Matching old dimstyles to newmultileader style on old dwg files, can it be done?

[brianl]

I have recently, and reluctently, purchased LT2012 and have learned to hate it with an unbridled passion.  I have a client that uses Acad R14dwg still and when I open their dwg files the multileader style is set to some arbitrary "standard" instead of matching the existing dimstyle of "3-16 Letters" that the file was created with.  When editing old files it makes it silly to add a leader and have to create a new multileader style with every single dwg I open.  Can it be done once and never be done again for all subsequent dwg files regardless of when they were created?  Can it be 'matched' to an existing leader that was created years ago?

For that matter, why did Autodesk pull some dimension leaders OUT of the dimstyle options at all?

All dwg files are ONLY in model space, they never use layout or paper space, but that's another topic.

[Charles_Shade]

Multileaders did not exist in R14

Leader and Qleader are still available in your 2012 version and should function nearly the same.

You are dead on with "Standard" being arbitrary. Name everything, Layers Textstyles, DimStyles, MLeaders, etc. to anything but "Standard". My "Standard", your "Standard", their "Standard" are all something different but CAD can only read "Standard". See the delimma?

Design Center will let you drag elements between drawings if you desire.

If you need things to match to a certain style then create a Block with all these Parameters and drop it into each drawing. What you want will be there.

You have a lot of cleaning up to do it seems.

And possibly a lot of the program to learn too.

From whence did you come?

20 years of CAD and the program has changed.

[brianl]

Does Leader still use the same dimstyle settings as the old version where we can copy the way we used to it?  I have no interest in learning new commands to do the same thing, but even a harder way.  The files have a dimstyle in them called "3-16 Letters" and was created to keep from using the standard moniker.  It works, but with the multileader not bothering to look at anything else in an older version it seems to be more of a pain.  Can this be changed in a global setting instead of by drawing?

Is there some reason that this was broken so far out?  I would think it would have been better to all have been the same and then allow for multiple styles from the dimstyle command.

We used to create a block 20 years ago to do the same thing, insert to add styles and delete the block.  I'm shocked that Autodesk has not moved on from this method.

As for us.  We are a Solidworks company.  Acad is useful for the odd jobs and for some sales stuff, but for 100% of the engineering we use SW and would never dream of leaving it.  Possibly why the Acad seller didn't bother to answer a single question we had on the software, knowing that we would never upgrade or renew it was just not worth their time.  We moved all the engineers to Win7 64bit and were forced to buy new software and find that just getting around LT2012 is a nightmare.

[Charles_Shade]

Sorry that you feel that way. I have found LT 2012 to be stable and very capable for my needs.

On to your points:

A MULTILEADER is not a Leader at all in the way you are used to seeing it. Multi Leaders are far more functional than either of its predecessors. They are not wholly backward compatible so in your case I would not try to implement or use them. Don't use it if you do not want to.

Comparing an MLEADER to a LEADER is like comparing a line to a circle.

Type QLEADER and hit the down arrow. Do you just need these Settings?

Leader and Qleader use the last Current Textstyle I believe. Make sure what you want is Current.

Using blocks to accomplich ths is one method.

Template files are rpeferred  IMHO.

I believe, and will be corrected, but Full vesions fo CAD allow the Profiles you seek with Styles and all ready at the beginning. We do what we need here in the cheep seats.

Resellers don't want to sell LT - low margains I should think, likely not personal.