So, what are compelling reasons to scale a titleblock in PS? I prefer the
1:1 TB because it's consistent across all drawings regardless of scale, LTs
plot correctly, and the AutoCAD VP scales on the VP Toolbar are setup for a
TB inserted at 1:1. I also (with a few specific exceptions) don't think text
should be placed in PS, it belongs in MS with the geometry. I'm not
concerned about LTs appearing correctly in MS because I can change the
LTSCALE myself or create a macro that does it for me. Setting LTSCALE for a
scaled titleblock with multiple VP scales just seems like a hassle. Not to
mention, how do you set the VP scale of a detail VP when the main VP is set
to 1:1 because of the scaled TB?
Steve
Paul Furman
wrote in message
news:3A5E2334.78A17818@edgehill.net...
> Yes, that's the one exception. For that situation though there is no need
for
> paperspace at all so I just rename the R2000 layout to "NOT-USED". It's a
great
> way to go (sometimes).
>
> The ltscale stuff can be a nightmare to keep straight, particularly where
there
> are different scaled viewports. I have some customization to change
everything
> when toggling in & out of paperspace but it still goes awry sometimes,
> especially if you forget to use it & just click the model or paper tab.
>
> If anyone knows of a good utility for this that works with metric,
engineering &
> architectural units, I'd be real interested.
>
> jd drafter wrote:
>
> > actually,
> >
> > ... a base map, xrefed into a separate file for each sheet and the base
was
> > xclipped in each file, then they had the borders in paper. it took a bit
to
> > figure out that the formats in paper were really at 1"=40', they were
> > 960'x1440'. and there were interesting things about the advantages of
that.
> > like not having to switch lt scales, or worry about text sizes... there
were
> > other reasons but its been to long. if you think about it to long it
starts to
> > make sense in a strange strange way.
>