Overlapping lines viewbase

[Anonymous]

I'm creating assembly instructions in paper space by using view base and visible lines view.  The problem is, I need to place parts that have overlapping lines.  I of course can't explode or edit these views so I don't know how to remove the overlapping lines.  Also, draw order doesn't work.  Can't use thick white lines to use as white out since they appear gray.  I'm at a loss here.  

[Anonymous]

John,

After I played around with my exploded diagram/overlapping drawing views some more, I think I found an bug/issue/feature?

When changing any of the settings for a given base view (like adding/removing, changing the scale/shading), AutoCAD fails (bug/issue) to honor the Drawing Order between the views themselves.  Knowing this, I can now control the drawing order of my overlapping base views (feature?) using this method.  In addition, I can use this behavior to have two base views of the same part setting on atop the other to knockout the previous views as desired, in essence shading only the desired part which is great for displaying context.  For example, shading a pump on top of a manifold on top of an engine.  Now If I could provide a prefix for the MD_* layers so that I could control things by objects in base views similar to viewports...that would be golden!

TANX.Rob

 PS. I consider this matter solved using the aforementioned technique.

[Anonymous]

After placing a part on lines use overkill command either use filter command by using it u can select all lines

[Anonymous]

Nevermind, doesn't seem to help with viewbase as subsequent views use the renamed layers

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Now If I could provide a prefix for the MD_* layers so that I could control things by objects in base views similar to viewports...that would be golden!

---

Wildcards work with the RENAME command.

[Anonymous]

Guys, 

No matter what I tried, I could not get a shaded surface to render entirely white, essentially doing inside the viewbase block what a wipeout would do.  IMHO, this issue is really about the rendering of shaded vs. non-shaded views.  I believe that even though the user has chosen non-shaded, ACAD should insert wipeout objects behind the lines in their anonymous viewbase blocks.  This is because my earlier idea of modifying the z-order of the blocks by forcing a recreation of the block via a settings change is not as reliable as I would have hoped.  In short, surfaces are surfaces whether they are visibly shaded or not.  Surface coloring could be: Shaded = colored (as is) and Non-shaded = background color only.  If the shaded portion was on it's own MD_* layer then the users could control the visibility as expected.  My latest attempts involve using a unique coloring for the shading and modifying the color(s) to white in the final .pdf file via Acrobat...yuch.

TANX.Rob

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

in order to use viewports to create an exploded diagram from an assembled model you would have a layering nightmare.  each part of the assembly would need to be on it's own layer.  the management of this task makes it not feasible.

---

But it works ... as opposed to what you've been trying for over a month.  Just look at the nightmare you've been trying, placing major component parts on their own family layers can't be any more cumbersome.  The just VPCLIP the viewports as you wish and align.

[Anonymous]

Am I missing something here...?
Do you honestly think that it is easier to use viewports to complete this task than a drawingview block?  Perhaps if you performed a flatshot on every possible view that you might need in you documentation efforts which at the end of the day still leaves thing unconnected (i.e. change the model design and you need to do all of the work again).  Can you provide me a simple sample (like the one I posted) that demonstrates the ease of your method?  I tried and I obtained greater frustration then the wipeout solution.  My latest foray into this ish... add another surface that I want to use as a knockout element and give it a unique color such that I can deal with it postscript (i.e. alter the color in the resultant image from lime green to white).  While I hate this solution from a purist perspective, it works...Autodesk should simply allow the users underground access to these anonymous blocks which they use to "can" a process.  All of the unneeded and unwanted hoops I need to jump through because of short-sided design decisions by software architects...I rant...I just remember a day when Autodesk didn't paint themselves into support corners.  But then again, these days are not the same as yesterdays...where have all the good clones gone...long time passing...

But really, I am opening to having these old eyes opened again...a sample if you would kind sir...

TANX.Rob

[Anonymous]

I don't use flatshot either.  My viewports show the actual 3D model and I annotate in  paperspace, been doing so since R11 (R11 not 2011).  I control the display of each viewport by controlling the layers in those viewports as necessary (you can control the color of each layer independently in each viewport) and by controlling the shape of the viewport itself.

Try viewbase or flatshot on this:

If you're doing true exploded views of machined parts or assemblies, you're using the wrong application. 

[Anonymous]

Impressive, but it is irrelevant to the problem at hand.  That being, that collectively when users come together to look at a singular problem...does anyone reading this have experience with "this whatever issue"... a potential light onto the solution may emerge.  As a group we are stronger if we use this platform for what it was intended as. 

This is my point, if Autodesk developers/marketing/decision-makers review their own forums (and they should) then they would know that the current issue should not exist. 

If they only output all surfaces they use in the anonymous drawing view block with shading, only difference being between a wipeout object or the image that is created on-the-fly to represent the material setting.  I know it is possible.  Or at the very least, let me do a refedit on the drawing view block that would allow me to insert my own wipeout(s).  Stop locking developers/power-users out, either by lack of support and/or documentation, of the portions of the drawing database that they reserve for their own upgrades/sister products.

As far as the "wrong application", I just don't agree.  AutoCAD has been trying to get the Model Documentation need correct for some time.  This is just an area they missed.  There are others as well.  Just try working with fields and tables to connect them across an entire drawing package.

[Anonymous]

True exploded views are readily available in applications geared for mechanical modeling, like Inventor.  You can fake AutoCAD into working around an exploded view, but it is not native to the application, nor should it be.  Use the RIGHT tool for the job.

As for model documentation; Autodesk, driven by an obsolete 2D minset prevalent at AUGI, has for decades attempted a wrong-headed approach to presenting model information in drawings.  The results are lunacy like FLATSHOT, VIEWBASE (from the obsolete Rel.12 SOLxxx concepts) and the horrendously heavy-handed annotative hoodoo.  Instead of wasting their time (and ours) on such silliness, all that was ever really necessary was fix DIMASSOC=2 in paperspace, provide a fast and efficient 3DClipping tool (not 3DCLIP), provide a VPCLIP by MS object, and provide drawing based (instead of printer based) hidden linetype control for OBSCUREDLTYPE.  

Instead of improving these SIMPLE solutions, they expend untold workhours creating unnecessarily complex "features" to not just support the wrong-headed 2D mindset but entrench and expand it.  Just look at ALL the hoodoo you are going through on this thread.  Those four features above would make all the 2D model documentation efforts wholly obsolete.  Maybe if someone at Autodesk or at AUGI would get their minds out of the 2D gutter we might see REAL improvements in model documentation.  Stop trying to step on 3D models to provide 2D facsimile cartoons and just use the frelling model in the drawings.

(before anyone points out the feedback site or the AUGI wishlist, I've been banging that drum since the 90's, too many people at AUGI shackled by 2D drafting concepts developed pre-DaVinci)