Making blocks 'opaque' - so what's behind it cannot be seen.

[Barneel]

Hi AC pros!

 

I'm hoping there is better way of doing what I have been doing to the drawing below - it would save me a lot of time.

 

What I'm aiming to do is make my blocks (the components in pink) opaque, so that the DIN rail (yellow) which the components are mounted on cannot be seen. Preferably without using the hatch tool because it gets a bit messy and makes the computer run slowly, unless there's a sneaky feature of it I'm not aware of.

 

What I've been doing so far is just trimming the DIN rail to the right length, but because I very often have to alter the position, add or remove components I have to replace the DIN rail each time.

 

Just wondering if you guys have any neat tricks to help me out!

 

[dbroada]

it is frowned upon bt many here but I use a wipeout in my terminal blocks.

 

There are several problems that I know of when using wipeouts...

 

Too many will slow the drawing down and it is a pain constantly revising the draw order to get the drawing looking right, although you can leave this 'till last.

 

With some print drivers they plot solid black - test all your printers before putting too many wipeouts on the page.

 

A bit tricky (but not impossible) to get them to work with dynamic blocks.

 

for example....

 

TG-WDK2_5.dwg

[Barneel]

Wipeout is a neat feature for what I'm trying to, thanks! Certainly faster than trimming down the rail and redrawing them. I'll see how it goes for slowing my computer down. Doesn't seem to be plotting the wipeout either.

 

Thanks fellow Sussexian..

[dbroada]

Thanks fellow Sussexian..

grew up and work in Sussex, born & live in Surrey.

 

Yes, wipe outs make terminal rails a lot easier! I also have a dynamic block for my rails but I don't show the mounting holes. I haven't tried applying wipeouts to any Electrical "intelligent" blocks but since they do the trimming for you on insertion that is largely irrelevant.

[RobDraw]

A couple of things to watch for with wipeouts:

If you ever plot to PDF, you will probably run into problems with wipeouts plotting as a black blob.

Draw order may get messed up.

[Barneel]

Thanks for the heads up Haven't noticed any problems plotting to print/pdf yet

[Organic]

I would absolutely avoid wipeouts. Use a colour 255 hatch instead, even if it slows down your computer a bit.

[mikekmx]

I would absolutely avoid wipeouts. Use a colour 255 hatch instead, even if it slows down your computer a bit.

 

i was just about to say that about wipeouts. in my experience they can cause some erratic behaviour and some plotters get very confused about them. i used to do fire layouts with symbols...just used to have a solid hatch in the block (underneath all the other block geometry) colour 255,255,255

 

can be tricky getting the silod hatch to permanently stay under the other stuff tho unless when creating the block it is the first item in that block to be drawn

[SLW210]

The OP already stated he did not like using the Hatch Tool for this. Indeed, Hatches have drawbacks as well.

 

All my years on AutoCAD using wipeouts, I never had a single problem plotting them. To PDF or printers/plotters.

 

I do prefer solid hatch only when using circles, arcs etc., you have to use workarounds for wipeouts and arcs.

 

Overall, wipeouts are much better unless you just can't get them plotted, which is just learning to get your plotter set up properly.

[RobDraw]

Is it really a matter of proper set-up when the results are not consistent? I don't think so. Sometimes they are just buggy.

 

Whenever I have trouble with them, it is only one or a few drawings out of tens or hundreds of sheets that will have the notorious black blobs.

[tzframpton]

Either way you look at it, there's no OOTB solution to the original poster's inquiry. Other than MTEXT Background Mask, AutoCAD does not have native Masking tools like some of the newer computer aided design applications available. So there are three options... Wipeouts, True Color 255,255,255 on a solid Hatch, or in your CTB/STB file use a color or named plot style of your choice and set it to 0% Screening then apply the correct CTB/STB property to a solid hatch.

 

Those are your three options, so try them all out and see which one best fits your needs. Personally, I use the True Color 255,255,255 option on a solid Hatch, which resides on a layer named "Mask" or something similar. I use Transparency to "hide" the Hatch, then use a Viewport override to reset the Transparency settings to the layer, so plotting remains consistent.

[Organic]

All my years on AutoCAD using wipeouts, I never had a single problem plotting them. To PDF or printers/plotters.

 

Until the day comes when the project is due to be delivered to the client and all the wipe-outs [in the hundreads] are suddenly printing black... once that happens you'd never use them again.

[tzframpton]

Until the day comes when the project is due to be delivered to the client and all the wipe-outs [in the hundreads] are suddenly printing black... once that happens you'd never use them again.

Agreed. Some people never have any issues. But the issue is simply too common to 100% promote the use of Wipeouts. Plus, solid hatches do not bloat the file. Wipeouts, being raster by nature, can get file size out of hand in a hurry. Plus x2, Wipeouts have independent FRAME options so unexpected results can happen for the original designer or future people receiving the file to use. It really throws people for a loop sometimes.

 

With Solid Hatch, all results are predictable and easily manageable, including file size.

[rkent]

Barneel - I never draw the slots in the DIN rail, it is not needed to get the idea across and it adds to the problem you are having. I just use a line for the top and a line for the bottom of the rail. A note can be added but for the intended audience it is clear enough.

[Barneel]

Barneel - I never draw the slots in the DIN rail, it is not needed to get the idea across and it adds to the problem you are having. I just use a line for the top and a line for the bottom of the rail. A note can be added but for the intended audience it is clear enough.

 

I agree completely rkent, unfortunately I only recently joined the company and this DIN rail block has already been applied to the set of standards with all current clients, some of which would probably be okay with the change, others would demand for it to be reverted - not to mention the other current CAD engineers who originally implemented the block still being around...

[rkent]

I agree completely rkent, unfortunately I only recently joined the company and this DIN rail block has already been applied to the set of standards with all current clients, some of which would probably be okay with the change, others would demand for it to be reverted - not to mention the other current CAD engineers who originally implemented the block still being around...

 

Well after you have been there a while and an opportunity arises to suggest cost cutting this would be one to bring up. Extra time is required to show the slots and extra lines and modify as the layout changes, and adds nothing to the understanding of what is needed to assemble the panel.

[RobDraw]

Sometimes, less is more.

[BIGAL]

My $0.05 a simple draw order fix for 2d dwgs is give the solid hatch a different z make it say 1 with rest of work at o level. This makes it always a on top. I have had problems with wipeouts, 2011 worked perfect same dwg in 2012 & 2013 stopped working ??

[Barneel]

I've been experimenting with it in ACE'14 for the past few days and had no problems so far. Plotting with various settings to print and to pdf, and tried looking it on different computers. Unfortunately I have no older versions of AC to take a look at the file.

 

I'll attach a sample file if anyone with alternate versions is interested in taking a peek

 

CT Block Wipeout.dwg