<resurecting the dead horse> STB vs. CTB

[Anonymous]

A while back,
I started a lengthy discussion about the merits of STB,
trying to identify advantages over a CTB standard.

What resulted was there isn't really any advantage to using STB;
other than greater flexibility in output to Color.
And with the advent of True Color,
that reasoning could be called into question.

One thing that did not really come up in discussion,
is how an STB system frees up the User to strategize
on-screen colors to better make sense of the design.

To illustrate this,
I've attached a few images.

I typically color my 'Existing to Remain' Phase elements in a monochrome
white (if your modelspace background is set to black...) utilizing
colors 7,8,9 almost exclusively.
For 'Existing to be Removed' Phase elements; I color them Red - always
monochrome red. (For some reason the color red says 'demo' to me?...)
That leaves the reaming color palette for 'New Construction' Phase elements.
(Unless you'd like to color-isolate 'Future Construction', 'Work by Others',
etc. Phases...)

The resultant model-workspace, is an intuitive color-coded display that
visually categorizes elements by Phase - something I find very nice. This
credo applies equally well to most of the typical drawings one would create
in a Document set: Plans, Elevations, Sections, Details, etc.

Taking this a step further, I also try to cater the brightness of a color
assigned to and element, to it's lineweight. So an existing to remain
element that is color 7, will output heavier than one that is color 9, which
outputs heavier that color 8.

And another step further still, I try and select monochromatic color ranges
for elements based upon the Specification section they are part of. Examples
include 05 Steel items I typically assign a 'blue' color, 07 Thermal and
moisture protections elements, I make a mono-chromatic shade of green, 09
finishes: magenta, and so on...

What happens, is one starts to identify color with phase, and function. And
also makes staring at the screen all day, a little easier one the eyes, IMO.

On the Pspace side, setting the background to white, turning 'Display Plot
Styles' on for the page setup, and activating 'Display Lineweights' (LWT);
you get a nice plot preview-ish kindof workspace; where all of the
modelspace color coding gets converted to a real-world output display.

Granted, this could all be achieved in a CTB environment; and truthfully, I
started organizing my colors this way back when I used CTB. But in using
STB, I enjoy the flexibility in the ability to output any Layer and/or
Element to any plotstyle, at anytime - without the scripted file-creation
requirements of CTB, or having to temporarily set the elements to a Ture
Color.

So, I suppose that I really didn't add anything to the CTB vs. STB argument
after all. Aside from, with STB, if my co-worker finds my on-screen color
scheme absolutely repulsive; he/she can change all of those colors and still
output (to B&W and/or Grayscale...) the same. And that's kindof nice...

[Anonymous]

looks like the Autodesk server truncatesd my message?
probably too lage w/ attached images.
I'm going to try and send them individually...

Complete original message text below:

--------

A while back,
I started a lengthy discussion about the merits of STB,
trying to identify advantages over a CTB standard.

What resulted was there isn't really any advantage to using STB;
other than greater flexibility in output to Color.
And with the advent of True Color,
that reasoning could be called into question.

One thing that did not really come up in discussion,
is how an STB system frees up the User to strategize
on-screen colors to better make sense of the design.

To illustrate this,
I've attached a few images.

I typically color my 'Existing to Remain' Phase elements in a monochrome
white (if your modelspace background is set to black...) utilizing
colors 7,8,9 almost exclusively.
For 'Existing to be Removed' Phase elements; I color them Red - always
monochrome red. (For some reason the color red says 'demo' to me?...)
That leaves the reaming color palette for 'New Construction' Phase elements.
(Unless you'd like to color-isolate 'Future Construction', 'Work by Others',
etc. Phases...)

The resultant model-workspace, is an intuitive color-coded display that
visually categorizes elements by Phase - something I find very nice. This
credo applies equally well to most of the typical drawings one would create
in a Document set: Plans, Elevations, Sections, Details, etc.

Taking this a step further, I also try to cater the brightness of a color
assigned to and element, to it's lineweight. So an existing to remain
element that is color 7, will output heavier than one that is color 9, which
outputs heavier that color 8.

And another step further still, I try and select monochromatic color ranges
for elements based upon the Specification section they are part of. Examples
include 05 Steel items I typically assign a 'blue' color, 07 Thermal and
moisture protections elements, I make a mono-chromatic shade of green, 09
finishes: magenta, and so on...

What happens, is one starts to identify color with phase, and function. And
also makes staring at the screen all day, a little easier one the eyes, IMO.

On the Pspace side, setting the background to white, turning 'Display Plot
Styles' on for the page setup, and activating 'Display Lineweights' (LWT);
you get a nice plot preview-ish kindof workspace; where all of the
modelspace color coding gets converted to a real-world output display.

Granted, this could all be achieved in a CTB environment; and truthfully, I
started organizing my colors this way back when I used CTB. But in using
STB, I enjoy the flexibility in the ability to output any Layer and/or
Element to any plotstyle, at anytime - without the scripted file-creation
requirements of CTB, or having to temporarily set the elements to a Ture
Color.

So, I suppose that I really didn't add anything to the CTB vs. STB argument
after all. Aside from, with STB, if my co-worker finds my on-screen color
scheme absolutely repulsive; he/she can change all of those colors and still
output (to B&W and/or Grayscale...) the same. And that's kindof nice...

[Anonymous]

Corey A. Layton wrote:
> To illustrate this,
> I've attached a few images.

here's an example of my modelspace.

[Anonymous]

Corey A. Layton wrote:
> To illustrate this,
> I've attached a few images.

here's an example of my papaerspace.

[Anonymous]

Now that you mention it there is another variable to the STB and CTB debate.
For civil site work I would never abandon a CTB table. It is just too quick
and easy to utilize another companies work without renaming layers and
dealing with their standards. What you see on screen is how it plots. It
also adds for quick flexibility for exhibits and allows for easier drawing
communication. I.E.... make this blue.... make this green... make this
about this dark.... this bold.

The new variable is with variable layer settings within a viewport with
2008. From what info I have read, it appears that you can manipulate the a
layers color to be different in multiple viewports. This is an incredibly
helpful feature for CTB users to be able to fade back some info in one
viewport while retaining its original layer color in another. How does this
feature stack up with a STB. My guess is that if it works with an STB then
it will probably be very confusing when trouble shooting and keeping
anything straight in a drawing. I have had no hands on experience with 2008
and maybe someone can clarify if the new viewport features make STB even
more unlikely to use for simplicity over a CTB.
--
CB


"Corey A. Layton" wrote in message
news:5513703@discussion.autodesk.com...
A while back,
I started a lengthy discussion about the merits of STB,
trying to identify advantages over a CTB standard.

What resulted was there isn't really any advantage to using STB;
other than greater flexibility in output to Color.
And with the advent of True Color,
that reasoning could be called into question.

One thing that did not really come up in discussion,
is how an STB system frees up the User to strategize
on-screen colors to better make sense of the design.

To illustrate thi
s,
I've attached a few images.

I typically color my 'Existing to Remain' Phase elements in a monochrome
white (if your modelspace background is set to black...) utilizing
colors 7,8,9 almost exclusively.
For 'Existing to be Removed' Phase elements; I color them Red - always
monochrome red. (For some reason the color red says 'demo' to me?...)
That leaves the reaming color palette for 'New Construction' Phase element

[Anonymous]

I forgot to look at the 2008 layer dialog closely.
Are there separate columns for style and "style in current Vport"?
I would think not but maybe.

The whole style debate seems to be driven on the quest for flexibility.
The compromise is the screen color not implying the plotted width and color.
My motto is to keep things as simple as possible, and styles are not that.
What I wish we could do is change the color that a given color number displays as.
I want my color 11 to appear grey on screen, like with old softengine!

Most people I know want styles because they say you cannot get variable widths for color lines when doing color
exhibits. Then I show them that the lineweight column of the layer dialog does let them, they stop pursuing it.
Its like the plotted width (on our HP 1055cm's say) uses the pen table if the lineweight column is set to default,
otherwise it uses the lineweight column.

Our other offices use styles, so we have routines to convert back and forth, or we can plot using their style table.
It all depends if you want styles, and have the control to migrate smoothly.
I was going to migrate to styles, then realized the OCE ldf driver is not quite as flexible as when using colors. These
little details drive a lot of stuff. We own 2 OCE 9800 plotters so we can't upgrade on a whim.

Someone told me if you just create styles that are named as colors, the transition is easy.
I did fine on ustn working that way, but I hate seeing thick lines on screen still.
I think styles was hot for a while because adesk split devices into pc3 and ctb/stb files.
They were hyping the new capabilities, but the fact was, splitting into pc3 and ctb was enough to make us happy, no
heavy need for styles in addition.

CB
|>Now that you mention it there is another variable to the STB and CTB debate.
|>For civil site work I would never abandon a CTB table. It is just too quick
|>and easy to utilize another companies work without renaming layers and
|>dealing with their standards. What you see on screen is how it plots. It
|>also adds for quick flexibility for exhibits and allows for easier drawing
|>communication. I.E.... make this blue.... make this green... make this
|>about this dark.... this bold.
|>
|>The new variable is with variable layer settings within a viewport with
|>2008. From what info I have read, it appears that you can manipulate the a
|>layers color to be different in multiple viewports. This is an incredibly
|>helpful feature for CTB users to be able to fade back some info in one
|>viewport while retaining its original layer color in another. How does this
|>feature stack up with a STB. My guess is that if it works with an STB then
|>it will probably be very confusing when trouble shooting and keeping
|>anything straight in a drawing. I have had no hands on experience with 2008
|>and maybe someone can clarify if the new viewport features make STB even
|>more unlikely to use for simplicity over a CTB.
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom

[Anonymous]

James Maeding wrote:
> like with old softengine!

that was the best!
the good 'ol r12 DOS sneaker-net days....

[Anonymous]

I completely agree with your assessment. We also own a few OCE's with the
same issues. I entertain styles from time to time for evaluating
productivity but it does not seem to have any added benefit. Our other
office is using styles as well. I am wondering if 2008 will add a true
positive reason for staying with CTB plot tables for our type of civil site
work.

I have a few programs that basically paint a drawing by clicking on objects
and changing the color by layer. It works through x-refs, and blocks. With
a CTB I can Picasso a drawing or exhibit with drawings from poorly converted
microstation files and low standardized engineering firms in about a minute.
I know that it will plot right without caring if the firm that we received
the data from is even compliant with its own standards. All of the methods
of doing the same with styles does not come remotely close to the speed and
precision of a CTB. Sometimes I just do not have time to clean-up another
firms drawings.... or care too. I would imagine that being able to adjust
the pallet colors independent of a standard PC3 file would put another dent
into the STB purpose. Life is no longer like a box of chocolates with a
CTB... you always know what you are going to get. As far as legacy drawings
are concerned I would rather rely on the standard color pallet of 1-256 for
legacy plotting than hammering through legacy STB files for correctly
plotting a drawing 5 years later. I have a feeling that STB files bind a
company to a fixed layer standard and make flexibility no longer a viably
option. I figure switching from CTB to STB is no bid deal if layer
standards are inplace... but switching from STB to CTB would create legacy
plotting issues. That would really suck for anyone who wishes they stuck
with the flexibility of a CTB for independent viewport plotting and find
themselves with plotting issues on drawings predating a conversion from STB
to CTB. CTB is definitely a safe route if not the most flexible.
--
CB




"James Maeding" wrote in message
news:5514081@discussion.autodesk.com...
I forgot to look at the 2008 layer dialog closely.
Are there separate columns for style and "style in current Vport"?
I would think not but maybe.

The whole style debate seems to be driven on the quest for flexibility.
The compromise is the screen color not implying the plotted width and color.
My motto is to keep things as simple as possible, and styles are not that.
What I wish we could do is change the color that a given color number
displays as.
I want my color 11 to appear grey on screen, like with old softengine!

Most people I know want styles because they say you cannot get variable
widths for color lines when doing color
exhibits. Then I show them that the lineweight column of the layer dialog
does let them, they stop pursuing it.
Its like the plotted width (on our HP 1055cm's say) uses the pen table if
the lineweight column is set to default,
otherwise it uses the lineweight column.

Our other offices use styles, so we have routines to convert back and forth,
or we can plot using their style table.
It all depends if you want styles, and have the control to migrate smoothly.
I was going to migrate to styles, then realized the OCE ldf driver is not
quite as flexible as when using colors. These
little details drive a lot of stuff. We own 2 OCE 9800 plotters so we can't
upgrade on a whim.

Someone told me if you just create styles that are named as colors, the
transition is easy.
I did fine on ustn working that way, but I hate seeing thick lines on screen
still.
I think styles was hot for a while because adesk split devices into pc3 and
ctb/stb files.
They were hyping the new capabilities, but the fact was, splitting into pc3
and ctb was enough to make us happy, no
heavy need for styles in addition.

CB
|>Now that you mention it there is another variable to the STB and CTB
debate.
|>For civil site work I would never abandon a CTB table. It is just too
quick
|>and easy to utilize another companies work without renaming layers and
|>dealing with their standards. What you see on screen is how it plots. It
|>also adds for quick flexibility for exhibits and allows for easier drawing
|>communication. I.E.... make this blue.... make this green... make this
|>about this dark.... this bold.
|>
|>The new variable is with variable layer settings within a viewport with
|>2008. From what info I have read, it appears that you can manipulate the
a
|>layers color to be different in multiple viewports. This is an incredibly
|>helpful feature for CTB users to be able to fade back some info in one
|>viewport while retaining its original layer color in another. How does
this
|>feature stack up with a STB. My guess is that if it works with an STB
then
|>it will probably be very confusing when trouble shooting and keeping
|>anything straight in a drawing. I have had no hands on experience with
2008
|>and maybe someone can clarify if the new viewport features make STB even
|>more unlikely to use for simplicity over a CTB.
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom

[Anonymous]

I think that in this day and age that color based plotting is ridiculous
the only reason the industry is still using it is due to legacy thinking
If you look at a product like Revit everything is in black-n-white because
thats what our plans are
Then everything is style based
Most people coming out of school do not understand color based plotting
either
You ask a microstation person or a photoshop person and they do not
understand
color based plotting.
Color based plotting is a PITA if you work with multiple different customers
as each
can have their own pen tables.
I could go on and on but its ridiculous


"James Maeding" wrote in message
news:5514081@discussion.autodesk.com...
I forgot to look at the 2008 layer dialog closely.
Are there separate columns for style and "style in current Vport"?
I would think not but maybe.

The whole style debate seems to be driven on the quest for flexibility.
The compromise is the screen color not implying the plotted width and color.
My motto is to keep things as simple as possible, and styles are not that.
What I wish we could do is change the color that a given color number
displays as.
I want my color 11 to appear grey on screen, like with old softengine!

Most people I know want styles because they say you cannot get variable
widths for color lines when doing color
exhibits. Then I show them that the lineweight column of the layer dialog
does let them, they stop pursuing it.
Its like the plotted width (on our HP 1055cm's say) uses the pen table if
the lineweight column is set to default,
otherwise it uses the lineweight column.

Our other offices use styles, so we have routines to convert back and forth,
or we can plot using their style table.
It all depends if you want styles, and have the control to migrate smoothly.
I was going to migrate to styles, then realized the OCE ldf driver is not
quite as flexible as when using colors. These
little details drive a lot of stuff. We own 2 OCE 9800 plotters so we can't
upgrade on a whim.

Someone told me if you just create styles that are named as colors, the
transition is easy.
I did fine on ustn working that way, but I hate seeing thick lines on screen
still.
I think styles was hot for a while because adesk split devices into pc3 and
ctb/stb files.
They were hyping the new capabilities, but the fact was, splitting into pc3
and ctb was enough to make us happy, no
heavy need for styles in addition.

CB
|>Now that you mention it there is another variable to the STB and CTB
debate.
|>For civil site work I would never abandon a CTB table. It is just too
quick
|>and easy to utilize another companies work without renaming layers and
|>dealing with their standards. What you see on screen is how it plots. It
|>also adds for quick flexibility for exhibits and allows for easier drawing
|>communication. I.E.... make this blue.... make this green... make this
|>about this dark.... this bold.
|>
|>The new variable is with variable layer settings within a viewport with
|>2008. From what info I have read, it appears that you can manipulate the
a
|>layers color to be different in multiple viewports. This is an incredibly
|>helpful feature for CTB users to be able to fade back some info in one
|>viewport while retaining its original layer color in another. How does
this
|>feature stack up with a STB. My guess is that if it works with an STB
then
|>it will probably be very confusing when trouble shooting and keeping
|>anything straight in a drawing. I have had no hands on experience with
2008
|>and maybe someone can clarify if the new viewport features make STB even
|>more unlikely to use for simplicity over a CTB.
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom

[Anonymous]

Just my TWO CENTS:

There is a middle ground between the two options. The plot style table
(either STB or CTB) does NOT have to control lineweight. Most people only
have a few colors set to specific lineweights. If you use a CTB, with those
colors fixed to the assigned weight and set all others to use object
lineweight, then you can set all others lineweights at the object or layer
level and use any unassigned color you choose!
--
Larry Bettes
ADT, C3D & LDT/CD
(all 2007 with all SPs installed)
P4 - Dual Core 3.0 GHz, 3.00 GB RAM
nVidia GeForce 6800 GS AGP - 256 MB
Windows XP Pro, SP 2


"James Maeding" wrote in message
news:5514081@discussion.autodesk.com...
I forgot to look at the 2008 layer dialog closely.
Are there separate columns for style and "style in current Vport"?
I would think not but maybe.

The whole style debate seems to be driven on the quest for flexibility.
The compromise is the screen color not implying the plotted width and color.
My motto is to keep things as simple as possible, and styles are not that.
What I wish we could do is change the color that a given color number
displays as.
I want my color 11 to appear grey on screen, like with old softengine!

Most people I know want styles because they say you cannot get variable
widths for color lines when doing color
exhibits. Then I show them that the lineweight column of the layer dialog
does let them, they stop pursuing it.
Its like the plotted width (on our HP 1055cm's say) uses the pen table if
the lineweight column is set to default,
otherwise it uses the lineweight column.

Our other offices use styles, so we have routines to convert back and forth,
or we can plot using their style table.
It all depends if you want styles, and have the control to migrate smoothly.
I was going to migrate to styles, then realized the OCE ldf driver is not
quite as flexible as when using colors. These
little details drive a lot of stuff. We own 2 OCE 9800 plotters so we can't
upgrade on a whim.

Someone told me if you just create styles that are named as colors, the
transition is easy.
I did fine on ustn working that way, but I hate seeing thick lines on screen
still.
I think styles was hot for a while because adesk split devices into pc3 and
ctb/stb files.
They were hyping the new capabilities, but the fact was, splitting into pc3
and ctb was enough to make us happy, no
heavy need for styles in addition.

CB
|>Now that you mention it there is another variable to the STB and CTB
debate.
|>For civil site work I would never abandon a CTB table. It is just too
quick
|>and easy to utilize another companies work without renaming layers and
|>dealing with their standards. What you see on screen is how it plots. It
|>also adds for quick flexibility for exhibits and allows for easier drawing
|>communication. I.E.... make this blue.... make this green... make this
|>about this dark.... this bold.
|>
|>The new variable is with variable layer settings within a viewport with
|>2008. From what info I have read, it appears that you can manipulate the
a
|>layers color to be different in multiple viewports. This is an incredibly
|>helpful feature for CTB users to be able to fade back some info in one
|>viewport while retaining its original layer color in another. How does
this
|>feature stack up with a STB. My guess is that if it works with an STB
then
|>it will probably be very confusing when trouble shooting and keeping
|>anything straight in a drawing. I have had no hands on experience with
2008
|>and maybe someone can clarify if the new viewport features make STB even
|>more unlikely to use for simplicity over a CTB.
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom

[Anonymous]

"Larry Bettes" wrote in message
news:5514328@discussion.autodesk.com...
>then you can set all others lineweights at the object or layer level and
>use any unassigned color you choose!

that certainly solves lineweight.
I could easily concede all but one half
(either even or odd color numbers)
of the acad 255 color matrix;
to color=lineweight;
and be perfectly happy.

but your solution does not solve output style
i.e black, 20% black, color, 50% color, etc.

This is where STB is easily more flexible...

[Anonymous]

Yes, I agree this works well. This has been our solution. Colors 1-15
cover just about every pen weight and shade of gray needed. Colors 250-254
cover the additional thicker shades. colors 16-249 are color with object
thickness. With the added ability to use millions of colors a CTB can be
both a rigid standard and a flexible option for plotting. We can plot
everything through one CTB file and only require additional CTB files for
halfwidth plots and certain plotter inconsistencies. If we need unusually
large widths then sometimes a poly line is the only way to go. Polylines
are great especially when dashed linework will need to look consistent with
linetype generation turned on.

To the contrary, with an STB, we would have to have a set of 5+ STB's for
each inconsistent plotter. I do not understand why anyone would do that to
themselves.

I do not believe that the CTB is outdated in comparison to an STB. A CTB
and an STB may be outdated when compared to plotting solely through object
linewieght. The newer software that I am familiar with will (DGN -
terramodeler - etc...) create cad files and give all the objects thier
linewieght through the objects properties and guarantee great results,
legacy plotting, and autogenerating consistent plots through a more object
oriented approach to design. I would imagine that both CTB's and STB's will
be a thing of the past. For the time being I find it much easier to only
have to worry about a layers linetype and color without preselecting
linewieght's. CTB's kill two birds with one stone and provide for many
users to interact with drawings without intimate knowledge of multiple STB's
inner workings.
--
CB

"Larry Bettes" wrote in message
news:5514328@discussion.autodesk.com...
Just my TWO CENTS:

There is a middle ground between the two options. The plot style table
(either STB or CTB) does NOT have to control lineweight. Most people only
have a few colors set to specific lineweights. If you use a CTB, with those
colors fixed to the assigned weight and set all others to use object
lineweight, then you can set all others lineweights at the object or layer
level and use any unassigned color you choose!
--
Larry Bettes
ADT, C3D & LDT/CD
(all 2007 with all SPs installed)
P4 - Dual Core 3.0 GHz, 3.00 GB RAM
nVidia GeForce 6800 GS AGP - 256 MB
Windows XP Pro, SP 2


"James Maeding" wrote in message
news:5514081@discussion.autodesk.com...
I forgot to look at the 2008 layer dialog closely.
Are there separate columns for style and "style in current Vport"?
I would think not but maybe.

The whole style debate seems to be driven on the quest for flexibility.
The compromise is the screen color not implying the plotted width and color.
My motto is to keep things as simple as possible, and styles are not that.
What I wish we could do is change the color that a given color number
displays as.
I want my color 11 to appear grey on screen, like with old softengine!

Most people I know want styles because they say you cannot get variable
widths for color lines when doing color
exhibits. Then I show them that the lineweight column of the layer dialog
does let them, they stop pursuing it.
Its like the plotted width (on our HP 1055cm's say) uses the pen table if
the lineweight column is set to default,
otherwise it uses the lineweight column.

Our other offices use styles, so we have routines to convert back and forth,
or we can plot using their style table.
It all depends if you want styles, and have the control to migrate smoothly.
I was going to migrate to styles, then realized the OCE ldf driver is not
quite as flexible as when using colors. These
little details drive a lot of stuff. We own 2 OCE 9800 plotters so we can't
upgrade on a whim.

Someone told me if you just create styles that are named as colors, the
transition is easy.
I did fine on ustn working that way, but I hate seeing thick lines on screen
still.
I think styles was hot for a while because adesk split devices into pc3 and
ctb/stb files.
They were hyping the new capabilities, but the fact was, splitting into pc3
and ctb was enough to make us happy, no
heavy need for styles in addition.

CB
|>Now that you mention it there is another variable to the STB and CTB
debate.
|>For civil site work I would never abandon a CTB table. It is just too
quick
|>and easy to utilize another companies work without renaming layers and
|>dealing with their standards. What you see on screen is how it plots. It
|>also adds for quick flexibility for exhibits and allows for easier drawing
|>communication. I.E.... make this blue.... make this green... make this
|>about this dark.... this bold.
|>
|>The new variable is with variable layer settings within a viewport with
|>2008. From what info I have read, it appears that you can manipulate the
a
|>layers color to be different in multiple viewports. This is an incredibly
|>helpful feature for CTB users to be able to fade back some info in one
|>viewport while retaining its original layer color in another. How does
this
|>feature stack up with a STB. My guess is that if it works with an STB
then
|>it will probably be very confusing when trouble shooting and keeping
|>anything straight in a drawing. I have had no hands on experience with
2008
|>and maybe someone can clarify if the new viewport features make STB even
|>more unlikely to use for simplicity over a CTB.
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - at - hunsaker - dotcom

[Anonymous]

CB wrote:
> To the contrary, with an STB, we would have to have a set of 5+ STB's
> for each inconsistent plotter. I do not understand why anyone would
> do that to themselves.

Could you elaborate?
not sure why you'd need more STB than CTB...

[Anonymous]

I am not exactly sure myself... but the manner in which our other office has
set them up has about 5-6 depending on the type of drawing and has assured
me that we would need the same (if i recall it has something to do with
x-refs). They could be wrong but they are used to doing what they do and
they control their methods of plotting. We have some uniqueness between the
methods of achieving the same results across the offices and it has provided
a good mix of new ideas, thinking, and methods. The office using the STB's
has yet to convince anyone outside of their offices to switch. That is key
because of the large number of users and people that would need to be on
board with such a shift. Personally I am not convinced... yet.... but I am
only one small factor if such a switch were too take place and I do not
think there is much in the way of benefits in re-training allot of people.
A newer software release may change that opinion and that is why I am really
curious as the how the new layer states for viewports behaves with STB's and
CTB's. From what I have read about 2008, it appears that their is some
favor to Cob's unless you can also change styles between viewports. The
only information i have read only mentions the addition of color to
individual viewport's layer settings. I am really interested in hearing
what the deal is with this new feature.
--
CB.


"Corey A. Layton" wrote in message
news:5515248@discussion.autodesk.com...
CB wrote:
> To the contrary, with an STB, we would have to have a set of 5+ STB's
> for each inconsistent plotter. I do not understand why anyone would
> do that to themselves.

Could you elaborate?
not sure why you'd need more STB than CTB...

[C O Jones]

STB uses millions of colors, CTB is limited in output to the 1-255.

I don't see how additional STBs are needed if CTBs work on the different plotters as expected.

I have been experimenting with STBs some and it does seem a bit easier if you let go of the color on screen mind set. It isn't hard at all to start seeing objects as line widths and not color. After all we should know which objects are meant to be plotted thicker and thinner.

[C O Jones]

And with the advent of True Color,
that reasoning could be called into question. >

But the stated benefit fof STBs (rom Autodesk) is color output. So there is a huge benefit and you dismiss it off hand.

True color only plots with STB so that is a big difference between the two.

[Anonymous]

It is not totally limited. Anything in the RGB range or outside the 1-256
pallet will be plotted based on color and the properties linewieght. Its
like having the best of both worlds with the only limitation being not able
to plot the true colors of 1-15 of the autocad 256 pallet. The only colors
that will be limited are the 15-30 dedicated black/white/shade pins. We do
a lot of work involving proposed and existing conditions. It is not always
easy to tell how a certain drawing will plot with an STB without
pre-plotting or selecting all the objects in question. I can not stand the
LWT function of autocad so it is not as apparent how it will plot when it is
turned off. Many have told me that they color their drawings with their
personnel colors to let them know what is existing and what is proposed with
an STB. In essence they are performing the same process as a CTB but less
standard because someone unfamiliar to their personnel color scheme will
have to work on the drawing as well. I can see the benefits of both methods
but I do not see a point in switching to one or the other. On one hand you
can color your drawing the way you like it...... on the other you have to
color it so that it makes sense anyway so you might as well give it meaning
and keep it standard with a CTB. You are not limited by either method
unless you really have to plot color 1 (red) in red and it is forced to a
CTB pen weight. Out of curiosity... I am wondering how many STB users find
themselves constantly re-coloring a drawings they way they like to see it.
I am sure that many experienced users script it out but how many non-savvy
folks spend minutes/hours/workdays re-fidgeting with a drawings colors with
no real benefits other than personnel preference.

Everyone at this firm is expected to work in others drawing and projects
from time to time( sometimes more often than not). It is one of the few
firms (in my experience) of this size (350+) that can shift its massive
horsepower to best serve a project and deadline. Loading a drawing with an
STB is like opening a box of assorted chocolates. I would be halfway
tempted to re-color it if it did not make sense to me. I am not sure how
effective others are at this process and may fool with the layer manager for
an hour before starting work on the drawing. Can anybody relate to this
scenario with an STB or is it a non-issue with a smaller firm. Also if
anyone who has beta tested 2008 can answer if linewieghts are independent in
viewports.
Thanks
--
CB


wrote in message news:5515721@discussion.autodesk.com...
STB uses millions of colors, CTB is limited in output to the 1-255.

I don't see how additional STBs are needed if CTBs work on the different
plotters as expected.

I have been experimenting with STBs some and it does seem a bit easier if
you let go of the color on screen mind set. It isn't hard at all to start
seeing objects as line widths and not color. After all we should know which
objects are meant to be plotted thicker and thinner.

[Anonymous]

C O Jones wrote:
> But the stated benefit fof STBs (rom Autodesk) is color output. So
> there is a huge benefit and you dismiss it off hand.

I certainly did not dismiss it.
It's a reason I, myself, utilize STB.


> True color only plots with STB so that is a big difference between
> the two.

I'm not 100% certain, (I've never tried True Color with CTB...)
but I do not think that your statement is corect.

Can someone else confirm?

[Anonymous]

Not exactly true. True color will plot with a CTB. It will also plot with
the objects or layers linewieght. I know that this is a setting in setting
up pins to handle default colors. I have not had to revisit the ctb file in
over 6 years and the one we are using will allow for plotting the objects
linewieght if the color is an RGB value. What I am not sure of is if you
can assign an RGB value to a pin in a CTB. I would think that you could but
I have not had a reason too. I believe the STB was started to allow color
output and flexibility through the use of 1-256 (the main colors were
typically used with a CTB) and would not be necessarily important with RGB
color in addition to pins 1-256. With a CTB you could effectively use 1-256
as black/white/shade pins and rely on RGB color values for Color plots. You
could argue that using a CTB allows for both methods as long as you do not
expect to plot an RGB color value in black/white/shaded.
--
CB


wrote in message news:5515723@discussion.autodesk.com...
greater flexibility in output to Color.
And with the advent of True Color,
that reasoning could be called into question. >

But the stated benefit fof STBs (rom Autodesk) is color output. So there is
a huge benefit and you dismiss it off hand.

True color only plots with STB so that is a big difference between the two.

[C O Jones]

Corey wrote


First you say "there isn't really any advantage to using STB..", then you wite "other than greater flexibility in output to Color."

That suggests to me that you are discounting one big advantage of STB, but perhaps is it all semantics.

I misspoke about using Color in the two plot style types, CTB and STB. In the CTB file itself you cannot assign a Color Book color to a pen, you can use RGB. (and to the other poster the basic colors are 1-255). In layer manager you can use Color Books regardless of plot style table used.