's more important that we do things right. Which is correct?

Welcome to CAD Tutor - and I agree with all of your statements 100%.

MS TB's are for the dogs ... they cause untold pain! And having a 1:1 because the TB is on PS is just silly. What's the end product? Do you want the contractor to know what the scale factor of the TB block is placed inside ACad? Or would you rather have him know what scale the actual drawing is done at?

I think there's maybe a lost-in-translation between you and the SE. Or maybe it's his/her brain having some short-circuit? Maybe they mean that the PS TB should be scaled at 1:1, and the PS's CAnnoScale should be set at 1:1, and that you should plot the PS at 1:1. The displayed piece of text inside your TB should still show the scale of the main VP on that sheet - that is something which is plotted out - the others don't even get shown on the hard-copy (unless you have it in a plot stamp - showing the plot's scale factor).

The engineer is wrong. Maybe the plot scale is 1:1 but the drawing's scale isn't. Tell him to stick to designing and leave the CAD work to the professionals.

You are right, engineer is wrong. End of discussion. (but how does one become an "engineer" without understanding something so basic?)

Thanks for the replies. Thats all I needed to know.

There are still a great many people who simply do not or will not understand how paperspace works or what it is for. I suspect that your engineer is suffering from the "thats the way we've always done it" syndrome, and you will never encounter a more difficult mindset to unseat. There is an old saying "if you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got." While there is much wisdom in this statement as it applies to being consistant, if taken too literally it will preclude ever making any sort of process improvement.

Actually I'd go as far as to say: "Using paper space (the correct way) is much more analogous to how a draftsman drew on a drawing board than the pre-R11 method of only Model Space."

When drawing on a drawing board, your paper is what it is. It's at 1:1 scale of itself ... you didn't go to a photocopy-shop to have your pre-printed sheets scaled to a larger size so you could draw at 1:1 on top of them. You used the various scales on your ruler to not have to convert lengths all the time - the ruler did that for you. So if you wanted to draw at 1:50 you used the 1:50 marks on the ruler (ignoring the others). When you had another piece on the same paper drawn at 1:10 - you used the relevant marks for that scale instead. You still wrote that the drawing was a 1:50 and 1:10 - you didn't write that the paper was at 1:1, what would be the point?

In the MS idiom (prior to 1990 when R11 introduced PS) you were forced to use Model Space, since that's all there was. Now, you would draw something at 1:1 scale - but then you would have to scale your paper (i.e. your TB) in reverse factor of what you wanted the final plot's scale to be. E.g. say you were drawing at 1:50 you'd have to scale your TB by 50x. Or you needed to constantly calculate the lengths of what you were drawing to accommodate it's scale (i.e. if you drew a line 1000mm long you would have to actually draw it 20 (1000 divided by 50) units long). When you had more than one scale on the drawing you needed to do either both or the 2nd method at 2 different factors. If you did both and had a piece at 1:10 on top of the already 1:50 you needed to draw your linework with a factor of 10/50 = 0.2. Or otherwise you had to trick and connive ACad by drawing everything inside blocks and then scaling them to match. You still then had to keep your head to make sure your text and dims still displayed correctly. You noted what scale the drawing was done to on the tb somewhere, irrespective of if the TB was scaled or your linework, the scale shown would be the same. Thus you would show 1:50 and 1:10 for the relevant piece, even though it is drawn at some combined scale, or the TB is larger than real life, or everything it scaled down to have the TB at 1:1 - you did NOT show the contractor how your method of getting to the end result was. It would be absolutely useless to him, not to mention confusing.

When PS came about this unnatural-heavily-manual-computation method became unnecessary. You could again draw like you used to on the drawing board - i.e. you "mark" a piece of the page to be at 1:50 (you simply created a viewport and set its zoom factor to 1:50) and another at 1:10 (same way). Then you knew that whatever is drawn, when it's shown through the 1st viewport it will be at 1:50, if that same thing is shown through the 2nd viewport it's at 1:10. You don't need to fiddle with it at all, you don't even need to tell ACad again at what scale - as if your ruler has become "smart", it knows what scale goes where and when you're drawing in that spot it automatically only displays the relevant scale (not even cluttering its face with the other scales). That description is best proven if you draw inside the viewports. But the effect is the same if you draw on the Model tab, but have your TB & VP's on the PS tabs. It's just that then you draw absolutely everything at 1:1 scale - the VP's govern the final hard-copy's scale(s).

In both the R10 and before (i.e. Ms only) method as well as the R11 (and later - up to 2007 or rather R21) method you had to still calculate stuff so your text sizes were correct when you placed text in model space. You could place text / dims in PS instead, thus not having to adjust for the final scale - but then you had to ensure that it always aligned with the line-work inside the VP. Since 2008 (R22) the annotative scales provided another way of getting text, dims, blocks (e.g. reference tags) and hatching to work in MS without a whole load of calculations, duplication and layers to make it work properly.

So if he's adamant on drawing in MS only, then he should just go back to the 1988 R10 on DOS - if he's willing to work only in MS, then none of the other enhancements since PS would be of any use to him. If he's willing to go PS, yet has some weird concept that the paper printed out of the plotter needs to show the contractor the fact that this was drawn using PS ... that thought needs to be hammered out of him with a stupid-stick.

Actually I'd go as far as to say: "Using paper space (the correct way) is much more analogous to how a draftsman drew on a drawing board than the pre-R11 method of only Model Space."

 

So if he's adamant on drawing in MS only, .....

Bottom line - whether paper space is used or not the printed drawing view scale is the ratio of the size of an entity on the printed sheet to the real world size. There can be no other logical explanation or argument. How you got there, drawing board, modelspace only, modelspace/paperspace, all of that is irrelevant. It is what it is.

Edit: I just went back to the original OP's problem description to try to figure out how the "engineer" will, (and that is WILL) try to argue, and it is easy enough to figure out and easy enough to understand why his logic is absolutely ridiculous for someone with the title, engineer. A complete mis-understanding of the purpose of engineering drawings.

Exactly! I just had some itchy fingers because of some people asking me why PS is needed at all! It was either hammering the keyboard or them ... this way I stay out of jail

The engineer must have skipped the required Drafting 101 or AutoCAD 101 class to go smoke some weed. It's the only logical explanation.

Thanks again guys. Unfortunately we are now issuing all drawings with 1:1 in the title blocks. It's out of my hands

I'd love to show Him this thread but He might not find it enjoyable reading :wink:

We will get feedback from the client and hopefully it is something they will pick up on, then I can bathe in my own smugness for a while.

In whatever protocol it says that that is the Right Way To Do It - make sure you have your name down as Disagrees.

You should have on the drawing a note to qualify that it is Paper Space scaling instead of View port scaling.

Even I, who do not use Paper Space, can see the daftness in this Engineer's thinking (and yes, I am an Engineer)

Engineers are the hardest minds to prove wrong - no matter what kind of evidence they have will not set them off course. Just humor him and tell him he is right and do it your way - which is the right way.

Plus, if the plot scale was 1:1 on a map, well you wouldn't have that much space to show things. People will give you a weird look for presenting them a titleblock with just a single, solitary line in it.

Engineers are the hardest minds to prove wrong.

How right you are.

Just humor him and tell him he is right and do it your way - which is the right way.

I wish I could but all drawings are issued through Him.

All printed drawings are used on site with a scale ruler. Ask him for a 1:1 scale ruler for use with his drawings.

You may be able to build a molehill out of a mountain.

Many of the older companies who think Autocad is simply a computerized drafting board struggle with this very issue. If you've read any of my earlier posts, you've heard me refer to the dinosaur curtainwall company I worked for. They had the same sort of problem. When they made the switch to cad from manual drafting they carried over the same methods. Certain details were hand drawn at half scale, therefore were drawn at half scale in cad. Others were 3/8 scale and so forth. That was ok till some of the older guys left (retired, got bought out, etc) and the new people taking thier place was unaware of this anomoly. You go get one of these 3/8 scale models and paste it into your 1/2 scale revision, unaware that they weren't the same and 1:1, and all sorts of stuff got screwed up. There was much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth till finally someone with some grasp discovered that you could indeed draw at 1:1, and then plot it at any scale you wished and everything would be ok. Some of the older guys were worried that doing that would certainly bring about the apocalypse, but fortunately, it did not.

Your stubborn engineer may be thinking along those old manual drafting lines. If you draw it 1:1, you have to label it 1:1, never mind that you may be looking at it through a viewport scaled at 1:50 or whatever. He does not understand (or does not wish to understand) how paper space works. You might try suggesting this...add on the titleblock "CAD MODEL 1:1 VIEWPORT SCALE 1:XX" That would leave no doubt on anyone's mind (well, at least those willing to wrap thier brains around how viewports scaling works).