CTB issues

OK, this is gonna take a lot of words.

 

1) It appears the "grey" lines are TrueColors such as 147,149,152 & 99,100,102 which as described in the Knowledgebase article in my 1st post cannot be controlled via .ctb. If you want to control an object's display with the CTB, you have to assign the objects color 1 through 255 (Index colors), with the "grey's" being 8,9, 250-255. You can still however plot them any color you choose for by example mapping Color 8 to 147,149,152

It looks like you were on the right track because color 8,9, 250-255 do have custom lineweights assigned in your CTB, but none of the objects in your drawing are using those colors. "Railing" layer is using color252, but the objects on "Railings" all have color properties that are true color, which defeats the CTB.

 

2) Objects both inside and outside your blocks have properties overrides. First of all, using object property overrides is a bad idea. Even a road sign, such as a StopSign which is always "red" in the real world should never be assigned the color "red" because when plotting, sometimes it's might just be background information in the drawing so while you want to show it, you don't want it to be "red". When you assign colors overrides (even index colors) or linetype overrides, or lineweight overrides to individual objects instead of allowing the Layer settings control the display of the object, you lose control over how the object can be displayed and how it can be plotted. Doubly bad when the property overrides are inside of a block because now when you want to change the way objects are displayed or plotted, you have to edit the block. If an object is different enough to be displayed differently from other similar objects, then it deserves it's own layer, so IMO you should have two layers for Market Units, one for the "red" objects, and one for the "grey" objects.

 

3) When you modify a ctb, you should give it a custom name that indicates what it's used for. The attached "acad.ctb" is highly customized and even using "Black" ink for colors 1 -6 which is fine, but what happens when you want to plot a drawing using the drawings original colors? At some point, you're probably gonna want the original unmodified acad.ctb back.

 

To summarize, if you just go into your drawing and change all the objects using color TrueColor 147,149,152 to Color8 (for example), then all those objects will plot according to the CTB's settings for Color8... repeat for TrueColor 99,100,102, and all the other TrueColor objects. Better yet, create a new layer for all the "grey" objects and set their color back to "ByLayer" and then use the Layer settings to control their color, lineweight, linetype because the CTB will read the layer color and plot according to the CTB settings.

Edited January 12, 2015 by nestly

I wonder if maybe Autodesk will ever consider removing the need for CTB/STB files in AutoCAD altogether? I think that would be the best way to solve everyone's problem. These dependent plot files are a joke nowadays.

These dependent plot files are a joke nowadays.

 

You must mean the use of them is a joke because there is nothing funny about those files. Insulting peoples workflow is not the way to make a point. In AutoCAD, I use .ctb's exclusively. Hopefully, if and when they go away, I won't be using AC anymore. They probably won't remove them anywhere in the near future. The removal would cause a ton of issues and wasted time setting up legacy drawings to plot in newer versions.

While I rarely use CTB myself, (I prefer VP Overrides) I can't ever see a need not to be able to control the output. What's the alternative when you have different disciplines working from the same plan. Not everyone wants the same features of a drawing screened/faded.

I'm not insulting a person's workflow, I'm stating there's not a need for a file-dependent color & output manager. This may have been a need back in the earlier days of computers, plotters and operating system's abilities in color management (I'm thinking early-mid 1980's), but not anymore. Everything can be handled directly from the Layer Manager. So, AutoCAD can keep the 255 palette, as well as True Color. This way the 255 palette gives you Grays from 8,9 and 250-255, and all the options you need for things like Lineweight, Linetype, etc. My point is, merge whatever is left in the CTB/STB files into the Layer Manager so all options are still available and get rid of the CTB/STB files altogether. Why AutoCAD insists on having to maintain two sets of color/output settings baffles me. Let the Layer Manager be the end-all be-all.

 

That's all I'm saying.

 

*EDIT*

PS: Using the Layer Manager and only the Layer Manager is better anyways. It creates a WYSIWYG environment for output. With the use of CTB/STB files, the colors and lineweights/linetypes on your screen may not be what actually plots, adding another level of quality control that needs to be dealt with. Simplifying it would be the best for everyone instead of trying to hang on to old pen plotter needs of the past.

*EDIT*

PS: Using the Layer Manager and only the Layer Manager is better anyways. It creates a WYSIWYG environment for output. With the use of CTB/STB files, the colors and lineweights/linetypes on your screen may not be what actually plots, adding another level of quality control that needs to be dealt with.

 

Yeah, except that's not correct. The plotstyle can be applied to Model or Layout so it's just as WYSIWYG as Layers and/or VP overrides.

 

I'm still wondering what your solution is for feature screening. ie contour lines where a certain number of sheets need the contours to be promenent, where and a certain number of sheets need the contours dimmed so they're just backround information. Editing all the contour layers for each sheet is a lot more work than applying a ctb that screens all the contours.

I'm still wondering what your solution is for feature screening. ie contour lines where a certain number of sheets need the contours to be promenent, where and a certain number of sheets need the contours dimmed so they're just backround information. Editing all the contour layers for each sheet is a lot more work than applying a ctb that screens all the contours.

 

Layer States?

Yeah, except that's not correct. The plotstyle can be applied to Model or Layout so it's just as WYSIWYG as Layers and/or VP overrides.

It's not correct with the current procedure in place. My statement was referring to no dependent color files, so it's not correct but my point was hypothetical. If you get into the mindset to forget CTB/STB files then all you're left is override options, which is perfectly fine.

 

I'm still wondering what your solution is for feature screening. ie contour lines where a certain number of sheets need the contours to be promenent, where and a certain number of sheets need the contours dimmed so they're just backround information. Editing all the contour layers for each sheet is a lot more work than applying a ctb that screens all the contours.

How does CTB/STB relate to this?

 

Everything you can set in a Layer would be available to set for each object, too. But this is a downfall of LAYER based design rather than OBJECT based design. Layer Isolate would be an easy way to prep the View, and you can Match Properties Viewports to other Layouts. It'd be nice if you could Match Properties from one file to another, so you can manage Viewports and their Overrides. This would be very similar to the View Templates feature of Revit, but in AutoCAD it would be a Viewport Template. Would definitely be nice to have in AutoCAD.

Layer States?

Actually Layer States could work as a Viewport Template. Would still need some updating though. Good tip.

How does CTB/STB relate to this?

 

Because with CTB, if you can change the color, lineweight, linetype, screening etc of contour lines for example by simply modifying the ctb and plotting/re-plotting. If you have 50 Layouts/sheets with at least that many viewports, it's not so easy to make sure all the layouts/viewports get updated with the new color/lineweight/linetype/etc

Because with CTB, if you can change the color, lineweight, linetype, screening etc of contour lines for example by simply modifying the ctb and plotting/re-plotting. If you have 50 Layouts/sheets with at least that many viewports, it's not so easy to make sure all the layouts/viewports get updated with the new color/lineweight/linetype/etc

Okay, BUT.... a one man show this works just fine because he/she is the only person dealing with the CTB/STB files. Now insert this exact response into a normal networked environment and it breaks down. Usually, CTB's are locked in at companies, and if you want to use a different one you have to change the support directory (until recent versions) and work locally, which disconnects this file with others.

 

Trust me nestly, you won't win this one. CTB/STB files are ancient and served a purpose that dates back to the 1980's, they need to go away, and Autodesk needs to add some type of template system for Viewports.

There are a lot of things still in use today that were meant for different circumstances. That doesn't mean they need to go away. Just because they seem outdated to you, doesn't mean that they can't be a valuable tool for others. You can't win this either because your elitist attitude blinds you to any reason why it could be smart to use old technology.

 

I saw a clip from one of those daytime court shows that had a man that kept track of his business accounting by hand in a ledger. The judge admired and commended him for this. During his exit interview he was asked why he doesn't use a computer. He dropped his brief case and said something like, "That's what happens when my computer crashes. I fix it by doing this." He picked the briefcase back up and walked away.

It's not even about being an elitist, it's about being stuck three decades behind and believing things don't need to be improved or retired. I mean, just think about it. First ask yourself how and why CTB files originated. Now ask yourself does the original intent of this technology apply today. Answering those two questions will then beg the third question: Can AutoCAD survive without CTB files? The answer is yes, with minor adjustments in the interface. Just push everything to the Layer Manager, and create some form of template system for Viewports. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

 

People think CTB files are still relevant because it's all they know.

You're not saying anything that you haven't said before and I still disagree. I'd hate to hear what you have to say about old people that still have a lot to contribute but are not using today's methods/tools.

Rob, why would you honestly believe that I'd judge someone's contributions to a workplace based on their age alone? With age comes something you cannot gain without time: experience. With this comes mentorship, something I cherish dearly. Why would you be so judgmental about me being judgmental?

 

Goodness gracious man sometimes your pre-existing bias towards me just baffles me to no end.

Because you speak in absolutes that completely ignore certain relevant facets which makes you look ignorant. You greatly reduce the quality of any good advice you have by expressing such a narrow view of things. My way or the highway not only doesn't work for me, it annoys the carp out of me.

Yeah... I'm done debating it, I just wish TZ could keep his nose out of topics where he doesn't intend to add anything to the discussion other than turn it into "my software, my logic, my version, etc is better than yours, so you (everyone, including Autodesk) need to do what I'm doing"

You're done debating it because there's nothing to debate, nestly. Maybe it finally "clicked" for you? And it's not "my" logic, it's the logic of the industry who are forced to believe archaic tools are still relevant. This reminds me of the hatred towards Internet Explorer 6 and 7 among web developers for almost a decade. Microsoft was solely responsible for the stagnant web and forced extra hours onto programmers and generated tons of lost money because anything they developed they had to come in later and "downgrade" their development to half-@$$ work with ancient browser support. Our industry can't move forward because some people still think CTB files are relevant.

 

People on this forum that have a problem with the logic of my industry don't have a problem with me personally, they have a problem with lack of knowledge.

 

*EDIT*

And I do apologize for the first post in the thread. I do see nestly's point in not "adding" anything. Yes it was just an opinion but I do see many AutoCAD-only users vent many issues with AutoCAD on here so I feel like sometimes I'm jumping in with them. I think I get singled out more because I've moved on from AutoCAD, among other things.

...and that puts the nail in the coffin. Twisting peoples words just to boost yourself, not good.