Jump to content

Updated TXT2MTXT not doing what I want


Rooster

Recommended Posts

Since AutoCAD recently brought the TXT2MTXT command from Express Tools into main AutoCAD, and updated/improved it in the process, I can't get it to consistently do what I want.

 

1. Converted MTEXT justification seems very random. I have tree text on my drawing consisting of three separate elements of single-line text which I combine using TXT2MTXT. Most of the time the MTEXT justification is TopLeft (what I want), but I'm also getting some MTEXT (within the same drawing) with TopCentre and also TopRight justification. I am guessing that this is governed by the position of the first/top bit of text in relation to the others, but would be nice to default to TopLeft as the old command did. I now have to add in another step by selecting all and changing justification in Properties - not a big issue, but something I didn't have to do previously.

 

2. Line spacing of the MTEXT is also pretty random. I want it to default to 1, but again it varies widely within the drawing. I did look for and find a default setting somewhere for linespacing, but this didn't seem to make a difference. The Settings under TXT2MTXT don't give me too many options, and although I can force uniform linespacing, I can't define what that spacing is. Again, I'm having to add in another process afterwards by selecting all and changing the linespace value.

 

3. I can see the use of being able to combine existing bits of MTEXT with other MTEXT or single-line text with the new command, but for my workflow the way the old command worked was better - if I have a lot of trees all close together, obviously there is a lot of text there and being able to select 3 bits of single-line text to combine by using a crossing box without worrying that I may also be picking already-combined MTEXT was a quick way to work. Now I have to take much more care picking the exact 3 bits of text I want because otherwise it's combining them with text that I don't want it to. This has slowed me down a lot.

 

So I guess I'm asking is whether there are any settings I should be looking at for governing MTEXT justification and linespacing, and whether there are any Lisps knocking around that did what the old TXT2MTXT did (ie. ignored existing MTEXT).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Rooster

    17

  • ronjonp

    7

  • ReMark

    4

  • tombu

    3

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Really appreciate the suggestion, Tombu. I am already familiar with LeeMac's lisp. The only reason I don't use it in this instance is that text has to be selected individually rather than by crossing box

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks again, Tombu. I have certainly trawled through Google myself, but yet to find anything suitable. Of the three you listed, one requires that you select each bit of text individually, and the other two just convert text to mtext without combining. I'll keep looking...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Express Tools is pretty much a collection of LISPs, you should be able to locate the TXT2MTXT from the Express tools somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, SLW210 - the Express Tools TXT2MTXT is what I've been using. But AutoCAD recently updated this, making it 'cleverer' - now it's too clever for what I need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope so. I did try the TXT2MTXT tool via the Express Tools menu, but it does the same as the updated version. I've searched for older versions of the command, but no luck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope so. I did try the TXT2MTXT tool via the Express Tools menu, but it does the same as the updated version. I've searched for older versions of the command, but no luck

 

In your travels did you find and check out the TXT2MTXT lisp routine from DotSoft?

 

So you are 100% sure that the "old" TXT2MTXT (pre-2017 version) did exactly as you described in your first post (item #3)? What version of AutoCAD were you previously running?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks ReMark - I was using old TXT2MTXT in AC2016 and back as far as AC2010ish, probably. It was also working as I described with AC2017 until it got updated.

 

I do have the DotSoft version - it's a sort of compromise between the old and new versions of TXT2MTXT as there are a couple of other steps involved in the command that I'd rather not have to confirm each time. But a slight improvement, nonetheless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I checked the Express folder on a computer here that is running AutoCAD 2013. TXT2MTXT was not listed. Could it have been named differently or was it located in a different folder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No reason why it should be named anything other than txt2mtxt.lsp or stored in any other folder that I can think of...

 

Unfortunately, I don't have any older versions of AC on my current PC to refer back to.

 

 

Thanks for taking the time to look, though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The File in Express tools for TXT2MTXT is leaderex.arx.

 

What options do you have selected in the TXT2MTXT options? (Just Right-Click while in the command to bring up options).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have:

-Combine into a single mtext object (ticked)

-Text ordering - sort top-down selected

-Word-wrap (unticked)

-Force uniform line spacing (ticked)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have:

-Combine into a single mtext object (ticked)

-Text ordering - sort top-down selected

-Word-wrap (unticked)

-Force uniform line spacing (ticked)

 

Did my code work for you (from the link)? Sounds like a perfect fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ron - yes, seems to be just what I needed. In fact, an improvement on my previous workflow as this combines several groups of single-line text into mtext with one crossing selection, rather than picking each group individually. In the end, I'm glad AutoCAD messed with the TXT2MTXT command as it forced me to search for an alternative. Thanks for posting it!

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...