Community
Inventor Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Inventor Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Inventor topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

PRINTING TO SCALE

67 REPLIES 67
Reply
Message 1 of 68
Anonymous
943 Views, 67 Replies

PRINTING TO SCALE

I still find it hard to believe that IV6 still does not have the capability
to print a window to scale. Autocad had this capability for years. I hate
to have to print a large drawing to get the one view I needed at 1/1!
67 REPLIES 67
Message 21 of 68
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

You just move the Parent view outside of the sheet
boundaries the you can plot just the detail


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

Good idea. Now how do you only print that one
view?????? (WITHOUT CREATING ANOTHER SHEET)


 

 


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
What
if you create a scaled detail view to be 1:1 and then print only that
view?

MechMan
Message 22 of 68
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I work with small machine parts, and if I plotted 1:1 my drawings would fit on a 3 X 5 index card. I have to plot at different scales. I started on a board, and could care less if I ever see one again. The one use I do have for plotting at an accurate scale is 10X actual size on transparencies for templates to use for checking parts in Quality Control on an optical comparator, otherwise I plot to the paper size. I use LT2000i, but benefit from reading the posts from all the great and knowledgeable people in this group.
Larry
Message 23 of 68
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Yes it bothers me. Many of the parts i create can be printed out 1:1 on 8.5
x 11. A piece of paper is much cheaper than dropping half a grand on a SLA.
Most of the time when I need a 1:1 print, I drop the part in a IDW without
dimensions, saveas a DWG, then open and print out of autocad. That gets to
be boring over time and a waste of time.

John


"Sean Dotson" wrote in message
news:C4EF9871510EE312D34FE550EF2EE5DD@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I be curious to take a poll....
>
> Does not having a 1:1 plot bother you?
> If you answered yes to this did you start drafting on a board?
>
> I would bet that a majority of users who are bothered by it had their
start
> on a drafting table, whereas those who don't care probably never used one
in
> a production environment.
>
> Not that there is anything wrong with either group, I'd just be curious as
> to the outcome...
>
> --
> Sean Dotson, PE
> http://www.sdotson.com
> Check the Inventor FAQ for most common questions
> www.sdotson.com/faq.html
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ------
> "Herb Morrison" wrote in message
> news:4839B13D0E17D5CD365B1AE0337E1C62@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > I still find it hard to believe that IV6 still does not have the
> capability
> > to print a window to scale. Autocad had this capability for years. I
> hate
> > to have to print a large drawing to get the one view I needed at 1/1!
> >
> >
>
>
Message 24 of 68
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I started on the board, however hardly anything I did fit the sheet at 1:1.
10 Ton and larger overhead cranes just do not fit on any conventional sheet
size at 1:1. Most of what I currently work on (at least fully assembled)
still will not fit on a conventional sheet at 1:1.

I have no problem plotting at 1:1. It is very simple to create a view (at
1:1) in a blank sheet (that my 'E' size plotter will handle) and then plot
it, assuming it will all fit on the sheet. If it doesn't all fit, whatever
spills over the edge won't plot anyway.

--
Hal Gwin
Mechanical Designer
Xenogen
Message 25 of 68
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

if your part can fit, why goto acad, just print with the 1:1 model option
and print the sheet.


Matt
Message 26 of 68
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

While I find the workarounds mostly acceptable I don't think it has anything to do with if
you started on a board or not. I will occasionally make 1=1 plots to mock something up.
Make the printouts and if it is small enough just cut it out and tape together, or if it
is bigger, glue it to light cardboard and cut it out etc.

I never used the board, and the first thing I ever designed was a 3d Wireframe assembly in
R11. I have always worked in some form of 3d, but still find the real world to
occasionally help visualize things, or be a better way to get a idea of how to better
approach the rest of the design.

--
Kent
Member of the Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program


"Sean Dotson" wrote in message
news:C4EF9871510EE312D34FE550EF2EE5DD@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I be curious to take a poll....
>
> Does not having a 1:1 plot bother you?
> If you answered yes to this did you start drafting on a board?
>
> I would bet that a majority of users who are bothered by it had their start
> on a drafting table, whereas those who don't care probably never used one in
> a production environment.
Message 27 of 68
MechMan_
in reply to: Anonymous

"I have always worked in some form of 3d"



You are a lucky engineer Kent Keller.



MechMan
Message 28 of 68
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Used a klutzy board some, didn't have problems in AutoCAD, or MDT plotting.
Don't have any problems with plotting in Inventor either; everything I've
needed so far didn't seem to give me any fits. Plot mostly A, B, Super B
13x19.
~Larry

"Hal Gwin" wrote in message
news:C4015C1CC86193BE397F8849D13CEE7E@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I started on the board, however hardly anything I did fit the sheet at
1:1.
> 10 Ton and larger overhead cranes just do not fit on any conventional
sheet
> size at 1:1. Most of what I currently work on (at least fully assembled)
> still will not fit on a conventional sheet at 1:1.
>
> I have no problem plotting at 1:1. It is very simple to create a view (at
> 1:1) in a blank sheet (that my 'E' size plotter will handle) and then plot
> it, assuming it will all fit on the sheet. If it doesn't all fit,
whatever
> spills over the edge won't plot anyway.
>
> --
> Hal Gwin
> Mechanical Designer
> Xenogen
>
>
Message 29 of 68
ddschoemaker
in reply to: Anonymous

Off topic here, but will IV ever be able to store the print setup (Sheet Size) in the idw like MDT did?? This Really drives me nuts! Is this on a wish list somewhere? The 1:1 scale is not as big of an issue to me...
Denis
Message 30 of 68
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I think he is referring to some sort of viewport clipping. Would be nice on
large assemblies where allot of stuff you don't care to document is included
in the view. I had some brief discussion with AutoDesk a couple of releases
ago, but obviously it was not top priority.
Message 31 of 68
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Jimmy I think he referring to those of us who actually like Inventor for
what it is. Apparently people like this are the "cheerleaders" who never
are upset with the software. This is obviously an incorrect statement and I
wanted him to reply to it.

--
Sean Dotson, PE
http://www.sdotson.com
Check the Inventor FAQ for most common questions
www.sdotson.com/faq.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
"Jimmy Carr" wrote in message
news:998E8359698898E5677F4D4E8A38B061@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I think he is referring to some sort of viewport clipping. Would be nice
on
> large assemblies where allot of stuff you don't care to document is
included
> in the view. I had some brief discussion with AutoDesk a couple of
releases
> ago, but obviously it was not top priority.
>
>
Message 32 of 68
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I look at it from "two" direction. Big and Small.



I deal with molded parts. Viewing parts not to scale in "real world" can be very misleading as related to the complexity of the mold and equipment needed to produce them.



Being able to view parts in their "real size" allows me to better conceptualize exactly what it is I am dealing with.



As an example, take a simple sewing needle, with the "eye" for the thread at say 0.003". Looking at this on paper at say 100:1 gives the the impression that the eye is big - 0.300", - and "no problem"... but is misleading, as it may be "no problem" to produce a 0.300" eye, but is something else to produce the real eye of 0.003"



So... from that standpoint I like to be able to view 1:1.



The same thing also applies the other way... take a "large" part that has been reduced, like a car bumper for instance. Reducing it to fit small paper is also misleading. At first glance, looks "easy", and from one standpoint it is, but requires large expensive equipment to produce it - which again, can be misleading if not comprehended correctly.



So from my point of view I like 1:1 in "real world", but mainly for the reasons stated. If it fits 1:1 on 8.5 x 11, then fine. Otherwise I would plot it on large paper 36" x whatever at 1:1.



Course' I don’t know what I would do to view something as large as a "whole car" at 1:1... paste all the pieces of paper together I guess (ha ha)



If conceptualization is not that important then "scale" is not that important either... I just make everything "fit" on 8.5 x 11 (if I can)



And yes... I did start my drafting career with "paper and Pencil... but I do like CAD better... 'Inventor' in particular... even with all the "crashes")



Regards,



Don A 🙂
Message 33 of 68
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I usually do conceptualizing on the monitor and
use paper for the construction document. When I'm zoomed to fit, everything
looks just like it would in the real world, to me anyway. Never noticed any
real problems with relationships between parts other than the bigger the
monitor, the better.

~Larry


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
I
look at it from "two" direction. Big and Small.

I deal with molded
parts. Viewing parts not to scale in "real world" can be very misleading as
related to the complexity of the mold and equipment needed to produce them.


Being able to view parts in their "real size" allows me to better
conceptualize exactly what it is I am dealing with.

As an example,
take a simple sewing needle, with the "eye" for the thread at say 0.003".
Looking at this on paper at say 100:1 gives the the impression that the eye is
big - 0.300", - and "no problem"... but is misleading, as it may be "no
problem" to produce a 0.300" eye, but is something else to produce the real
eye of 0.003"

So... from that standpoint I like to be able to view
1:1.

The same thing also applies the other way... take a "large" part
that has been reduced, like a car bumper for instance. Reducing it to fit
small paper is also misleading. At first glance, looks "easy", and from one
standpoint it is, but requires large expensive equipment to produce it - which
again, can be misleading if not comprehended correctly.

So from my
point of view I like 1:1 in "real world", but mainly for the reasons stated.
If it fits 1:1 on 8.5 x 11, then fine. Otherwise I would plot it on large
paper 36" x whatever at 1:1.

Course' I don’t know what I would do to
view something as large as a "whole car" at 1:1... paste all the pieces of
paper together I guess (ha ha)

If conceptualization is not that
important then "scale" is not that important either... I just make everything
"fit" on 8.5 x 11 (if I can)

And yes... I did start my drafting career
with "paper and Pencil... but I do like CAD better... 'Inventor' in
particular... even with all the "crashes")

Regards,

Don A
:-)
Message 34 of 68
MechMan_
in reply to: Anonymous

But who could get upset with a software that, as a direct result of it's existence, has created this wonderful NG of complainers. 😉

MechMan
Message 35 of 68
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Yes, it really bothers me. On occassion I need to make "paper dolls" and
other such mock-ups. I find it frustrating that IV can't do this and
assume that one day it will. I think this is basic functionality that is
common on most all CAD systems. I don't see plotting to scale as
"old-school" or obsolete.

Yes, I started on a board.

-Russ


"Sean Dotson" wrote in message
news:C4EF9871510EE312D34FE550EF2EE5DD@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I be curious to take a poll....
>
> Does not having a 1:1 plot bother you?
> If you answered yes to this did you start drafting on a board?
>
> I would bet that a majority of users who are bothered by it had their
start
> on a drafting table, whereas those who don't care probably never used one
in
> a production environment.
>
> Not that there is anything wrong with either group, I'd just be curious as
> to the outcome...
>
> --
> Sean Dotson, PE
> http://www.sdotson.com
> Check the Inventor FAQ for most common questions
> www.sdotson.com/faq.html
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ------
> "Herb Morrison" wrote in message
> news:4839B13D0E17D5CD365B1AE0337E1C62@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > I still find it hard to believe that IV6 still does not have the
> capability
> > to print a window to scale. Autocad had this capability for years. I
> hate
> > to have to print a large drawing to get the one view I needed at 1/1!
> >
> >
>
>
Message 36 of 68
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Paul,
From time to time I have the exactly same feeling like you describe.
There are lots of nice guys here, and you can get any help that's available,
but as soon as you point out some weakness of IV most of them here stand
united front against you, especially if you mentioned something ACAD/MDT
could do for years with ease.

Again and again I'm in big despair and don't understand why in the world
nobody here likes to have a better printing/detailing/whatever capability?

I compare the IV lovers with hot first lovers - they are lucky and don't
recognize anything beyond their bedsite.
Had the same dilemma with the SW lovers some time ago (SW actually can print
a window to scale now)

Regards,
--
Leo Laimer
Maschinen- und Fertigungstechnik
A-4820 Bad Ischl - Austria
Message 37 of 68
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Leo you have gone and done it and *really* ticked me off this time. 😞

This is the second or third time you've made some comparisons that are just
outrageous. First was that Iv was a toy. The second is that people who
enjoy using IV are "lucky and don't recognize anything beyond their
bedsite."

That's a might bold statement my friend. I usually respect and even agree
with some of your opinions but when you start this type of snide remarks I'm
not going to sit by idling and let it slide.

I have experience with more CAD systems than I care to have. While I'm
certainly not an expert at most of them I do know enough about them to make
a judgment about their capabilities. Snide and arrogant comments like this
really don't shed a positive light on you Leo. As much as I've become
(incorrectly) labeled a "cheerleader" it seems you have been (and just as
incorrectly) portraying yourself as a MDT "cheerleader".

Now to say that IV is perfect is far from true. To say MDT was perfect is
even more so. The same can be said about ALL CAD systems.

I think you will notice that I did not give a preference as to the 1:1
issue. I just made an observation and wondered aloud if it might be true.

There are several users on this group who know me well and *know* that I
complain my fair share. Some of this complaining is done in private (when
it should be) and some of it is down in public. I am *not* content with IVs
level of maturity at this point but I do *want* it to become more mature.
When I disagree with someone request for what *I* see as a useless command
I'm simply expressing my opinion on the subject. I'd rather them work on
fixing the parameters window and the hole dialogue rather than make it
*easier* to print 1:1.

I just hope you think about what you are saying and get your facts straight
before making statements like this again.

--
Sean Dotson, PE
http://www.sdotson.com
Check the Inventor FAQ for most common questions
www.sdotson.com/faq.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
"Leo Laimer" wrote in message
news:F1F6D8B6D4A5BB9C326559BBC8419676@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Paul,
> From time to time I have the exactly same feeling like you describe.
> There are lots of nice guys here, and you can get any help that's
available,
> but as soon as you point out some weakness of IV most of them here stand
> united front against you, especially if you mentioned something ACAD/MDT
> could do for years with ease.
>
> Again and again I'm in big despair and don't understand why in the world
> nobody here likes to have a better printing/detailing/whatever capability?
>
> I compare the IV lovers with hot first lovers - they are lucky and don't
> recognize anything beyond their bedsite.
> Had the same dilemma with the SW lovers some time ago (SW actually can
print
> a window to scale now)
>
> Regards,
> --
> Leo Laimer
> Maschinen- und Fertigungstechnik
> A-4820 Bad Ischl - Austria
>
>
Message 38 of 68
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

"Can't we all just get along?" - Rodney King 🙂

No need to go on the defensive - nobody called you a cheerleader. We all
look up to the vast amount of personal time you have provided out of the
goodness of your heart, while there are others that pursue, well, less
worthy goals - like completing Splinter Cell.

I do, I do like Inventor and Ham. Thank you, thank you Sean I am.

"Sean Dotson" wrote in message
news:A0C471EAE12AD38599BE7612BD8A975F@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Leo you have gone and done it and *really* ticked me off this time. 😞
>
> This is the second or third time you've made some comparisons that are
just
> outrageous. First was that Iv was a toy. The second is that people who
> enjoy using IV are "lucky and don't recognize anything beyond their
> bedsite."
>
> That's a might bold statement my friend. I usually respect and even agree
> with some of your opinions but when you start this type of snide remarks
I'm
> not going to sit by idling and let it slide.
>
> I have experience with more CAD systems than I care to have. While I'm
> certainly not an expert at most of them I do know enough about them to
make
> a judgment about their capabilities. Snide and arrogant comments like this
> really don't shed a positive light on you Leo. As much as I've become
> (incorrectly) labeled a "cheerleader" it seems you have been (and just as
> incorrectly) portraying yourself as a MDT "cheerleader".
>
Message 39 of 68
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

This reminds me of when a guy I worked with - Larry
- designed some risers and used like 2-1/2 steel plates for the top and bottom
because it "looked" ok on the screen, but when it came back from stress relieve
it was like Holy (edited), Larry why'd you use such thick plates? "Because it looked
about right on the screen". Those things were massive!
 
Paul
not a slave to Inventor 🙂

"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message news:C321FFE6E6EF9117A54D96F6E42A3800@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
I usually do conceptualizing on the monitor and
use paper for the construction document. When I'm zoomed to fit,
everything looks just like it would in the real world, to me anyway. Never
noticed any real problems with relationships between parts other than the
bigger the monitor, the better.
~Larry
Message 40 of 68
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Sorry Sean that I upset you like this. I'm really sorry.

I reread my last post and didn't find it that offending... Maybe I should
have added a to the lovestory thing? Maybe I really don't have the idea
how to read and express feelings in English language?

Other than this, I wouldn't retract my statements.

I really had almost exactly the same discussions with SW users some years
back, even more heated then. Many of the features we were discussing then
are now in the package.

I need paper printout to scale several times, mainly during the conceptual
stage of a project. And I need to hand multiple printouts to my customers,
together with a set of fully standard-compliant dwg's, in almost every
project I'm working. Both tasks are some of the most tedious ones in the
whole IV landscape, and cost me many times the billable time than it would
in ACAD/MDT.

There would be lots of other things to wish and to discuss about, and while
we both would like to see IV being improved, we obviously many times have a
different imagination of what's better or what to improve first.

Sorry again, that I upset you, please don't take it that hard!

Regards,
---
Leo Laimer
Bad Ischl - Austria

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

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report