RANT: why output drawings are so bad?!

[Anonymous]

Hi, 

The following is a rant not from the perspective of an advance steel user, but instead from someone who receive final product (dwg drawings) made with advance steel. I have some knowledge of advance steel because I used it in the past, but I got so mad with it I abandoned and went back to use autocad instead; I've hoped that with time things would have improved, but doesn't seems like it... 

So my current affliction is that I am receiving some dwg drawings made with advance steel from an external firm for approval. These dwg files are not 3D contain all the geometry, but the 2D output drawings layouts. 

I was baffled by them: the geometry is directly drawn in the layout space and SCALED, instead of being drawn in model space at real scale and displayed in layout space by viewports appropriately scaled to fit, as, you know, it's pretty much common practice with autocad. It was like I was transported back in time, when people used to manually scale the details and compose the whole drawing in model space for printing; Heck! I even had to convince my own firm to abandon such a prehistoric ways and introduce them to modern standards of viewports and annotative objects...

And here comes the worse offender of them all: pass the fact I cannot take a direct measure because the geometry is scaled to whatever, usually I can always use the dimension line used at the same scale of the detail that will correctly display the correct measure, BUT, oh no, advance steel doesn't do that: the dimension line are not native autocad dimension line, which would be dynamic, but are instead static geometry, lines and text, that just gives the illusion of being dimension lines. 

So I can't take a direct measure because geometry is scaled, nor I can use dimension lines because they are fake. To have something useful I have instead scale the geometry with reference to a known dimension, for each different scale present in the layout, and this usually means to overflow out of the paper in the gray background which is kinda hard to see. 

In others words it's a lot of overhead just to take a measure. I kid you not, I prefer to take measurement in the pdf file. 

I asked a third party that also uses AS if this is normal behavior, or just the results of someone that doesn't know how to properly set up a drawing, but he also confirm that is how it is. 

Quite frankly such output, that doesn't take advantage of the full feature of autocad, seems the product of a junky third party vendor... I expect much more from an autodesk very own property! 

I use tekla structures and it is better at exporting to dwg than this! With tekla I can choose the export the whole drawing in model space a la Advance Steel with the scaled geometry, or, my preferred method, it will export the geometry in model space, at real scale, and make use of viewports in layout at the proper scale. 

With this rant I hope someone from autodesk will notice and take in consideration for future update, because, quite frankly, it's embarrassing. 

[Anonymous]

Hi, 

The following is a rant not from the perspective of an advance steel user, but instead from someone who receive final product (dwg drawings) made with advance steel. I have some knowledge of advance steel because I used it in the past, but I got so mad with it I abandoned and went back to use autocad instead; I've hoped that with time things would have improved, but doesn't seems like it... 

So my current affliction is that I am receiving some dwg drawings made with advance steel from an external firm for approval. These dwg files are not 3D contain all the geometry, but the 2D output drawings layouts. 

I was baffled by them: the geometry is directly drawn in the layout space and SCALED, instead of being drawn in model space at real scale and displayed in layout space by viewports appropriately scaled to fit, as, you know, it's pretty much common practice with autocad. It was like I was transported back in time, when people used to manually scale the details and compose the whole drawing in model space for printing; Heck! I even had to convince my own firm to abandon such a prehistoric ways and introduce them to modern standards of viewports and annotative objects...

And here comes the worse offender of them all: pass the fact I cannot take a direct measure because the geometry is scaled to whatever, usually I can always use the dimension line used at the same scale of the detail that will correctly display the correct measure, BUT, oh no, advance steel doesn't do that: the dimension line are not native autocad dimension line, which would be dynamic, but are instead static geometry, lines and text, that just gives the illusion of being dimension lines. 

So I can't take a direct measure because geometry is scaled, nor I can use dimension lines because they are fake. To have something useful I have instead scale the geometry with reference to a known dimension, for each different scale present in the layout, and this usually means to overflow out of the paper in the gray background which is kinda hard to see. 

In others words it's a lot of overhead just to take a measure. I kid you not, I prefer to take measurement in the pdf file. 

I asked a third party that also uses AS if this is normal behavior, or just the results of someone that doesn't know how to properly set up a drawing, but he also confirm that is how it is. 

Quite frankly such output, that doesn't take advantage of the full feature of autocad, seems the product of a junky third party vendor... I expect much more from an autodesk very own property! 

I use tekla structures and it is better at exporting to dwg than this! With tekla I can choose the export the whole drawing in model space a la Advance Steel with the scaled geometry, or, my preferred method, it will export the geometry in model space, at real scale, and make use of viewports in layout at the proper scale. 

With this rant I hope someone from autodesk will notice and take in consideration for future update, because, quite frankly, it's embarrassing. 

[bigcarl5000kg]

Hi @Anonymous ,

The basic question is what you want to use the classic Advance Steel drawings for. These are "impractical" for further processing. As an assembly drawing completely usable. For production, if you do not have to enter NC manually from the coordinate, it is better to use exported NC and DXF for manufactured parts.

I understand that compared to AutoCAD you have no learned control over objects, the more you have to trust the 3D model and the parts created from it in the drawings.

Previously, I used exclusively AutoCAD. With the transition to Advance Steel, I had to completely change the thinking processes of creating production documentation. Now everything really depends on quality and check of the model. The resulting documentation is actually a secondary product, minimal in my field. Theoretically, one would not have to draw individual items. I think, that in the future, drawings of individual items will be dropped and only sub-assemblies and assembly drawings will remain. It looks tough, but it can be adapted 😂.

Further discussion will be more than interesting ... stay tuned for more ...

[bigcarl5000kg]

Hi @Anonymous ,

The basic question is what you want to use the classic Advance Steel drawings for. These are "impractical" for further processing. As an assembly drawing completely usable. For production, if you do not have to enter NC manually from the coordinate, it is better to use exported NC and DXF for manufactured parts.

I understand that compared to AutoCAD you have no learned control over objects, the more you have to trust the 3D model and the parts created from it in the drawings.

Previously, I used exclusively AutoCAD. With the transition to Advance Steel, I had to completely change the thinking processes of creating production documentation. Now everything really depends on quality and check of the model. The resulting documentation is actually a secondary product, minimal in my field. Theoretically, one would not have to draw individual items. I think, that in the future, drawings of individual items will be dropped and only sub-assemblies and assembly drawings will remain. It looks tough, but it can be adapted 😂.

Further discussion will be more than interesting ... stay tuned for more ...

[acbsdesign]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Hi, 

The following is a rant not from the perspective of an advance steel user, but instead from someone who receive final product (dwg drawings) made with advance steel. I have some knowledge of advance steel because I used it in the past, but I got so mad with it I abandoned and went back to use autocad instead; I've hoped that with time things would have improved, but doesn't seems like it... 

Well, it is a shame you couldn't learn and use Advance Steel-it requires more brain power, bigger effort, but it pays off in the end-I switched from Auto Cad and I can tell this. First project after training was 5,000+ beams and MP plates-160+ANSI-D dwgs, ZERO errors, using the "clipping option" that you hate in AS because without it I would have given up drafting 120+members on a single MP panel drawing.

So my current affliction is that I am receiving some dwg drawings made with advance steel from an external firm for approval. These dwg files are not 3D contain all the geometry, but the 2D output drawings layouts. 

Shop drawings of a beam for example   DO not have to be drawn to a scale all the time-REF. NISD Requirements-may be worth taking their test, first test  is 8+ hours, 140+questions, tough one.

I was baffled by them: the geometry is directly drawn in the layout space and SCALED, instead of being drawn in model space at real scale and displayed in layout space by viewports appropriately scaled to fit, as, you know, it's pretty much common practice with autocad. It was like I was transported back in time, when people used to manually scale the details and compose the whole drawing in model space for printing; Heck! I even had to convince my own firm to abandon such a prehistoric ways and introduce them to modern standards of viewports and annotative objects...

You don't know what the hell you are talking about-really-this is the way AS works, and it is the best way to reproduce shop drawings.

Otherwise a 80' beam will stick out of the border, you have to scale it and holes and parts wil be so close they wouldn't be readable.

And here comes the worse offender of them all: pass the fact I cannot take a direct measure because the geometry is scaled to whatever, usually I can always use the dimension line used at the same scale of the detail that will correctly display the correct measure, BUT, oh no, advance steel doesn't do that: the dimension line are not native autocad dimension line, which would be dynamic, but are instead static geometry, lines and text, that just gives the illusion of being dimension lines. 

If you want to measure (which is one of the hell unnecessary time spent if it is done only to prove a hole is 1/32" further)-you have the model, and AS is PRETTY **** good and handy any measurement to be performed with proper experience.

So I can't take a direct measure because geometry is scaled, nor I can use dimension lines because they are fake. To have something useful I have instead scale the geometry with reference to a known dimension, for each different scale present in the layout, and this usually means to overflow out of the paper in the gray background which is kinda hard to see. 

In others words it's a lot of overhead just to take a measure. I kid you not, I prefer to take measurement in the pdf file. 

I asked a third party that also uses AS if this is normal behavior, or just the results of someone that doesn't know how to properly set up a drawing, but he also confirm that is how it is. 

Quite frankly such output, that doesn't take advantage of the full feature of autocad, seems the product of a junky third party vendor... I expect much more from an autodesk very own property! 

Hey-you don't offend us and the software you love. We support families using this software and it is probably the best package you can buy for detailing everything.

I use tekla structures and it is better at exporting to dwg than this! With tekla I can choose the export the whole drawing in model space a la Advance Steel with the scaled geometry, or, my preferred method, it will export the geometry in model space, at real scale, and make use of viewports in layout at the proper scale. 

With this rant I hope someone from autodesk will notice and take in consideration for future update, because, quite frankly, it's embarrassing. 

---

Never come back @Anonymous 

Never.

Unless you apologize. Not sure if your apology will be widely accepted. 

[acbsdesign]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Hi, 

The following is a rant not from the perspective of an advance steel user, but instead from someone who receive final product (dwg drawings) made with advance steel. I have some knowledge of advance steel because I used it in the past, but I got so mad with it I abandoned and went back to use autocad instead; I've hoped that with time things would have improved, but doesn't seems like it... 

Well, it is a shame you couldn't learn and use Advance Steel-it requires more brain power, bigger effort, but it pays off in the end-I switched from Auto Cad and I can tell this. First project after training was 5,000+ beams and MP plates-160+ANSI-D dwgs, ZERO errors, using the "clipping option" that you hate in AS because without it I would have given up drafting 120+members on a single MP panel drawing.

So my current affliction is that I am receiving some dwg drawings made with advance steel from an external firm for approval. These dwg files are not 3D contain all the geometry, but the 2D output drawings layouts. 

Shop drawings of a beam for example   DO not have to be drawn to a scale all the time-REF. NISD Requirements-may be worth taking their test, first test  is 8+ hours, 140+questions, tough one.

I was baffled by them: the geometry is directly drawn in the layout space and SCALED, instead of being drawn in model space at real scale and displayed in layout space by viewports appropriately scaled to fit, as, you know, it's pretty much common practice with autocad. It was like I was transported back in time, when people used to manually scale the details and compose the whole drawing in model space for printing; Heck! I even had to convince my own firm to abandon such a prehistoric ways and introduce them to modern standards of viewports and annotative objects...

You don't know what the hell you are talking about-really-this is the way AS works, and it is the best way to reproduce shop drawings.

Otherwise a 80' beam will stick out of the border, you have to scale it and holes and parts wil be so close they wouldn't be readable.

And here comes the worse offender of them all: pass the fact I cannot take a direct measure because the geometry is scaled to whatever, usually I can always use the dimension line used at the same scale of the detail that will correctly display the correct measure, BUT, oh no, advance steel doesn't do that: the dimension line are not native autocad dimension line, which would be dynamic, but are instead static geometry, lines and text, that just gives the illusion of being dimension lines. 

If you want to measure (which is one of the hell unnecessary time spent if it is done only to prove a hole is 1/32" further)-you have the model, and AS is PRETTY **** good and handy any measurement to be performed with proper experience.

So I can't take a direct measure because geometry is scaled, nor I can use dimension lines because they are fake. To have something useful I have instead scale the geometry with reference to a known dimension, for each different scale present in the layout, and this usually means to overflow out of the paper in the gray background which is kinda hard to see. 

In others words it's a lot of overhead just to take a measure. I kid you not, I prefer to take measurement in the pdf file. 

I asked a third party that also uses AS if this is normal behavior, or just the results of someone that doesn't know how to properly set up a drawing, but he also confirm that is how it is. 

Quite frankly such output, that doesn't take advantage of the full feature of autocad, seems the product of a junky third party vendor... I expect much more from an autodesk very own property! 

Hey-you don't offend us and the software you love. We support families using this software and it is probably the best package you can buy for detailing everything.

I use tekla structures and it is better at exporting to dwg than this! With tekla I can choose the export the whole drawing in model space a la Advance Steel with the scaled geometry, or, my preferred method, it will export the geometry in model space, at real scale, and make use of viewports in layout at the proper scale. 

With this rant I hope someone from autodesk will notice and take in consideration for future update, because, quite frankly, it's embarrassing. 

---

Never come back @Anonymous 

Never.

Unless you apologize. Not sure if your apology will be widely accepted. 

[Anonymous]

Ah maybe I was not completely clear on the scope of my role in validation process: I am not interested in the drawings for the shop or production, I don't need to check part or assembly drawings. I am only interested in the GA drawings since I have to check that it is compliant with the architectural project constrains such as boundary and levels.

For example the "incident" that sparked my post is about a steel stairs: I simply needed to check for the width, depth and height of the step, the starting and ending level, and so on. That's why I prefer a real unit model instead of scaled geometry.

The external designer firm even sent me the 3D model in dwg, but it is over 100 MB file, so it's my PC doesn't handle it very smoothly (to be honest, the file contains the geometry of the whole building as reference which is not necessary). 

I even tried autodesk viewer (browser) which is quite fast for sharing the 3D model and easy to navigate, but I found it quite hard/impossibile to snap the measurement tool to the face/edge/vertex that I want.

In the end I suppose I prefer the 3D dwg model since I have a better control of what I can look at and measure, but still it is a cumbersome process; some of my collogues which have less powerful machine than mine can't handle that though.

[Anonymous]

Ah maybe I was not completely clear on the scope of my role in validation process: I am not interested in the drawings for the shop or production, I don't need to check part or assembly drawings. I am only interested in the GA drawings since I have to check that it is compliant with the architectural project constrains such as boundary and levels.

For example the "incident" that sparked my post is about a steel stairs: I simply needed to check for the width, depth and height of the step, the starting and ending level, and so on. That's why I prefer a real unit model instead of scaled geometry.

The external designer firm even sent me the 3D model in dwg, but it is over 100 MB file, so it's my PC doesn't handle it very smoothly (to be honest, the file contains the geometry of the whole building as reference which is not necessary). 

I even tried autodesk viewer (browser) which is quite fast for sharing the 3D model and easy to navigate, but I found it quite hard/impossibile to snap the measurement tool to the face/edge/vertex that I want.

In the end I suppose I prefer the 3D dwg model since I have a better control of what I can look at and measure, but still it is a cumbersome process; some of my collogues which have less powerful machine than mine can't handle that though.

[acbsdesign]

Beep beep beep

[acbsdesign]

Beep beep beep

[produkcja]

Ask for 3d Navisworks model. Navisworks freedom is for free and handles quite big models really well without snapping. Measurements are easy as well. 

[produkcja]

Ask for 3d Navisworks model. Navisworks freedom is for free and handles quite big models really well without snapping. Measurements are easy as well. 

[mick-CNF · Accepted solution]

I export to IFC quite often to send to clients.

BIMVision is a pretty good free viewer that will tell you what the items are and the levels and you can measure just by moving to the item.

IFC | Search | Autodesk Knowledge Network

[mick-CNF · Accepted solution]

I export to IFC quite often to send to clients.

BIMVision is a pretty good free viewer that will tell you what the items are and the levels and you can measure just by moving to the item.

IFC | Search | Autodesk Knowledge Network

[Anonymous]

---

@mick-CNF  ha escrito:

I export to IFC quite often to send to clients.

BIMVision is a pretty good free viewer that will tell you what the items are and the levels and you can measure just by moving to the item.

IFC | Search | Autodesk Knowledge Network

---

thanks! I will give it a try

[Anonymous]

---

@mick-CNF  ha escrito:

I export to IFC quite often to send to clients.

BIMVision is a pretty good free viewer that will tell you what the items are and the levels and you can measure just by moving to the item.

IFC | Search | Autodesk Knowledge Network

---

thanks! I will give it a try

[sdonohoedesign]

It really is a simple process to copy the AS paperspace output and put the scaled drawing (I do it as a block) into model space.  I do this hundreds of times per week and it takes me less than 20 seconds each drawing.

As with nearly everything AS related, it all depends how good the user is and how well they can use the software.  Personally, I would scale the drawings before sending them to anyone.

[sdonohoedesign]

It really is a simple process to copy the AS paperspace output and put the scaled drawing (I do it as a block) into model space.  I do this hundreds of times per week and it takes me less than 20 seconds each drawing.

As with nearly everything AS related, it all depends how good the user is and how well they can use the software.  Personally, I would scale the drawings before sending them to anyone.

[vuk.vukanic]

@Anonymous 

You should see the s**t we get from the architects (not all the time).

There has been NO project I was involved with that didn't need some type of Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V & scaling operation regardless of authoring software.

Actually you should have in mind that the output you receive is only for those that do not have access to AS. If you were to receive the .dwg native to AS you could dimension anything regardless of scale.

If you get drawings from AS on a daily basis and find it is justified, just get AS, and all your troubles will be solved.

I check IFC models using:

BIMcollab ZOOM

Navisworks

Desite MD

[vuk.vukanic]

@Anonymous 

You should see the s**t we get from the architects (not all the time).

There has been NO project I was involved with that didn't need some type of Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V & scaling operation regardless of authoring software.

Actually you should have in mind that the output you receive is only for those that do not have access to AS. If you were to receive the .dwg native to AS you could dimension anything regardless of scale.

If you get drawings from AS on a daily basis and find it is justified, just get AS, and all your troubles will be solved.

I check IFC models using:

BIMcollab ZOOM

Navisworks

Desite MD

[bigcarl5000kg]

Hi @sdonohoedesign ,

that's a loss of 20 seconds for each drawing, multiplicate it  with hunderts of drawings and many hours are wasted

[bigcarl5000kg]

Hi @sdonohoedesign ,

that's a loss of 20 seconds for each drawing, multiplicate it  with hunderts of drawings and many hours are wasted

[bigcarl5000kg]

And for those who still have basic problems, take a basic and advanced course. It will start a different point of view.

[bigcarl5000kg]

And for those who still have basic problems, take a basic and advanced course. It will start a different point of view.

[sdonohoedesign]

It would be nice to put the exploded DWG straight into model space at full size, but not available in AS2018.

All the time spent making my files ready to x-ref into other drawings is pretty annoying.  If this could be automated I would 100% upgrade my licence.

[sdonohoedesign]

It would be nice to put the exploded DWG straight into model space at full size, but not available in AS2018.

All the time spent making my files ready to x-ref into other drawings is pretty annoying.  If this could be automated I would 100% upgrade my licence.

[bigcarl5000kg]

Hi @sdonohoedesign ,

I don't know anyone else who would try to implement AutoCAD procedures in an Advance Steel drawing. You have to understand that 3D is a different world and certainly experience automatisms make no sense here.

[bigcarl5000kg]

Hi @sdonohoedesign ,

I don't know anyone else who would try to implement AutoCAD procedures in an Advance Steel drawing. You have to understand that 3D is a different world and certainly experience automatisms make no sense here.

[Rob_Merriman]

Hi @sdonohoedesign 

Just to let you know that there is a command in the PowerPack that will explode drawings and then move them to model space - https://advantage.graitec.com/en-US/knowledgebase/article-details/?code=KA-03152

It will also convert the Advance Steel dimensions to AutoCAD dimensions, unless there is clipping involved then it cant do it, all explained in the article

The one thing it cant currently do is move to paperspace and scale to 1:1. I have requested this as a future upgrade to the PowerPack function, so we will have to wait and see if its possible and if it can be implemented. If you want to drop me a DM with what your requirements would be I can compare it to what I have already documented.

There are various requests for this in the Idea forum so it is always worth voting for them or adding your comments / requirements if Autodesk choose to develop this functionality to their expolde options

@bigcarl5000kg although I havent had to do it for all drawings on a porject when I was working as a draughtman I was asked regulary to upload DWG copies of the GA drawings to CDE and other platforms that were in modelspace and that were at 1:1 scale, we do still have customers being asked to do this for their GA drawings.

In the future it probably wont be a requirement as we progress with sharing 3D models, but currently it is required for GA drawings on certain jobs.

[Rob_Merriman]

Hi @sdonohoedesign 

Just to let you know that there is a command in the PowerPack that will explode drawings and then move them to model space - https://advantage.graitec.com/en-US/knowledgebase/article-details/?code=KA-03152

It will also convert the Advance Steel dimensions to AutoCAD dimensions, unless there is clipping involved then it cant do it, all explained in the article

The one thing it cant currently do is move to paperspace and scale to 1:1. I have requested this as a future upgrade to the PowerPack function, so we will have to wait and see if its possible and if it can be implemented. If you want to drop me a DM with what your requirements would be I can compare it to what I have already documented.

There are various requests for this in the Idea forum so it is always worth voting for them or adding your comments / requirements if Autodesk choose to develop this functionality to their expolde options

@bigcarl5000kg although I havent had to do it for all drawings on a porject when I was working as a draughtman I was asked regulary to upload DWG copies of the GA drawings to CDE and other platforms that were in modelspace and that were at 1:1 scale, we do still have customers being asked to do this for their GA drawings.

In the future it probably wont be a requirement as we progress with sharing 3D models, but currently it is required for GA drawings on certain jobs.

[mick-CNF]

@Rob_Merriman you beat me to it.😂

@bigcarl5000kg I use this probably more than anything else in the PP for the reasons @Rob_Merriman has mentioned.

@Rob_Merriman hopefully you are right with the sharing of models.

[mick-CNF]

@Rob_Merriman you beat me to it.😂

@bigcarl5000kg I use this probably more than anything else in the PP for the reasons @Rob_Merriman has mentioned.

@Rob_Merriman hopefully you are right with the sharing of models.

[bigcarl5000kg]

@Rob_Merriman - Of course, needs and tastes are different on both sides of barricade 🤠. I worked in Autocad Mechanical over 15 years, honestly placed objects in the modeling area and then transferred the scale frames to the layouts.  Lots of work for little music. After switching to one 3D CAD, I understood that this was not necessary at all, because the (modern) production does not need separate details on a 1: 1 scale, which were used only for control anyway. 

Let's look at the classic 3D (high-end) world (Catia, Soludworks, ProE) ... these are great patterns for how 3D should look and work. Why illogically differ in Advance Steel? Because we don't want to take a step forward? Yay back to the tree and wait for the miracle.

I understand that the old methods are proven, but also very laborious. Let's try to look at tomorrow and think about what and how to change it. That would make sense of the conversation.   @acbsdesign : please no more BEEP 😃

Now in Advance Steel, I will make a model, of which almost full of automation will make the necessary drawings - rather assembly overviews, the model as a LEGO  puzzle (for various modular assemblies) and drawing / BOM / NC and DXF will get the customer, which is more than satisfied compared to the last 15 years. 

[bigcarl5000kg]

@Rob_Merriman - Of course, needs and tastes are different on both sides of barricade 🤠. I worked in Autocad Mechanical over 15 years, honestly placed objects in the modeling area and then transferred the scale frames to the layouts.  Lots of work for little music. After switching to one 3D CAD, I understood that this was not necessary at all, because the (modern) production does not need separate details on a 1: 1 scale, which were used only for control anyway. 

Let's look at the classic 3D (high-end) world (Catia, Soludworks, ProE) ... these are great patterns for how 3D should look and work. Why illogically differ in Advance Steel? Because we don't want to take a step forward? Yay back to the tree and wait for the miracle.

I understand that the old methods are proven, but also very laborious. Let's try to look at tomorrow and think about what and how to change it. That would make sense of the conversation.   @acbsdesign : please no more BEEP 😃

Now in Advance Steel, I will make a model, of which almost full of automation will make the necessary drawings - rather assembly overviews, the model as a LEGO  puzzle (for various modular assemblies) and drawing / BOM / NC and DXF will get the customer, which is more than satisfied compared to the last 15 years. 

[Rob_Merriman]

@bigcarl5000kg I 100% agree with you, the only time this has been a requirement in my experience is with GA drawings, they are needed at 1:1 to overlay with other serives or for site teams to layout

Moving forward it wont be required but how many years will this take to filter down to the smaller fabircators, some i know are still relutacnt to use NC & DXF files and would rather work from piece part drawings, no matter now much we try and convince them they are not always needed.

On our essentials training we spend more time now showing how to use the Shared views and Autodesk Online viewer for sharing models as there is so much more data included but currently GA drawings are also required.

In 5-10 years will these 2D GAs be needed, probably not, but if the current requirement from a main contractor to the steel supplier is to upload a 3D model for Navisworks co-ordintation or similar as well as 2D GA's in PDF & DWG format, with the GA views in model space at 1:1 then it is worth looking at for the short term while the online sharing and sharing of 3D model technology continues to develop and be adopted.

[Rob_Merriman]

@bigcarl5000kg I 100% agree with you, the only time this has been a requirement in my experience is with GA drawings, they are needed at 1:1 to overlay with other serives or for site teams to layout

Moving forward it wont be required but how many years will this take to filter down to the smaller fabircators, some i know are still relutacnt to use NC & DXF files and would rather work from piece part drawings, no matter now much we try and convince them they are not always needed.

On our essentials training we spend more time now showing how to use the Shared views and Autodesk Online viewer for sharing models as there is so much more data included but currently GA drawings are also required.

In 5-10 years will these 2D GAs be needed, probably not, but if the current requirement from a main contractor to the steel supplier is to upload a 3D model for Navisworks co-ordintation or similar as well as 2D GA's in PDF & DWG format, with the GA views in model space at 1:1 then it is worth looking at for the short term while the online sharing and sharing of 3D model technology continues to develop and be adopted.

[FCort]

Actually there are situations where is necessary to use plain Autocad techniques, and in my humble opinion it will be better to have the drawings directly in model space, so intelligence is not broken when copying from viewport to model space. And yes, exist other 3D software that do that like PROSTEEL.

[FCort]

Actually there are situations where is necessary to use plain Autocad techniques, and in my humble opinion it will be better to have the drawings directly in model space, so intelligence is not broken when copying from viewport to model space. And yes, exist other 3D software that do that like PROSTEEL.

[sdonohoedesign]

I am a freelance designer of industrial buildings, designing structural steelwork,. cladding, facades, decking & stairs.  My workflow uses the exploded DWG files as an x-ref into AutoCAD for 2D drafting of layouts & details.

2D is the correct tool for my job.  There is no point spending time modelling in 3D and then presenting in 2D.  Might as well do it in 2D in the first place.  I am paid by the job, not the hour so quicker is always better.

 

When the steel model is updated, I run the update on the AS drawing and then re-explode it.  I then use a basic macro to take this exploded dwg file from paper space and paste it into model space as a block at 1:1.  When I update the x-refs in my 2D drawing these updates are then pushed through to my 2D layouts.

If AS could produce these DWG files for me straight from the software without the exploding & scaling it would be a great timesaver for me.  What AS really needs is some sort of super camera.  I would like a camera with a base point, and with the ability to produce a standard DWG file that could then be natively x-refed into 2D AutoCAD.  In an ideal world I would also like the ability to draw on these camera created DWG files and turn them off and on in the Advance steel model space.

[sdonohoedesign]

I am a freelance designer of industrial buildings, designing structural steelwork,. cladding, facades, decking & stairs.  My workflow uses the exploded DWG files as an x-ref into AutoCAD for 2D drafting of layouts & details.

2D is the correct tool for my job.  There is no point spending time modelling in 3D and then presenting in 2D.  Might as well do it in 2D in the first place.  I am paid by the job, not the hour so quicker is always better.

 

When the steel model is updated, I run the update on the AS drawing and then re-explode it.  I then use a basic macro to take this exploded dwg file from paper space and paste it into model space as a block at 1:1.  When I update the x-refs in my 2D drawing these updates are then pushed through to my 2D layouts.

If AS could produce these DWG files for me straight from the software without the exploding & scaling it would be a great timesaver for me.  What AS really needs is some sort of super camera.  I would like a camera with a base point, and with the ability to produce a standard DWG file that could then be natively x-refed into 2D AutoCAD.  In an ideal world I would also like the ability to draw on these camera created DWG files and turn them off and on in the Advance steel model space.