standard text size 1/8 or 3/32?

[Anonymous]

The environment:

Small (7 Acad licenses) architectural firm doing primarily medium size
multi-family housing and small commercial projects using A2Ki and A2K2. Of
the seven Acad licenses, only one is used by a designated drafter/designer,
the others are used by architects and architectural interns. Our projects
are plotted on a variety of sheet sizes, from 11x17 up to 30x42. Our clients
range from developers to the Corps of Engineers with a smattering of local
government entities.

The question:

Should we standardize on 1/8" or 3/32" text or somehow use both. It is my
understanding that any drawings as large as 30x42 that will be microfilmed
must have text no smaller than 1/8" text to maintain readability. My
co-workers argue that none of our clients are microfilming our drawings and
we therefore shouldn't use that as a criteria. I would love to use 3/32 but
when reduced, even by a factor of 2 (22x34 onto 11x17) 3/32 becomes
marginal. The first generation copy/fax is fine, second generation marginal,
and by the third generation you can forget reading it. A compromise,
perhaps? Use both - 3/32 on projects with smaller sheets with 1/8" on
projects with larger sheets - (and I get to deal with the standardization
issues - lisp routines, blocks, etc;).

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Mike Weaver
Charles Bettisworth & Co.

[Anonymous]

We use 3/32".

I worked for a company who once went round and round on this stupid issue. The
problems are pretty profound, since IMHO 1/8" looks like crap for general
documentation, and you cannot fit notes into a reasonable amount of space. I am
currently working on a project where the architectural firm who produced the
original bldg. docs used 5/64."

I think the font used has a huge impact over readability, more so than the size.
If you use a heavily chiseled architectural font, you may find problems. We use
an architectural font right now, and sometimes 3's look like 5's or 8's at half
size sets. Also, the pen weight used for notes needs to be considered, since
when anything is shrunk by 50% the lineweight "blob" issue creeps in.

However, I don't think readability of half size sets should govern the text
heights (or anything else, for that matter) of full size documentation. Half
size sets are used for referential convenience, but should never be used in lieu
of full size docs for building purposes.

Most arguments for 1/8" are to aid readability of half size sets, usually
requested from older guys with poor eyesight reading drawings in the field under
bad lighting conditions.

In this day and age, we are moving to more electronic means of drawing
distribution - PDF, Web, and so on. So hopefully this idiotic argument will go
away someday.

I know the Federal Government likes 1/8", which is as good a reason as any to
use 3/32".

Matt
mstachoni@home.com
mstachoni@beyerdesign.com


On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:55:03 -0700, "Mike Weaver"
wrote:

>The environment:
>
>Small (7 Acad licenses) architectural firm doing primarily medium size
>multi-family housing and small commercial projects using A2Ki and A2K2. Of
>the seven Acad licenses, only one is used by a designated drafter/designer,
>the others are used by architects and architectural interns. Our projects
>are plotted on a variety of sheet sizes, from 11x17 up to 30x42. Our clients
>range from developers to the Corps of Engineers with a smattering of local
>government entities.
>
>The question:
>
>Should we standardize on 1/8" or 3/32" text or somehow use both. It is my
>understanding that any drawings as large as 30x42 that will be microfilmed
>must have text no smaller than 1/8" text to maintain readability. My
>co-workers argue that none of our clients are microfilming our drawings and
>we therefore shouldn't use that as a criteria. I would love to use 3/32 but
>when reduced, even by a factor of 2 (22x34 onto 11x17) 3/32 becomes
>marginal. The first generation copy/fax is fine, second generation marginal,
>and by the third generation you can forget reading it. A compromise,
>perhaps? Use both - 3/32 on projects with smaller sheets with 1/8" on
>projects with larger sheets - (and I get to deal with the standardization
>issues - lisp routines, blocks, etc;).
>
>Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>Mike Weaver
>Charles Bettisworth & Co.
>
>

[Anonymous]

I've always used 1/10" (just a nudge bigger than 3/32 & the math is easier). CAD
lettering is much neater than hand lettering so it can afford to be smaller. You
use all upper case right?

Mike Weaver wrote:

> Should we standardize on 1/8" or 3/32" text or somehow use both.

[Anonymous]

>>I know the Federal Government likes 1/8", which is as good a reason as any
to
>>use 3/32".

LOL

[Anonymous]

Yes, all upper case.
It sounds like the microfilm argument is a non-issue. The last time I
worked in the oil and gas industry (1992), all of the drawings were being
archived on film.

Thanks for the input, Paul.


"Paul Furman" wrote in message
news:3BC5AD84.50AE616B@edgehill.net...
> I've always used 1/10" (just a nudge bigger than 3/32 & the math is
easier). CAD
> lettering is much neater than hand lettering so it can afford to be
smaller. You
> use all upper case right?
>
> Mike Weaver wrote:
>
> > Should we standardize on 1/8" or 3/32" text or somehow use both.
>

[Anonymous]

We use 1/10 also..


Paul Furman wrote:
>
> I've always used 1/10" (just a nudge bigger than 3/32 & the math is easier). CAD
> lettering is much neater than hand lettering so it can afford to be smaller. You
> use all upper case right?
>
> Mike Weaver wrote:
>
> > Should we standardize on 1/8" or 3/32" text or somehow use both.

[Anonymous]

We actually use 1/12. (AutoCAD typically displays that as 3/32" based on
your units display.)

1/12 works numerically well for most plan work- at 1/4"=1'-0" it's 4"
tall...1/8"=1'-0" means 8" tall.

Scale factor Text Size
1 1/12
4 4/12 = 1/3
8 8/12 = 2/3
12 12/12 = 1
16 16/12 = 1-1/3
24 24/12 = 2
32 32/12 = 2-2/3
48 48/12 = 4
64 64/12 = 5-1/3
96 96/12 = 8
128 128/12 = 10-2/3
192 192/12 = 16
240 240/12 = 20
360 360/12 = 30


etc, etc.

Robert Grandmaison


"Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
news:js7bst0pdklll5ogqekufjvvv33459sr0c@4ax.com...
> We use 3/32".
>
> I worked for a company who once went round and round on this stupid issue.
The
> problems are pretty profound, since IMHO 1/8" looks like crap for general
> documentation, and you cannot fit notes into a reasonable amount of space.
I am
> currently working on a project where the architectural firm who produced
the
> original bldg. docs used 5/64."
>
> I think the font used has a huge impact over readability, more so than the
size.
> If you use a heavily chiseled architectural font, you may find problems.
We use
> an architectural font right now, and sometimes 3's look like 5's or 8's at
half
> size sets. Also, the pen weight used for notes needs to be considered,
since
> when anything is shrunk by 50% the lineweight "blob" issue creeps in.
>
> However, I don't think readability of half size sets should govern the
text
> heights (or anything else, for that matter) of full size documentation.
Half
> size sets are used for referential convenience, but should never be used
in lieu
> of full size docs for building purposes.
>
> Most arguments for 1/8" are to aid readability of half size sets, usually
> requested from older guys with poor eyesight reading drawings in the field
under
> bad lighting conditions.
>
> In this day and age, we are moving to more electronic means of drawing
> distribution - PDF, Web, and so on. So hopefully this idiotic argument
will go
> away someday.
>
> I know the Federal Government likes 1/8", which is as good a reason as any
to
> use 3/32".
>
> Matt
> mstachoni@home.com
> mstachoni@beyerdesign.com
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:55:03 -0700, "Mike Weaver"

> wrote:
>
> >The environment:
> >
> >Small (7 Acad licenses) architectural firm doing primarily medium size
> >multi-family housing and small commercial projects using A2Ki and A2K2.
Of
> >the seven Acad licenses, only one is used by a designated
drafter/designer,
> >the others are used by architects and architectural interns. Our projects
> >are plotted on a variety of sheet sizes, from 11x17 up to 30x42. Our
clients
> >range from developers to the Corps of Engineers with a smattering of
local
> >government entities.
> >
> >The question:
> >
> >Should we standardize on 1/8" or 3/32" text or somehow use both. It is my
> >understanding that any drawings as large as 30x42 that will be
microfilmed
> >must have text no smaller than 1/8" text to maintain readability. My
> >co-workers argue that none of our clients are microfilming our drawings
and
> >we therefore shouldn't use that as a criteria. I would love to use 3/32
but
> >when reduced, even by a factor of 2 (22x34 onto 11x17) 3/32 becomes
> >marginal. The first generation copy/fax is fine, second generation
marginal,
> >and by the third generation you can forget reading it. A compromise,
> >perhaps? Use both - 3/32 on projects with smaller sheets with 1/8" on
> >projects with larger sheets - (and I get to deal with the standardization
> >issues - lisp routines, blocks, etc;).
> >
> >Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> >
> >Mike Weaver
> >Charles Bettisworth & Co.
> >
> >
>

[Anonymous]

Interesting approach. Simple. Effective. I like it.

Mike

"Robert Grandmaison" wrote in message
news:E7B1F7385D1A0BB0A01E49C95F8C2606@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> We actually use 1/12. (AutoCAD typically displays that as 3/32" based on
> your units display.)
>
> 1/12 works numerically well for most plan work- at 1/4"=1'-0" it's 4"
> tall...1/8"=1'-0" means 8" tall.
>
> Scale factor Text Size
> 1 1/12
> 4 4/12 = 1/3
> 8 8/12 = 2/3
> 12 12/12 = 1
> 16 16/12 = 1-1/3
> 24 24/12 = 2
> 32 32/12 = 2-2/3
> 48 48/12 = 4
> 64 64/12 = 5-1/3
> 96 96/12 = 8
> 128 128/12 = 10-2/3
> 192 192/12 = 16
> 240 240/12 = 20
> 360 360/12 = 30
>
>
> etc, etc.
>
> Robert Grandmaison
>
>
> "Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
> news:js7bst0pdklll5ogqekufjvvv33459sr0c@4ax.com...
> > We use 3/32".
> >
> > I worked for a company who once went round and round on this stupid
issue.
> The
> > problems are pretty profound, since IMHO 1/8" looks like crap for
general
> > documentation, and you cannot fit notes into a reasonable amount of
space.
> I am
> > currently working on a project where the architectural firm who produced
> the
> > original bldg. docs used 5/64."
> >
> > I think the font used has a huge impact over readability, more so than
the
> size.
> > If you use a heavily chiseled architectural font, you may find problems.
> We use
> > an architectural font right now, and sometimes 3's look like 5's or 8's
at
> half
> > size sets. Also, the pen weight used for notes needs to be considered,
> since
> > when anything is shrunk by 50% the lineweight "blob" issue creeps in.
> >
> > However, I don't think readability of half size sets should govern the
> text
> > heights (or anything else, for that matter) of full size documentation.
> Half
> > size sets are used for referential convenience, but should never be used
> in lieu
> > of full size docs for building purposes.
> >
> > Most arguments for 1/8" are to aid readability of half size sets,
usually
> > requested from older guys with poor eyesight reading drawings in the
field
> under
> > bad lighting conditions.
> >
> > In this day and age, we are moving to more electronic means of drawing
> > distribution - PDF, Web, and so on. So hopefully this idiotic argument
> will go
> > away someday.
> >
> > I know the Federal Government likes 1/8", which is as good a reason as
any
> to
> > use 3/32".
> >
> > Matt
> > mstachoni@home.com
> > mstachoni@beyerdesign.com
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:55:03 -0700, "Mike Weaver"
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >The environment:
> > >
> > >Small (7 Acad licenses) architectural firm doing primarily medium size
> > >multi-family housing and small commercial projects using A2Ki and A2K2.
> Of
> > >the seven Acad licenses, only one is used by a designated
> drafter/designer,
> > >the others are used by architects and architectural interns. Our
projects
> > >are plotted on a variety of sheet sizes, from 11x17 up to 30x42. Our
> clients
> > >range from developers to the Corps of Engineers with a smattering of
> local
> > >government entities.
> > >
> > >The question:
> > >
> > >Should we standardize on 1/8" or 3/32" text or somehow use both. It is
my
> > >understanding that any drawings as large as 30x42 that will be
> microfilmed
> > >must have text no smaller than 1/8" text to maintain readability. My
> > >co-workers argue that none of our clients are microfilming our drawings
> and
> > >we therefore shouldn't use that as a criteria. I would love to use 3/32
> but
> > >when reduced, even by a factor of 2 (22x34 onto 11x17) 3/32 becomes
> > >marginal. The first generation copy/fax is fine, second generation
> marginal,
> > >and by the third generation you can forget reading it. A compromise,
> > >perhaps? Use both - 3/32 on projects with smaller sheets with 1/8" on
> > >projects with larger sheets - (and I get to deal with the
standardization
> > >issues - lisp routines, blocks, etc;).
> > >
> > >Any suggestions would be appreciated.
> > >
> > >Mike Weaver
> > >Charles Bettisworth & Co.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:02:08 -0700, "Mike Weaver"
wrote:

>Interesting approach. Simple. Effective. I like it.

With all due respect to Robert, it's not simpler or more effective. More
convenient to memorize, perhaps. But by going with an irrational number
(0.8333333 decimal) instead of a simpler "whole" fraction, you basically ensure
that at every UNITS setting you're having AutoCAD rounding off the actual text
height for the scales like 3/8"=1'-0" and 3/4"=1'-0".

Which is deadly if you have users who see the rounded off number and enter that
in for a text height instead of the "official" x/3 text height.

Compare Robert's 1/12" scaled heights

Rounded value
w/LUPREC=1/16
Scale Text Ht (AutoCAD's default)

> 1 1/12 1/16"
> 4 1/3 5/16"
> 8 2/3 11/16"
> 12 1
> 16 1-1/3 1-5/16"
> 24 2
> 32 2-2/3 1-11/16"
> 48 4
> 64 5-1/3 5-5/16"
> 96 8
> 128 10-2/3 10-11/16"
> 192 16
> 240 20
> 360 30

(Notice that AutoCAD reports round off error of up to 1/16", e.g. 4x => 5/16"
vs. 8x =>11/16" instead of 10/16").

To using a slightly larger fraction 3/32":
> 1 3/32
> 4 3/8
> 8 3/4
> 12 1-1/8
> 16 1-1/2
> 24 2-1/4
> 32 3
> 48 4-1/2
> 64 6
> 96 9
> 128 12
> 192 18
> 240 22-1/2
> 360 33-3/4

Where every text height is "actual" and real, and users can be assured that what
AutoCAD reports back to them as being fractional text heights are true.

Now, knowing Robert, I'm sure he has this all customized to a point where his
people don't have to worry about entering text heights (I strongly encourage
taking such potentials for error - like entering text heights - out of the hands
of users). However, I am also very uneasy about setting height standards that
cause such round off to occur. Even when LUPREC is set to 1/256", as in my
office, it has the potential for causing problems.

Matt
mstachoni@home.com
mstachoni@beyerdesign.com

[Anonymous]

Matt,

I agree, it's not any simpler except for the most commonly used scales we
draw at (where text is either 4" or 8" high). When I teach my autocad
classes I encourage my students to use a default text height of 1/10" so the
math is REALLY easy.

And you're right. My users NEVER have to set their text height. They just
click a button and AutoCAD does all of that for them.

The only problem I have with using 3/32" is that the text is just a tad too
small. We often get clients who complain about our 1/12" high text. If we
went to one that was 3/32" in height I know we'd have even more complaining
from those clients who already complain about it. Text too big though looks
clumsy to me. I don't like a default height of 1/8". Can't get enough text
on a sheet/detail and it looks somehow amatuerish.

Robert

"Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
news:ogjcst8tu0tk8talak3k3kg2ef7im1a8te@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:02:08 -0700, "Mike Weaver"

> wrote:
>
> >Interesting approach. Simple. Effective. I like it.
>
> With all due respect to Robert, it's not simpler or more effective. More
> convenient to memorize, perhaps. But by going with an irrational number
> (0.8333333 decimal) instead of a simpler "whole" fraction, you basically
ensure
> that at every UNITS setting you're having AutoCAD rounding off the actual
text
> height for the scales like 3/8"=1'-0" and 3/4"=1'-0".
>
> Which is deadly if you have users who see the rounded off number and enter
that
> in for a text height instead of the "official" x/3 text height.
>
> Compare Robert's 1/12" scaled heights
>
> Rounded value
> w/LUPREC=1/16
> Scale Text Ht (AutoCAD's default)
>
> > 1 1/12 1/16"
> > 4 1/3 5/16"
> > 8 2/3 11/16"
> > 12 1
> > 16 1-1/3 1-5/16"
> > 24 2
> > 32 2-2/3 1-11/16"
> > 48 4
> > 64 5-1/3 5-5/16"
> > 96 8
> > 128 10-2/3 10-11/16"
> > 192 16
> > 240 20
> > 360 30
>
> (Notice that AutoCAD reports round off error of up to 1/16", e.g. 4x =>
5/16"
> vs. 8x =>11/16" instead of 10/16").
>
> To using a slightly larger fraction 3/32":
> > 1 3/32
> > 4 3/8
> > 8 3/4
> > 12 1-1/8
> > 16 1-1/2
> > 24 2-1/4
> > 32 3
> > 48 4-1/2
> > 64 6
> > 96 9
> > 128 12
> > 192 18
> > 240 22-1/2
> > 360 33-3/4
>
> Where every text height is "actual" and real, and users can be assured
that what
> AutoCAD reports back to them as being fractional text heights are true.
>
> Now, knowing Robert, I'm sure he has this all customized to a point where
his
> people don't have to worry about entering text heights (I strongly
encourage
> taking such potentials for error - like entering text heights - out of the
hands
> of users). However, I am also very uneasy about setting height standards
that
> cause such round off to occur. Even when LUPREC is set to 1/256", as in my
> office, it has the potential for causing problems.
>
> Matt
> mstachoni@home.com
> mstachoni@beyerdesign.com
>

[Anonymous]

DOH! 1/12 IS smaller than 3/32! LOL. Guess I better do the math.

Well, the REAL reason we use 1/12" high text is that we inherited it from an
old Softdesk detail system the company used before I ever got on
board....I've never liked the numbers like 2/3, 1/3, etc...Had I to do it
over again I'd switch to 3/32" and follow Matt's suggestion. So, if you're
anyone contemplating setting up a new standard from scratch do NOT use
1/12". Go with Matt's recommendation!

Thanks Matt,

Robert



"Robert Grandmaison" STUPIDLY wrote in message
news:5F8F967C4A159CEC38D9EC3AAE42B8B9@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> The only problem I have with using 3/32" is that the text is just a tad
too
> small. We often get clients who complain about our 1/12" high text. If we
> went to one that was 3/32" in height I know we'd have even more
complaining
> from those clients who already complain about it.

[Anonymous]

Hey Matt, while talking on the subject of Text, I have a question for you.

We use a lot of MTEXT here- DTEXT is only used for our boilerplate notes
where we need to fake hanging indents.

I don't like the "At least" spacing for lines of MTEXT. I like my MTEXT to
be set to "EXACTLY" for the line spacing. Do you know of a way to set that
as the default for newly created MTEXT?

I seem to remember that you don't like MTEXT, but I'm hoping you might know
the solution to that one.

Robert


"Robert Grandmaison" wrote in message
news:5F8F967C4A159CEC38D9EC3AAE42B8B9@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Matt,
>
> I agree, it's not any simpler except for the most commonly used scales we
> draw at (where text is either 4" or 8" high). When I teach my autocad
> classes I encourage my students to use a default text height of 1/10" so
the
> math is REALLY easy.
>
> And you're right. My users NEVER have to set their text height. They just
> click a button and AutoCAD does all of that for them.
>
> The only problem I have with using 3/32" is that the text is just a tad
too
> small. We often get clients who complain about our 1/12" high text. If we
> went to one that was 3/32" in height I know we'd have even more
complaining
> from those clients who already complain about it. Text too big though
looks
> clumsy to me. I don't like a default height of 1/8". Can't get enough text
> on a sheet/detail and it looks somehow amatuerish.
>
> Robert
>
> "Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
> news:ogjcst8tu0tk8talak3k3kg2ef7im1a8te@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:02:08 -0700, "Mike Weaver"
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Interesting approach. Simple. Effective. I like it.
> >
> > With all due respect to Robert, it's not simpler or more effective. More
> > convenient to memorize, perhaps. But by going with an irrational number
> > (0.8333333 decimal) instead of a simpler "whole" fraction, you basically
> ensure
> > that at every UNITS setting you're having AutoCAD rounding off the
actual
> text
> > height for the scales like 3/8"=1'-0" and 3/4"=1'-0".
> >
> > Which is deadly if you have users who see the rounded off number and
enter
> that
> > in for a text height instead of the "official" x/3 text height.
> >
> > Compare Robert's 1/12" scaled heights
> >
> > Rounded value
> > w/LUPREC=1/16
> > Scale Text Ht (AutoCAD's default)
> >
> > > 1 1/12 1/16"
> > > 4 1/3 5/16"
> > > 8 2/3 11/16"
> > > 12 1
> > > 16 1-1/3 1-5/16"
> > > 24 2
> > > 32 2-2/3 1-11/16"
> > > 48 4
> > > 64 5-1/3 5-5/16"
> > > 96 8
> > > 128 10-2/3 10-11/16"
> > > 192 16
> > > 240 20
> > > 360 30
> >
> > (Notice that AutoCAD reports round off error of up to 1/16", e.g. 4x =>
> 5/16"
> > vs. 8x =>11/16" instead of 10/16").
> >
> > To using a slightly larger fraction 3/32":
> > > 1 3/32
> > > 4 3/8
> > > 8 3/4
> > > 12 1-1/8
> > > 16 1-1/2
> > > 24 2-1/4
> > > 32 3
> > > 48 4-1/2
> > > 64 6
> > > 96 9
> > > 128 12
> > > 192 18
> > > 240 22-1/2
> > > 360 33-3/4
> >
> > Where every text height is "actual" and real, and users can be assured
> that what
> > AutoCAD reports back to them as being fractional text heights are true.
> >
> > Now, knowing Robert, I'm sure he has this all customized to a point
where
> his
> > people don't have to worry about entering text heights (I strongly
> encourage
> > taking such potentials for error - like entering text heights - out of
the
> hands
> > of users). However, I am also very uneasy about setting height standards
> that
> > cause such round off to occur. Even when LUPREC is set to 1/256", as in
my
> > office, it has the potential for causing problems.
> >
> > Matt
> > mstachoni@home.com
> > mstachoni@beyerdesign.com
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

Actually, I've grown to LOVE using MText. Really! I've modified all of my text
macros to handle Mtext so that any real bias I used to have has pretty much gone
away.

Too bad AutoCAD doesn't have a decent Mtext editor, but that's an old, beaten
subject.

But like you, I really like the ability to correctly size the distance between
text lines, and this issue came up a while ago in our office regarding
multi-line text elements in schedules. The default settings blew out the
allowable (cramped) space.

There is a "LineSpacingFactor" and "LineSpacingStyle" property for MText
objects. I keep my LineSPacingStyle at "Exactly," but I think that's standard.
If you change it to "At Least" I think that takes into account characters that
have drops or something, so the spacing expands to accomodate those characters.

The formula I've come up with is that MText spaces out at (1-2/3" * TextHeight *
LineSpacingFactor). This affects the distance between the baselines of the
MText. It can be between 0.25 and 4 inclusive.

So, for 12" text at a LSF of 1.0, the vertical text spacing is 20" (1.6667 * 12
* 1). If the LSF is set to 3/4", then the vertical spacing between lines is
1.6667 * 12" * 0.75) or 15". For a LSF of 1/2" it's 10"

And this works for other text heights as well.

BTW - because of the ABSENCE of a simple TAB in Mtext, and the use of a
non-fixed width font, we fake hanging indents (such as with numbered lists) with
two columns of Mext.

The left column has only the numbers, with some carriage returns between them.
The right column has all the text for the list, with a single carriage return
between items. Then I just enter in the appropriate number of returns in the
numbers column to align with the items on the right. This way I can space the
two columns apart exactly, e.g. 1/4" scaled. It's weird, but it actually works
REALLY well.

Matt
mstachoni@home.com
mstachoni@beyerdesign.com




On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 08:45:20 -0700, "Robert Grandmaison"
wrote:

>Hey Matt, while talking on the subject of Text, I have a question for you.
>
>We use a lot of MTEXT here- DTEXT is only used for our boilerplate notes
>where we need to fake hanging indents.
>
>I don't like the "At least" spacing for lines of MTEXT. I like my MTEXT to
>be set to "EXACTLY" for the line spacing. Do you know of a way to set that
>as the default for newly created MTEXT?
>
>I seem to remember that you don't like MTEXT, but I'm hoping you might know
>the solution to that one.

[Anonymous]

Matt,

As much as we've differed on some issues in the past (PS, Layers, etc.)
we've probably got a lot more in common than not.

Glad to hear you're an MTEXT fan now- and I TOTALLY concur with you about
the problems with it. It has ALWAYS been my biggest gripe with autodesk
about AutoCAD: the lack of formatting for text inside of AutoCAD. I was
really hoping that when 2002 came out it would have had some major
improvements to MTEXT. Had they done that I think it would have been really
embraced by those who are still looking for a good reason to upgrade! An
MTEXT editor that would support hanging indents, tabs, etc., would have been
a greater improved feature than the new DIMASSOC stuff imho.

Robert


"Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
news:dc7est8vh2lthu7l5ru1ufd5c7irskpvtm@4ax.com...
> Actually, I've grown to LOVE using MText. Really! I've modified all of my
text
> macros to handle Mtext so that any real bias I used to have has pretty
much gone
> away.
>
> Too bad AutoCAD doesn't have a decent Mtext editor, but that's an old,
beaten
> subject.
>
> But like you, I really like the ability to correctly size the distance
between
> text lines, and this issue came up a while ago in our office regarding
> multi-line text elements in schedules. The default settings blew out the
> allowable (cramped) space.
>
> There is a "LineSpacingFactor" and "LineSpacingStyle" property for MText
> objects. I keep my LineSPacingStyle at "Exactly," but I think that's
standard.
> If you change it to "At Least" I think that takes into account characters
that
> have drops or something, so the spacing expands to accomodate those
characters.
>
> The formula I've come up with is that MText spaces out at (1-2/3" *
TextHeight *
> LineSpacingFactor). This affects the distance between the baselines of the
> MText. It can be between 0.25 and 4 inclusive.
>
> So, for 12" text at a LSF of 1.0, the vertical text spacing is 20" (1.6667
* 12
> * 1). If the LSF is set to 3/4", then the vertical spacing between lines
is
> 1.6667 * 12" * 0.75) or 15". For a LSF of 1/2" it's 10"
>
> And this works for other text heights as well.
>
> BTW - because of the ABSENCE of a simple TAB in Mtext, and the use of a
> non-fixed width font, we fake hanging indents (such as with numbered
lists) with
> two columns of Mext.
>
> The left column has only the numbers, with some carriage returns between
them.
> The right column has all the text for the list, with a single carriage
return
> between items. Then I just enter in the appropriate number of returns in
the
> numbers column to align with the items on the right. This way I can space
the
> two columns apart exactly, e.g. 1/4" scaled. It's weird, but it actually
works
> REALLY well.
>
> Matt
> mstachoni@home.com
> mstachoni@beyerdesign.com
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 08:45:20 -0700, "Robert Grandmaison"
> wrote:
>
> >Hey Matt, while talking on the subject of Text, I have a question for
you.
> >
> >We use a lot of MTEXT here- DTEXT is only used for our boilerplate notes
> >where we need to fake hanging indents.
> >
> >I don't like the "At least" spacing for lines of MTEXT. I like my MTEXT
to
> >be set to "EXACTLY" for the line spacing. Do you know of a way to set
that
> >as the default for newly created MTEXT?
> >
> >I seem to remember that you don't like MTEXT, but I'm hoping you might
know
> >the solution to that one.
>

[Anonymous]

I think my main gripe with the way Mtext works is that there aren't "grip" edit
points at the places where you really need them - namely, at the middle-left and
right of the top and bottom line of a text paragraph. With a paragraph of
Middle-Left justified DText, you at least have the alignment point to use when
dealing with leader tails and placing text in space. With MText, there's only
the middle center of the paragraph, or you have to resort to all sorts of
calculation in AutoLISP to get text to place itself correctly in space.

And I think that Leaders with MText are STILL completely screwed up. They
haven't been able to adequately deal with issue for over 6 releases. I would
take a usable LEADER over tabs in MText any day of the week. It's nonsensical
that such a basic requirement is so poorly implement as to be almost useless
without a lot of back end customization to fix it.

Kinda like R14's paperspace 🙂

Matt
mstachoni@home.com
mstachoni@beyerdesign.com


On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:00:01 -0700, "Robert Grandmaison"
wrote:

>Matt,
>
>As much as we've differed on some issues in the past (PS, Layers, etc.)
>we've probably got a lot more in common than not.
>
>Glad to hear you're an MTEXT fan now- and I TOTALLY concur with you about
>the problems with it. It has ALWAYS been my biggest gripe with autodesk
>about AutoCAD: the lack of formatting for text inside of AutoCAD. I was
>really hoping that when 2002 came out it would have had some major
>improvements to MTEXT. Had they done that I think it would have been really
>embraced by those who are still looking for a good reason to upgrade! An
>MTEXT editor that would support hanging indents, tabs, etc., would have been
>a greater improved feature than the new DIMASSOC stuff imho.
>
>Robert

[Anonymous]

I never use the attached leaders. My routine just allows a user to select a
line of text within the mtext and places the leader accordingly.

Here it is:

(defun c:tlead
(/ tobj tlist dtlist dtinsp dtenttb p1 p2 dthalfwidth+gap)
(varget)
(command "-layer" "m" "S-ANNO-NOTE" "")
(setvar "cmdecho" 0)
(setvar "osmode" 0)
(setvar "orthomode" 0)
(setq tobj (entsel "\nSelect Top or Bottom Line of Text: "))
(setq tlist (entget (car tobj)))
(if (= (cdr (assoc 0 tlist)) "TEXT")
(progn
(setq dtenttb (textbox (entget (car tobj))))
(setq dtlist (entget (car tobj)))
)
)
(if (= (cdr (assoc 0 tlist)) "MTEXT")
(progn
(command "explode" tobj)
(setq mtline (ssget (cadr tobj))) ;warning! This uses the cursor's
position, not an actual object point!
(setq dtlist (entget (ssname mtline 0)))
(setq dtenttb (textbox (entget (ssname mtline 0))))
(command "u")
)
)
(setq dtinspt (cdr (assoc 10 dtlist)))
(setq p1 (list (/ (+ (caadr dtenttb) (caar dtenttb)) 2.0)
(/ (+ (cadar dtenttb) (cadadr dtenttb)) 2.0)
(cadddr (assoc 10 dtlist))
)
)
(setq p2 (list (+ (car dtinspt) (car p1))
(+ (cadr dtinspt) (cadr p1))
(+ (caddr dtinspt) (caddr p1))
)
)
(setq dthalfwidth+gap
(+ (/ (- (caadr dtenttb) (caar dtenttb)) 2.0)
(* 0.03625 (getvar "dimscale"))
)
)
(prompt "\nSelect Leader Start and Bend Points: ")
(command "leader"
pause
".Y"
p2
pause
(polar p2 (angle p2 (getvar "lastpoint")) dthalfwidth+gap)
""
""
"n"
)
(varset)
(princ)
)


Oh, and you'd need my varset and varget routines- I'm sure there's a better
way to do it, but here it is:

(defun varget ()
(setq os (getvar "osmode"))
(setq sa (getvar "snapang"))
(setq cl (getvar "clayer"))
(setq om (getvar "orthomode"))
(setq ce (getvar "cmdecho"))
(setq cel (getvar "celtype"))
(setq cec (getvar "cecolor"))
(setq ds (getvar "DIMSCALE"))
(setq plg (getvar "plinegen"))
)

(defun varset ()
(setvar "osmode" os)
(setvar "snapang" sa)
(setvar "clayer" cl)
(setvar "orthomode" om)
(setvar "cmdecho" ce)
(setvar "celtype" cel)
(setvar "cecolor" cec)
(setvar "plinegen" plg)
)


"Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
news:3kkestg6t0njjrhhevgdkpcm5d3sf5me6t@4ax.com...
>
> I think my main gripe with the way Mtext works is that there aren't "grip"
edit
> points at the places where you really need them - namely, at the
middle-left and
> right of the top and bottom line of a text paragraph. With a paragraph of
> Middle-Left justified DText, you at least have the alignment point to use
when
> dealing with leader tails and placing text in space. With MText, there's
only
> the middle center of the paragraph, or you have to resort to all sorts of
> calculation in AutoLISP to get text to place itself correctly in space.
>
> And I think that Leaders with MText are STILL completely screwed up. They
> haven't been able to adequately deal with issue for over 6 releases. I
would
> take a usable LEADER over tabs in MText any day of the week. It's
nonsensical
> that such a basic requirement is so poorly implement as to be almost
useless
> without a lot of back end customization to fix it.
>
> Kinda like R14's paperspace 🙂
>
> Matt
> mstachoni@home.com
> mstachoni@beyerdesign.com
>
>
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:00:01 -0700, "Robert Grandmaison"
> wrote:
>
> >Matt,
> >
> >As much as we've differed on some issues in the past (PS, Layers, etc.)
> >we've probably got a lot more in common than not.
> >
> >Glad to hear you're an MTEXT fan now- and I TOTALLY concur with you about
> >the problems with it. It has ALWAYS been my biggest gripe with autodesk
> >about AutoCAD: the lack of formatting for text inside of AutoCAD. I was
> >really hoping that when 2002 came out it would have had some major
> >improvements to MTEXT. Had they done that I think it would have been
really
> >embraced by those who are still looking for a good reason to upgrade! An
> >MTEXT editor that would support hanging indents, tabs, etc., would have
been
> >a greater improved feature than the new DIMASSOC stuff imho.
> >
> >Robert
>

[Anonymous]

The advantage of 1/8" text is that it is still very readable when the
drawing is reduced to half size. We issue working drawings as 8-1/2"x11"
"Construction Manuals", and the large drawings are put in the manual as
reduced-size fold-out pages. Using 1/8" text makes the notes very readable
in the manual.

--
Allen A. (allen@ambrosedgr.com)
(remove "r" from end of email address)


"Mike Weaver" wrote in message
news:57319FB67DEE55B4E9E3D05D70FFF67F@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> The environment:
>
> Small (7 Acad licenses) architectural firm doing primarily medium size
> multi-family housing and small commercial projects using A2Ki and A2K2. Of
> the seven Acad licenses, only one is used by a designated
drafter/designer,
> the others are used by architects and architectural interns. Our projects
> are plotted on a variety of sheet sizes, from 11x17 up to 30x42. Our
clients
> range from developers to the Corps of Engineers with a smattering of local
> government entities.
>
> The question:
>
> Should we standardize on 1/8" or 3/32" text or somehow use both. It is my
> understanding that any drawings as large as 30x42 that will be microfilmed
> must have text no smaller than 1/8" text to maintain readability. My
> co-workers argue that none of our clients are microfilming our drawings
and
> we therefore shouldn't use that as a criteria. I would love to use 3/32
but
> when reduced, even by a factor of 2 (22x34 onto 11x17) 3/32 becomes
> marginal. The first generation copy/fax is fine, second generation
marginal,
> and by the third generation you can forget reading it. A compromise,
> perhaps? Use both - 3/32 on projects with smaller sheets with 1/8" on
> projects with larger sheets - (and I get to deal with the standardization
> issues - lisp routines, blocks, etc;).
>
> Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
> Mike Weaver
> Charles Bettisworth & Co.
>
>
>

[Anonymous]

Robert,
Great routine. That's a slick way to get the width of the text object at
the point picked.
Thanks,
Mike

"Robert Grandmaison" wrote in message
news:BD75F189CEE2813EBBE05783AB9033DA@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I never use the attached leaders. My routine just allows a user to select
a
> line of text within the mtext and places the leader accordingly.
>
> Here it is:
>
> (defun c:tlead
> (/ tobj tlist dtlist dtinsp dtenttb p1 p2 dthalfwidth+gap)
> (varget)
> (command "-layer" "m" "S-ANNO-NOTE" "")
> (setvar "cmdecho" 0)
> (setvar "osmode" 0)
> (setvar "orthomode" 0)
> (setq tobj (entsel "\nSelect Top or Bottom Line of Text: "))
> (setq tlist (entget (car tobj)))
> (if (= (cdr (assoc 0 tlist)) "TEXT")
> (progn
> (setq dtenttb (textbox (entget (car tobj))))
> (setq dtlist (entget (car tobj)))
> )
> )
> (if (= (cdr (assoc 0 tlist)) "MTEXT")
> (progn
> (command "explode" tobj)
> (setq mtline (ssget (cadr tobj))) ;warning! This uses the cursor's
> position, not an actual object point!
> (setq dtlist (entget (ssname mtline 0)))
> (setq dtenttb (textbox (entget (ssname mtline 0))))
> (command "u")
> )
> )
> (setq dtinspt (cdr (assoc 10 dtlist)))
> (setq p1 (list (/ (+ (caadr dtenttb) (caar dtenttb)) 2.0)
> (/ (+ (cadar dtenttb) (cadadr dtenttb)) 2.0)
> (cadddr (assoc 10 dtlist))
> )
...snip

[Anonymous]

I work mostly on P&ID's, piping and electrical drawings. My personal preference is for 3/32" for general text, with 1/8" reserved for equipment names, titles and the like. I MUCH prefer text width set at .8, aesthetically and for practical purpose of fitting better almost everywhere. ALSO, hate, hate, HATE architectural fonts for readability and reproduction reasons. Sure, they look nifty on the full-size originals, but I've run into more problems with readability...
Oh, and except on architectural drawings, they just look goofy. We are an ENGINEERING firm primarily. Our drawings are really unlikely to end up in an architectural museum somewhere. Pet peeve, blowing off steam...

[Anonymous]

In article , lafleur@dennisgrp.com says...
> I work mostly on P&ID's, piping and electrical drawings. My personal preference is for 3/32" for general text, with 1/8" reserved for equipment names, titles and the like. I MUCH prefer text width set at .8, aesthetically and for practical purpose of fitting better almost everywhere. ALSO, hate, hate, HATE architectural fonts for readability and reproduction reasons. Sure, they look nifty on the full-size originals, but I've run into more problems with
readability...

> Oh, and except on architectural drawings, they just look goofy. We are an ENGINEERING firm primarily. Our drawings are really unlikely to end up in an architectural museum somewhere. Pet peeve, blowing off steam...
>
As and architect and somewhat of a technology "geek" I have found the
"architectural" fonts somewhat "silly." I mean why go through all the
trouble of making a CAD drawing text look like jagged hand lettering.
It is computer generated, use a font that is clear and readable. I have
to show our firm that the "hand" fonts were slowed down regeneration
before they would consider changing (some years ago when r12 was new).
Thanks for blowing a little steam and giving me a chance to vent as
well.

Dan Wells A.I.A.
Director of IS
MHTN Architects, Inc.
Salt Lake City, Utah.