SSM View scale

[doni49]

Our detail sheets are typically a layout with several viewports that were placed manually using the MVIEW command.  The linework is drawn in modelspace and then annotated in paperspace.  I've spent the past couple days trying to figure out how to implement SSM's callouts and such.

I was able to create a "model view" in SSM and place a View Title that has the view number and view title.  But I haven't been able to associate this SSM Model View to the actual viewport which means the view scale doesn't match.  From what I've read, it sounds like SSM has to create the viewports itself.  Is there really no way that I can add these viewports to SSM?

And there are a few rare instances in which a detail is just not to any scale at all and it's not worth drawing in two different spaces so it just gets drawn in paperspace.  But that detail still gets a view title.  I'd like to be able to reference this view title in call-outs too.

TIA!

[Jason.Piercey · Accepted solution]

You can manually create a view in paperspace, which will show up in the SSM.  You can also manually link an attribute, using a field, to the scale of a viewport.

[doni49]

Thanks Jason.  That's pretty much what I did but I thought (hoped) there had to be a better way.

[doni49]

One related question.  We quite often have some notes on a sheet (MTEXT) that says something like WHEN STEEPER THAN 3:1, SEE DETAIL 5, SHEET C-105.  Is there a way to have this mtext include a reference to the detail using SSM?

I'd like to have the red portions above use fields that reference the SSM sheet view title and sheet id (Sheet ID is a custom sheet property within our dst file).

In the past, I've done it as long as it's on the same sheet by inserting a field in the mtext, picking OBJECT->VALUE and choosing the view number attribute in the view title.  But I can't do that if the detail is in a diff sheet.

EDIT:  Never mind.  After thinking about it some more, I remembered seeing something in SSM that I thought might do it. 

Thanks!

[Jason.Piercey]

I wish there was a value for viewnumber/sheetnumber. since it is so commonly used.   Considering the SSM keeps track of what views are which sheets, I have no idea why this is not an option.  As you've found out, it is a multiple step process involving two fields, one for the view number and one for the sheet number.  This should be a single field IMO.

[Jason.Piercey]

---

@doni49 wrote:

Thanks Jason.  That's pretty much what I did but I thought (hoped) there had to be a better way.

---

Why not skip the manual effort and let the SSM do the work?  Place the view on a sheet, via the SSM, and let field placeholders fill in the blanks?

[doni49]

Yeah.  My last post KINDA works.  If the view is renumbered, it gets updated in my mtext.  But I'm at a complete loss as to how to deal with the possiblity that a detail might be moved to a different sheet -- it's been known to happen.

[doni49]

---

@Jason.Piercey wrote:

Why not skip the manual effort and let the SSM do the work?  Place the view on a sheet, via the SSM, and let field placeholders fill in the blanks?

---

Because the viewports almost always already exist.  We VERY RARELY create a new detail from scratch around here.  We'll copy a dwg file that has the details drawn in model space and a layout tab (sometimes 2 or more tabs) that already has the viewports setup and the annotation already added.  Then we modify as needed for that particular case.

[Jason.Piercey]

---

@doni49 wrote:

Yeah.  My last post KINDA works.  If the view is renumbered, it gets updated in my mtext.  But I'm at a complete loss as to how to deal with the possiblity that a detail might be moved to a different sheet -- it's been known to happen.

---

Your field references will end up being pound signs (####) when the view is moved (removed/placed again) to a difference sheet.  There is no way, that I know of, to move a view to a different sheet and keep existing field references intact.

[doni49]

Is there a way to reassociate them to a particular detail then?  Or will I need to go through and completely replace each one?

And if we WERE doing this as you said "let SSM create the views", would that still be an issue or would we be able to move a detail from one sheet to another in that case?

Thanks!

EDIT:  never mind the first part, I realized that YES it would be a matter of Editing each field individually and pointing them to the new location.  YUCK!  But at least it COULD be done if needed.  But I'm still curious if this is still an issue in the "as designed" workflow.

[Jason.Piercey]

The behavior does not change with the method.  Views simply can't be moved between sheets without destroying existing field references, regardless of manual creation or via SSM.

[doni49]

That's what I was afraid of.  Thanks for the assistance.  It's still a lot better than not using fields at all.

[Jason.Piercey]

AutoCAD desperately needs a way to find a field reference across an entire set of drawings.  This way you can identify potential issues prior to making modifications.  This inability drives me insane on virtually every large project we do.

[Jason.Piercey]

---

@doni49 wrote:

That's what I was afraid of.  Thanks for the assistance.  It's still a lot better than not using fields at all.

---

You're welcome.  I've grown to like the SSM, even with its pitfalls.  It is a decent management tool, but it could be so much better with some very small enhancements.

[doni49]

I agree 100%.  I'm currently doing a smaller job that has two detail sheets, 12 details between them.  And 13 plan sheets that each contain 6-7 call outs two one of those details, 2-3 call outs to another detail plus a few callouts to the others throughout the set.

But coming up in the next couple months, we've got a HUGE project in which I expect to see 20+ detail sheets and at LEAST 100 plan sheets (various different disciplines).  I've been researching this topic in anticipation of that project.  The guy who will being doing the final review likes to rename and renumber details ("to make sure the order makes sense") -- and he won't look at them until they're final.  I DREAD having to go through and find every reference to each detail that gets moved and change it.

[Jason.Piercey]

The ability to rename/renumber details on the same sheet is of great help in making best use of the sheet space.  Luckily, I don't have anyone telling me where to place details or how I should organize my drawings.

Good luck!

[doni49]

BTW -- What they're calling "CATEGORY", I basically treated as the detail sheet name.  If they'd at least let the field reference the CATEGORY under which the sheet view is stored, that would work REALLY well.  Especially since my sheet views don't really reference a viewport in the sheet.  I could just drag the sheet view from one category to another and be done with it.

Oh well -- wishful thinking!

[Jason.Piercey]

I use the sheet number as the category as well.   I assign the category when creating the model view, so you pretty much have to know where the details are going beforehand.  FWIW, You can re-categorize the views, via the SSM, after replacement.

Another thing I've ran across using sheet-numbered categories is, they won't always appear in logical sorted order.  Grrrr!!  They appear in the field dialog box in the order the views are placed.  See attached image for an example.  You'll see the sheet numbers are not sorted in a numerical order.  Again... Grrr!!!

So, what I've done is started to create ALL my sheets/layouts first (even if there are extra ones - it is easier to remove extra sheets and keep things sorted than it is to add sheets and not be sorted properly) and create a placeholder view on each sheet, just so they appear in a logical sorted order.  It is a major PITA and shouldn't need to be done, but..... it works pretty well.

[Jason.Piercey]

The illogical sorting wouldn't be a big deal, except when you are referencing a detail and sheet number as we've discussed (since it is a two step process, when it should be one).  This makes it much more difficult to find the proper sheet when things are not sorted correctly.  Shortsighted developement on the part of Autodesk, IMO.

[Jason.Piercey]

---

@Jason.Piercey wrote:

Another thing I've ran across using sheet-numbered categories is, they won't always appear in logical sorted order.  Grrrr!!  They appear in the field dialog box in the order the views are placed.  See attached image for an example.  You'll see the sheet numbers are not sorted in a numerical order.  Again... Grrr!!! 

---

That might be a little confusing.  Let me try a simpler example:

1. Create a named view called "View1" and assign a category of "A"

2. Create a named view called "View2" and assign a category of "B"

3. Place View2 on a sheet first

4. Place View1 on a sheet second

5. Open the field dialog box and navigate to your sheet views

6. Look at the attached image

7. Why is B listed before A?

Another issue with sorting:

Sorting is often messed up within each category as well, especially if you have renamed/numbered your views.  By default views appear, within the field dialog box, in the order they are placed rather than logically sorted by the view number.  As a result finding the correct view isn't as easy as it should be.