Jump to content

Need help to develop or Draw FMB Sketch


Recommended Posts

Hi, I have only source to draw this drawing in autocad is LENGTH.

 

I don't know about angle and diagonal measurement.

 

Some one please guide me to draw this FMB Sketch [ FIELD MEASUREMENT BOOK ]

 

THANKS.........

FMB Sketch.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how you could accurately draw the property map without either angles or bearings. The key word is accurately. However, if you scan the image as a PDF then use the PDFATTACH command you can bring it into AutoCAD and trace over it. You'll also have to use the Scale command with the Reference option to get it as close to accurate as you can based on a distance of one of the longer lot lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people here will help you with how to draw it. Very few will do your work for you.

 

If you need more guidance than ReMark has already given you, we will need a better description of what you are getting. Uploading the .dwg file (and the image) will get you a fast and accurate answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies, the LOL icon is not supposed to be up there, and I cannot delete it.

 

Well, you have to have the drawing in CAD to get the area, right? By the way, mentioning your need for the area up front would have been helpful.

 

Explaining the purpose of the exercise, and possibly some of your ideas on how to approach it would also help.

 

I suggest drawing a closed polyline around each lot, to get the individual areas, and another closed polyline around the whole group, then AREA as many of the polylines as you need to.

 

The post above by hakmawongzi (thank you ctrl+c/ctrl+v;) ) has one good method for finding an intersection point using the distances as radii. Yet, without ANY angles (bearings) it would be impossible to draw this plan without tracing over at least part of it. You can combine both methods to make a very good go at it. Use the radii + two lengths method as you trace. You will be surprised how accurate the outcome will be. I bet it will be even more accurate than the original.

 

If you have trouble with some of the intersections not meeting quite like the original as you use the two circle method, it only means the other ends of the lines (center of circles) are not drawn very accurately on the original. It may take some shifting and fussing around.

 

There is a way to get reasonably accurate bearings, if you need them, from your CAD result, assuming that North is at the top of the drawing, simply by measuring the angles of the lines from horizontal and vertical temporary lines. North should be at paper top, it is professional convention for it to be so. Since there is no North Arrow visible on the drawing, you don't even know for sure that North is at the top of the page, However, the right-of-way at the bottom of the page is labeled East-West, so it is a good bet that North is straight up to the top of the page. Now, once you have the drawing scanned, attached and scaled to full size, use the drawing border line as your East West base line in order to get it squared up. If it does not happen to be quite perfectly horizontal, draw a perfectly horizontal line just below it, and trace another line right on top of it, measure the angle difference with two decimal precision, and rotate the attachment that much.

Edited by Dana W
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks u all for such guide and response. Now i upload my working file read it please......
In the area drawings, the angle in the Southeast corner is different by 1 deg. The drawing on the left has a corner angle of 73 deg, and the drawing on the right has the same corner at 74 deg. This can only be explained by one or more of your lines having a length error by an amount that is outside the precision range of your primary units. I did notice that a couple of your corners in the right hand drawing don't land precisely on your circles, another indicator of a very small error in the length of the lines. More than four decimal places may show the error. These sorts of errors happen because AutoCad will allow you to snap a line off of the object snap even though you think it is spot on. Often your (our) clicks occur just as AutoCad releases the object snap lock due to a small movement of the mouse. I keep object snap tracking turned on so I can see the tracking vector lines start to whirl around while my hand is trying to get on the snap marker. The off angle (whirling) tracking vector lines tell me I have not quite hit the marker, and have not achieved the snap lock-on.

 

Your difference in area is also incredibly small, so I think I have found the cause.

 

I always draw and dimension using at least one more. sometimes two levels of precision more than is required. That way, I can see minute errors almost as I create them. My dimensions show them right away. Then, once the drawing is done, I change the precision level of my primary units back to what the client expects to see. My clients are the guys in our cabinet shop. They laugh at me if they see 1/16" on the drawings.

 

As far as the other drawing for the example photo posted above, the way to get really close is still scan to pdf, attach, scale, and trace. You have no angle data to work with so a tracing will get you a starting point.

 

You cannot do the entire drawing using the two circles and radius lines method. As you have discovered, the starting corner is the most impossible angle to establish. Wait, I just saw a point to start with. Lot 476/2, the Northeast corner is almost certain to be exactly 90 deg. and the property lines almost certainly run E/W and N/S. I would simply draw those two lines, and then "Circle & radius the other sides of the lot in, then you have a start. Without the bearing angles that is the best it is ever going to get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your DWG where the area is concern, the line on the left is not exactly vertical (Even if you dimangular the two lines it will say 90). Turn on Ortho mode before you draw any straight line and it will come up exactly the same as the original.

 

Ortho ON

top line first, then left line,

Ortho OFF

then using the two circle method to finish with the right and bottom line.

 

I dunno what they teach in school but I always find grid display very distracting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi, again need help

 

i can't exactly place my poly line on point which is two circle intersecting point....please refer this image.

 

i don't know it may solve my snap setting or by other mtd. some one please guide me.....

 

and one more question is any lsp for pick point any where exactly on circle....

zoom in.jpg

zoom out.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...