Engineering Scales are out of wack!

[Spiderguy]

Hey guys - I have a slight problem!

 

I am using AutoCAD 2011. I am experiencing a problem with my scale being off for text, dimensions, inserting scalable blocks, xrefs, etc...

 

The problem is that when inserting, or creating text (or any of the above) in architectural scales everything is fine, however, when the scale is changed to an engineering scale, everything comes in at 1/12 the scale it is supposed to be - i.e. - when I create text it has to be scaled up by 12, it's like AutoCAD is just reading the 200 scale and not multiplying by the scaler of 2400.

 

I hope that is clear enough to explain the problem!

 

Thanks, for any help

[Spiderguy]

I have found a couple of things that need to be changed, but it looks like there is something wrong with the settings in the annotation scales, it looks as though the units are set to 1:200 is 1=200 when it should be 1=2400. I was wondering if this is a global problem with autocad or is it something wrong with our annotation settings?

[ReMark]

There's nothing wrong with the scale 1:200...it's metric.

[Spiderguy]

well, that just blows! but it now makes sense! we will have to fix that!

[ReMark]

Fix it by creating your own scale list set up for the most commonly used engineering scales and blow the rest away.

[Spiderguy]

Oh, that would be nice to do, however, our systems are locked by our CAD Administrator & the Tech people, not that that is a bad thing, it keeps I.D.10T errors from happening (along with a host of other issues, and keeps everyone working on the same system), the problem is that the powers that be and myself clank heads every now and then because I am really pro-active in finding fixes myself and not waiting on them to do so, I dont do well with office politics, just not the kind of stuff I get into, on purpose.....

[ReMark]

Put it to IT in terms they will understand. The company can pay you to be productive or they can pay you to sit around and wait. Which do they think the CEO would be in favor of?

[dbroada]

Put it to IT in terms they will understand. The company can pay you to be productive or they can pay you to sit around and wait. Which do they think the CEO would be in favor of?

sit around and wait seems to be flavour of the month here.

[ReMark]

I was very fortunate when I was hired at my present job in that the V.P. of Engineering insisted I have complete autonomy over the computer I wanted and the software I needed. IT only loads MS Office and the anti-virus program and that's it. I handle everything else. My computer is the only one in the company that IT does not spec and order. I get to do that too. I can customize AutoCAD to my heart's content and IT can say squat about it either. I am responsible for downloading and installing all updates as well.

[dbroada]

we are not even allowed to unplug a dead mouse without informing IT. Same if the printer runs out of toner OR!!!! runs out of paper. Possibly a sensible approach except that our IT department is in the Netherlands and in a (slightly) different time zone to us. We can go to their superiors if they are not available but the superiors are in Milwaukee. Needless to say, we don't comply.

 

Before I took most of last year off sick the guy next to me was waiting for his new machine with AutoCAD Electrical to be finished. It is still waiting.

[SLW210]

Put it to IT in terms they will understand. The company can pay you to be productive or they can pay you to sit around and wait. Which do they think the CEO would be in favor of?

 

Considering most IT spend the majority of time sitting around, they probably think the CEO has no problem paying everyone to sit around.

[Spiderguy]

it's not as bad as dbroada here, but not as lax as ReMark, the it guys take care of everything but AutoCAD, the CAD Administrator is responsible for AutoCAD and Revit, and he is busy trying to handle issues there and with systems that our company has had set-up for decades - they no longer mesh well with AutoCAD. There are reasons, that I agree with, as to why these blocks are put there. They have to do with people being jealous over the person who was deignated to be the CAD Admin. Lots of trouble from this person, he is no longer here, but, there are friends of his here that still make it dificult for the CAD Admin. Unfortunate, but that's office politics for ya, hate them! Because of those blocks, I step on the CAD Admin.'s toes often and I really don't like that, but I really like "fixing" problems I find, I guess he lumps me in with those other people - not my intentions at all - oh well.

 

Thanks for all of your help - I set those changes up on the DWG I am working on, and am sending him an email now.

[Spiderguy]

Our IT guys definately do not just sit around, we have 2 guys with 5 office locations, and around 125 employees - we are currently in the process of converting all of the older paper files into digital ones - so, they are staying busy. Not intended to be harsh towards anyone here, but I have a lot of respect for those guys - I used to handle that job for my former company of about 10 computers and 1 server - I can imagine how much has to be done with all they have!

[SLW210]

If you are scaling by 1/12, then that is 1 foot =12 inches. When using architectural scales will often represent 1 AutoCAD unit = 1 inch and when using Engineering scales often 1 AutoCAD unit = 1'-0".

 

I run into that often when inserting buildings drawn with 1 = 1" into layouts that are drawn 1 = 1'-0".

[RobDraw]

If you are scaling by 1/12, then that is 1 foot =12 inches. When using architectural scales will often represent 1 AutoCAD unit = 1 inch and when using Engineering scales often 1 AutoCAD unit = 1'-0".

 

I run into that often when inserting buildings drawn with 1 = 1" into layouts that are drawn 1 = 1'-0".

 

Good answer SLW210.

[Spiderguy]

yes -here is where the problem comes from - we have a xref tool set-up that reads the scale of the dwg, [the scale of the drawing sets up the layers for text, dimensions, etc... and gives them a number at the end - the items that are inserted on these layers are blocks etc. and are inserted based on the scale of the drawing (these need to be scaled up)] and applys the correct scaler to it based on the number at the end of the layers (these need to be scaled down) - all of these are base on the formula you gave above. When these are inserted into a carrier sheet that is full scale it does the math for you - what was going on is we were using the "metric" scales which use the multiplyer of the of the scale not the "true" multipliers: i.e. - 1:20 is 20x or 1/20x not 1"=20' is 240x or 1/240x. I knew what was going on, just didn't understand why it was doing it - ReMark set me in the right direction when he told me that the 1:20 is not for Engineering scales but for metric. My CAD Admin. has to go in and set-up the Engineering scales.

 

Thanks for all of the help!

[ReMark]

I see no reason why you cannot create/edit your own scale list.

[Spiderguy]

I got evil looks for having my own template file! I couldn't imagine what would be said if I did that! I'm in the dog house enough, I need to keep my head down - for a while, then when my past atrocities are forgoten, then I can start messing with the "man" again! bwahaha!

[SLW210]

I still fail to see the connection between scaling inserted objects 1/12 and the scale list being the same problem.

 

Technically 1:20 simply means 1 paper unit = 20 drawing units. That can be 1" = 20" or 1' = 20' or 1mm = 20mm or 1M = 20M, etc., etc. and so forth. Commonly (and correctly) 1:20 is used on Metric drawings. Most Imperial drawings are either Architectural Scale ?" = 1'-0" (1" = 1'-0") or Engineering Scale (for Civil drawings) 1" = ?' (1" = 100'). I know when I was a board drafter these were hard and fast rules, you didn't use Archi scale on a Civil and you didn't use Eng on a detail etc. Maybe things are a little looser with CAD, because I have seen a lot more scaling to what fits the paper. IMHO it should be done correctly, in particular by the drafters.

 

By your questions I would say you are in the Civil field. I fail to see why it would be so hard to convince the powers that be to use the appropriate scales in that case. Even if Architectural I can't see why they would think 1:20, 1:200 etc. to be an appropriate scale. Of course that being said, I have seen engineers (Mechanical) try to scale drawings by just scaling them to fit within the paper and title block with no regards to any set scaling convention.

[ReMark]

I got evil looks for having my own template file! I couldn't imagine what would be said if I did that! I'm in the dog house enough, I need to keep my head down - for a while, then when my past atrocities are forgoten, then I can start messing with the "man" again! bwahaha!

You have already gone rogue so what's the problem? The SCALELISTEDIT command is right there at your fingertips. Anything that helps you do your job better and/or faster is an improvement. To hell with the rest of them.