How to align texts in the AutoCAD?
I’m wondering if there is a way to align texts in the AutoCAD with no work around. For example, in the ArcGIS we can select the texts and force the alignment.
Sure, in the AutoCAD, I can force the text to have the same x-coordinate to align them or other kind of work around, but why we don’t have this as a command like what we have in the ArcGIS?
Solved! Go to Solution.
>> if there is a way to align texts in the AutoCAD with no work around
I don't see why setting of the "Position X" should be named as workaround, it is straight to use.
But to answer the primary question: no, there is no built in command for that. If you need it daily, you can look for a tool that does it or write one. This option is always available with AutoCAD!
>> but why we don’t have this as a command like what we have in the ArcGIS?
Because there where/are different people/different companies developing it for different jobjs to be done. And if I'm working in CAD, I want to have a text on an exact place (exact coordinates) and not on an coordinate where some tool means it should be "arranged to".
Other question: Try in ArcGIS to label a network-topology (e.g. lines of streets), so the labels follow the GIS-arcs .... and now try to arrange these labels ==> you also can't do that.
There is functionality in AutoCAD, there is functionality in ArcGIS, and if you are asking why a car can't fly and why an aeroplane can't drive curves as fast as cars can .... they are different, what shells, they are built to do their work ... and their work is different.
Sorry, - alfred -
So you are drawing lines to represent boxes, and adding floating text objects inside them (if your posted image is like the last actual DWG file you posted): so it begs the question, why aren't you using a TABLE object in AutoCAD? It does what you seek inherently unless you actively mess with the settings for each cell in the TABLE. And that's not a workaround, that's a totally different command and approach than LINE and TEXT and all that eye-balling.
Thank you guys for the contribution.
I do agree with you Alfred. Sure, car is car and the airplane is airplane. But in all cases, both should have the very basic elements such as seats, windows (!), doors (i)…this is what I mean when I compare an application with another. They could have both the very basic functions.
My old teacher highlighted that the needs shouldn’t be undermined! They are just needs. So if you meet someone who is saying “I’m thirsty” then we shouldn’t ask him “why you are thirsty?”! or even to say to him “no! You are not thirsty”…in this case, he (the one who is thirsty) needs someone to respond to his need but not to ask him why!
…this is exactly the same when we look for the existence of particular features in some applications! It is the need but not anything else.
I do appreciate your time and efforts. You guys do have great experience, and I can say that you are willing to help all the time.
Question: If ArcGIS does everything better, why are you using AutoCAD? (rhetorical)
Question: Why are you not lobbying for ArcGIS to include all of AutoCAD's features instead of complaining that AutoCAD doesn't act exactly like ArcGIS (also rhetorical)
JamaL9722060 wrote:My old teacher highlighted that the needs shouldn’t be undermined! They are just needs. So if you meet someone who is saying “I’m thirsty” then we shouldn’t ask him “why you are thirsty?”!
OK, but when you give a thirsty person water, should they complain that it's not champagne?
I originally learned how to program in FORTRAN on punch cards. We discovered early that it was a fruitless exercise to ask why the computer didn't respond the way we wanted it to if we didn't first provide input it understood.
When IBM PCs replaced the CP/M Osborne and Kaypro units in about 1985 I began teaching secretaries and construction engineers how to use Wordstar and Lotus 123 to write letters and create spreadsheets. I answered a ton of "... why won't it do this, or that" questions. In every case it was a misunderstanding the user had that you have to conform to the computer program, and not it to you.
Computers now are incredibly more powerful than that first Osborne I used. But the rules are the same. They only do what we tell them to do within their own limitations. You either learn to work within those limitations or you don't. Complaining is next to useless. That energy would be better spent working within the rules.
Thank you Nestly and Dave for the comments.
Then how could you explain the frequent versions of the applications in each single year. If we stop complaining, then no enhancement will take place on a particular software. It is the feedback and “complains” which make the software much more powerful and respond to broader needs.
I don’t say that ArcGIS can replace the AutoCAD or vice versa. What I’m saying that there are some very basic functions should be built in on both of them!
Just I need to restate the following:
“I’m not sure if you still remember when the default of the “copy” command was “single”. This behavior has existed for long time in the AutoCAD! Sure we still could switch it to be “Multiple” at that time. In the recent versions of the AutoCAD, the default of the “Copy” command is “multiple” which is more logic! This little enhancement might not mean a lot for many users but for me it does do!”
I’m not complaining, rather I'm trying to understand! That’s all.
I agree that the program changes in response to user feedback. If you really feel strongly about something the process is to input it via the AUGI wishlist system. AUGI is a force that Autodesk pays a lot of attention to. At each annual Autodesk University conference AUGI formally transmits the top 10 wishes for each of Autodesk's products to Autodesk directly. If the larger AutoCAD community agrees with, and votes on, your wishes you'll see them in a future version.
Personally I would like it if AutoCAD and Google SketchUp behaved the same way too. I use both programs and get really frustrated at times because of the differences. But quite honestly it's not worth much of my time to write up a lot of wishes or complaints. I need those minutes to get my work done.