Autodesk Technology Managers Forum
Share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage with fellow CAD/BIM Managers.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

See Classifieds for Dotsoft tool

12 REPLIES 12
Reply
Message 1 of 13
Anonymous
323 Views, 12 Replies

See Classifieds for Dotsoft tool

PDF importing tool announced earlier today.

$60 - sounds more like...

The Price is Right! 🙂

I've already suggested it to my new firm.

--
Don Reichle
"The only thing worse
than training your staff,
and having them leave is -
not training your staff,
and having them stay."
Courtesy Graphics Solution Providers
----------------------------------------------------------
LDT-2K4
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.2GHz
XPPro 32bit SP2
1GB RAM
Nvidia GeForce FX 5200 128MB
WD 36GB Raptor
12 REPLIES 12
Message 2 of 13
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I've already suggested it to my new firm.

we'll have to check it out...8^)

jjd

"Don Reichle" wrote in message
news:5143871@discussion.autodesk.com...
PDF importing tool announced earlier today.

$60 - sounds more like...

The Price is Right! 🙂

I've already suggested it to my new firm.

--
Don Reichle
"The only thing worse
than training your staff,
and having them leave is -
not training your staff,
and having them stay."
Courtesy Graphics Solution Providers
----------------------------------------------------------
LDT-2K4
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.2GHz
XPPro 32bit SP2
1GB RAM
Nvidia GeForce FX 5200 128MB
WD 36GB Raptor
Message 3 of 13
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Don Reichle said the following on 4/14/2006 7:00 PM:
> PDF importing tool announced earlier today.
>
> $60 - sounds more like...
>
> The Price is Right! 🙂
>
> I've already suggested it to my new firm.
>

Suggestion: Go ahead and get ToolPac.
PDF Import is included. That along with the new Image Bind command makes
it worth it. 😉

--
R.K. McSwain
http://rkmcswain.blogspot.com
Message 4 of 13
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

whats image bind do?

--
Dave

"R.K. McSwain" wrote in message
news:5143990@discussion.autodesk.com...
Don Reichle said the following on 4/14/2006 7:00 PM:
> PDF importing tool announced earlier today.
>
> $60 - sounds more like...
>
> The Price is Right! 🙂
>
> I've already suggested it to my new firm.
>

Suggestion: Go ahead and get ToolPac.
PDF Import is included. That along with the new Image Bind command makes
it worth it. 😉

--
R.K. McSwain
http://rkmcswain.blogspot.com
Message 5 of 13
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

David Allen said the following on 4/17/2006 4:31 PM:
> whats image bind do?
>

http://www.dotsoft.com/toolpac.htm
Scroll down about 1/2 way to Image Tools, look just under there.

--
R.K. McSwain
http://rkmcswain.blogspot.com
Message 6 of 13
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

wow, what a trippy idea! Wonder how efficient that is...

R.K. McSwain
|>David Allen said the following on 4/17/2006 4:31 PM:
|>> whats image bind do?
|>>
|>
|>http://www.dotsoft.com/toolpac.htm
|>Scroll down about 1/2 way to Image Tools, look just under there.
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - athunsaker - com
Message 7 of 13
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:55:59 +0000, James Maeding
wrote:

>wow, what a trippy idea! Wonder how efficient that is...

I'd say, um, not.

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com
Message 8 of 13
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

WOW! Did one person create Toolpac?
"R.K. McSwain" wrote in message
news:5145513@discussion.autodesk.com...
David Allen said the following on 4/17/2006 4:31 PM:
> whats image bind do?
>

http://www.dotsoft.com/toolpac.htm
Scroll down about 1/2 way to Image Tools, look just under there.

--
R.K. McSwain
http://rkmcswain.blogspot.com
Message 9 of 13
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Matt Stachoni said the following on 4/18/2006 4:44 PM:
>
> I'd say, um, not.

Why?

--
R.K. McSwain
http://rkmcswain.blogspot.com
Message 10 of 13
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:17:15 +0000, R.K. McSwain wrote:

>Matt Stachoni said the following on 4/18/2006 4:44 PM:
>>
>> I'd say, um, not.
>
>Why?

Well, I don't use ToolPac, but from what I understand, it creates a block of an
array of 2D solids that take on the color of the bitmap. Assuming 1 solid per
pixel, that would be several hundred thousand little tiny 2D solids.

It's possible that swatches of the same color could possibly be represented by a
larger solid, and possibly some sort of compression algorithm could be applied
such that you use fewer different color solids, but I'd like to see what kind of
file size one would get from this.

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com
Message 11 of 13
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Matt Stachoni wrote:

> It's possible that swatches of the same color could possibly be
> represented by a larger solid ...

Thats what the 'Optimization' option does. Also the background color is
ignored.

In our testing its very useful for logos, with exceptions like one sent
to us that was made of rendered spheres. It also seems to work very
well on mono scans of line drawings, especially small details.

While it will crunch a large grayscale aerial map, the resulting block
data makes the drawing too large because there are hardly ever any
adjacent pixels of the same color.

Images have their own set of problems, including transparency (on all
but mono images), the external file to track and send, etc. One could
argue the pluses/minuses of both approaches. We simply want to provide
a *choice* to the user.

As one of hundreds of tools. 🙂

Terry
Message 12 of 13
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:14:09 +0000, Terry W. Dotson wrote:

>Images have their own set of problems, including transparency (on all
>but mono images), the external file to track and send, etc. One could
>argue the pluses/minuses of both approaches. We simply want to provide
>a *choice* to the user.

Thanks for the explanation.

I can easily see the value in such a tool (especially for small monochrome
logos), since Autodesk (for some reason) refuses to include images as part of
the DWG file's inclusive data set.

My question would be is it more efficient to use a bunch of 2D solids, or to use
hatching whose boundaries could be more than just 4 sides?

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com
Message 13 of 13
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Matt Stachoni wrote:

> My question would be is it more efficient to use a bunch of 2D
> solids, or to use hatching whose boundaries could be more than just 4
> sides?

I see what your saying and will add that to the wishlist. There are
cases where the best solution is to simply use AutoCAD to manually trace
the outline of the image and hatch as necessary. That way you can use
splines, polylines, circles or ellipses as appropriate.

Its a time -vs- size/quality decision that has to be made by the user.

Terry

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Administrator Productivity


Autodesk Design & Make Report