Any ideas?

[Anonymous]

We're in the new construction plumbing business.

Typically, we draw piping systems as lines in wireframe 3-D, create
isometric views and plot them out usually at D Size.

We've developed routines that, among other things, tag each piece with a
numbered bubble with attributes such as color, cut length, fitting,
description, etc then extract information to Excel for prefabrication
reports.

Here's the question that has had me pulling my hair out.

The company I'm doing business with has been at this manually for many
years. They draw their Iso's by hand with no scale. They then manually get
the CxC dimensions from architectural plans, look up the fitting takeoffs in
a book and then create their prefabrication reports.

There-in lies the rub. By drawing at no scale, they can fit their entire Iso
on an 18x24 sheet of paper where ours require a D or E size.

No one wants to use a D or E size drawng. The fabricators complain, the
field installers complain, etc.

Any ideas on how to shrink my iso's while maintaining legibility? They can't
simply be scaled down because small pieces wouldn't be seen. As near as I
can figure, I'll have to recreate the Iso and I'd hate to have to do this
manually.

Thanks for any ideas

Donald Butler
design@butler-plumbing.com

[Anonymous]

Poor management.

Fire everyone, it's all politics or they're too lazy.

Any excuse, just for not willing to change.

--
rudy@cadentity.com
Practical Utilities for Productive Solutions

Chico_Don wrote in message
news:172B8FE6EC19CD21615216FE6FD38CFA@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...
>
> We're in the new construction plumbing business.
>
> Typically, we draw piping systems as lines in wireframe 3-D, create
> isometric views and plot them out usually at D Size.
>
> We've developed routines that, among other things, tag each piece with a
> numbered bubble with attributes such as color, cut length, fitting,
> description, etc then extract information to Excel for prefabrication
> reports.
>
> Here's the question that has had me pulling my hair out.
>
> The company I'm doing business with has been at this manually for many
> years. They draw their Iso's by hand with no scale. They then manually get
> the CxC dimensions from architectural plans, look up the fitting takeoffs
in
> a book and then create their prefabrication reports.
>
> There-in lies the rub. By drawing at no scale, they can fit their entire
Iso
> on an 18x24 sheet of paper where ours require a D or E size.
>
> No one wants to use a D or E size drawng. The fabricators complain, the
> field installers complain, etc.
>
> Any ideas on how to shrink my iso's while maintaining legibility? They
can't
> simply be scaled down because small pieces wouldn't be seen. As near as I
> can figure, I'll have to recreate the Iso and I'd hate to have to do this
> manually.
>
> Thanks for any ideas
>
> Donald Butler
> design@butler-plumbing.com
>

[Anonymous]

Or find a new job where the computer does it all and all you have to do is
turn the computer on in the morning and off at night.

Seriously though. Sounds like a tall order to me.
--
Eric S. eschneider@jensenprecast.com

[Anonymous]

Have you looked into software that is designed to design piping systems in
3D? AutoCAD is only slightly more efficient at doing stuff like this than
drawing it by hand. One of my friends works for a company that does the
exact same stuff you guys do and they are currently migrating over to a 3D
solid modeling program that is designed specifically for piping systems. I
can't remember the name of the program, but if you are at all interested I
can get it for you.

--
Kevin Nehls
remove -ns- for direct reply
On the other hand, you have fingers.

[Anonymous]

If the elements are blocks, scale the drawing as required, then apply scale
factors as required to the individual blocks. If not, good luck. (I assume
you want to fix existing drawings)
"Chico_Don" wrote in message
news:172B8FE6EC19CD21615216FE6FD38CFA@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...
>
> We're in the new construction plumbing business.
>
> Typically, we draw piping systems as lines in wireframe 3-D, create
> isometric views and plot them out usually at D Size.
>
> We've developed routines that, among other things, tag each piece with a
> numbered bubble with attributes such as color, cut length, fitting,
> description, etc then extract information to Excel for prefabrication
> reports.
>
> Here's the question that has had me pulling my hair out.
>
> The company I'm doing business with has been at this manually for many
> years. They draw their Iso's by hand with no scale. They then manually get
> the CxC dimensions from architectural plans, look up the fitting takeoffs
in
> a book and then create their prefabrication reports.
>
> There-in lies the rub. By drawing at no scale, they can fit their entire
Iso
> on an 18x24 sheet of paper where ours require a D or E size.
>
> No one wants to use a D or E size drawng. The fabricators complain, the
> field installers complain, etc.
>
> Any ideas on how to shrink my iso's while maintaining legibility? They
can't
> simply be scaled down because small pieces wouldn't be seen. As near as I
> can figure, I'll have to recreate the Iso and I'd hate to have to do this
> manually.
>
> Thanks for any ideas
>
> Donald Butler
> design@butler-plumbing.com
>

[Anonymous]

What I've developed is fairly sophisticated, automated sizing, etc. The
program has been developed over several years. Also, I'm unaware of another
set of programs devoted to multi-family residential construction, which is
what I do primarily.

Most of the 3-D programs you refer to relate more to process piping, or in
other words, pipefitting. Interference checking and/or visualization is not
as important to what I do.

No matter what, they sure wouldn't address this crazy issue.

I can't think of any way to accomplish this task.

I think the guy at Cadentity.com probably has the best idea. "Fire 'em All"
LOL

Donald Butler
design@butler-plumbing.com

"Kevin Nehls" wrote in message
news:E2B7897FA99374F2878A4146F5688118@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...
> Have you looked into software that is designed to design piping systems in
> 3D? AutoCAD is only slightly more efficient at doing stuff like this than
> drawing it by hand. One of my friends works for a company that does the
> exact same stuff you guys do and they are currently migrating over to a 3D
> solid modeling program that is designed specifically for piping systems.
I
> can't remember the name of the program, but if you are at all interested I
> can get it for you.
>
> --
> Kevin Nehls
> remove -ns- for direct reply
> On the other hand, you have fingers.
>

[Anonymous]

Adjust the routines so that fittings are placed on the drawing at a larger
scale--perhaps double scale. Some CAD purists will be horrified at this
idea, but this is what you'll have to do to get a legible drawing at a
usable scale.

Chico_Don wrote in message
<172B8FE6EC19CD21615216FE6FD38CFA@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW>...
>
>We're in the new construction plumbing business.
>
>Typically, we draw piping systems as lines in wireframe 3-D, create
>isometric views and plot them out usually at D Size.
>
>We've developed routines that, among other things, tag each piece with a
>numbered bubble with attributes such as color, cut length, fitting,
>description, etc then extract information to Excel for prefabrication
>reports.
>
>Here's the question that has had me pulling my hair out.
>
>The company I'm doing business with has been at this manually for many
>years. They draw their Iso's by hand with no scale. They then manually get
>the CxC dimensions from architectural plans, look up the fitting takeoffs
in
>a book and then create their prefabrication reports.
>
>There-in lies the rub. By drawing at no scale, they can fit their entire
Iso
>on an 18x24 sheet of paper where ours require a D or E size.
>
>No one wants to use a D or E size drawng. The fabricators complain, the
>field installers complain, etc.
>
>Any ideas on how to shrink my iso's while maintaining legibility? They
can't
>simply be scaled down because small pieces wouldn't be seen. As near as I
>can figure, I'll have to recreate the Iso and I'd hate to have to do this
>manually.
>
>Thanks for any ideas
>
>Donald Butler
>design@butler-plumbing.com
>

[Anonymous]

"Chico_Don" wrote in message
news:46377BDED1EE9FAB0ED85478AE887BE1@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...
> What I've developed is fairly sophisticated, automated sizing, etc. The
> program has been developed over several years. Also, I'm unaware of
another
> set of programs devoted to multi-family residential construction, which is
> what I do primarily.

My buddy's company does piping for all kinds of buildings, skyscrapers,
wherehouses, etc., and supposedly (at least from what I've heard second
hand) this is exactly what this program is suppose to do. Anyhow, I'll get
the name of the program so that you can check it out if you like. I know
how hard it can be to get the upper managment to agree to stuff, but at
least it is nice to know what is available out there and what can/can't be
done (at least at the current point in time).

>
> I think the guy at Cadentity.com probably has the best idea. "Fire 'em
All"
> LOL

I know the feeling.

[Anonymous]

The problem is that there are balloons attached to leaders pointing to each
piece. Sometimes the distance between pieces is only 2". If you have a 20'
run of pipe with 4 branches, each 2" apart, they can't be seen if you scale
down.

Scaling the fittings up, I don't think would help me. Also, some of the
fittings are end to end, which would have them overlapping themselves.

I use two types of routines for inserting balloons.

The simplest has you select the pipe first and then get the fittings from a
dialog box. Fitting takeoffs are looked up in an external file and then the
balloons are inserted with all data. Fittings are not necessary to this
routine.

The next has you first draw a piping skeleton and then drag fitting blocks
from a template. Each fitting block is the exact dimension of the fitting.
The fittings auto-align to the 3-D intersections, or each other. After the
fittings are placed, the skeleton is removed and piping is drawn from
fitting to fitting. Xdata is automatically added to the pipe which is used
by a balloon insertion routine which is run later. Since these fittings are
drawn at full scale, i.e. the exact size of the fitting, you have the same
problem. Small fittings can't be seen.

I'm out of ideas.

Donald Butler
design@butler-plumbing.com

"Randy Richardson" wrote in message
news:0D5A36FA59DF601F45F3494724D562EF@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...
> Adjust the routines so that fittings are placed on the drawing at a larger
> scale--perhaps double scale. Some CAD purists will be horrified at this
> idea, but this is what you'll have to do to get a legible drawing at a
> usable scale.
>
> Chico_Don wrote in message
> <172B8FE6EC19CD21615216FE6FD38CFA@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW>...
> >
> >We're in the new construction plumbing business.
> >
> >Typically, we draw piping systems as lines in wireframe 3-D, create
> >isometric views and plot them out usually at D Size.
> >
> >We've developed routines that, among other things, tag each piece with a
> >numbered bubble with attributes such as color, cut length, fitting,
> >description, etc then extract information to Excel for prefabrication
> >reports.
> >
> >Here's the question that has had me pulling my hair out.
> >
> >The company I'm doing business with has been at this manually for many
> >years. They draw their Iso's by hand with no scale. They then manually
get
> >the CxC dimensions from architectural plans, look up the fitting takeoffs
> in
> >a book and then create their prefabrication reports.
> >
> >There-in lies the rub. By drawing at no scale, they can fit their entire
> Iso
> >on an 18x24 sheet of paper where ours require a D or E size.
> >
> >No one wants to use a D or E size drawng. The fabricators complain, the
> >field installers complain, etc.
> >
> >Any ideas on how to shrink my iso's while maintaining legibility? They
> can't
> >simply be scaled down because small pieces wouldn't be seen. As near as I
> >can figure, I'll have to recreate the Iso and I'd hate to have to do this
> >manually.
> >
> >Thanks for any ideas
> >
> >Donald Butler
> >design@butler-plumbing.com
> >
>

[Anonymous]

Thanks Kevin,

My e-mail is dbutler@butler-plumbing.com

"Kevin Nehls" wrote in message
news:419C4C27E60223127B61EFA4B3F5558D@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...
>
> "Chico_Don" wrote in message
> news:46377BDED1EE9FAB0ED85478AE887BE1@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...
> > What I've developed is fairly sophisticated, automated sizing, etc. The
> > program has been developed over several years. Also, I'm unaware of
> another
> > set of programs devoted to multi-family residential construction, which
is
> > what I do primarily.
>
> My buddy's company does piping for all kinds of buildings, skyscrapers,
> wherehouses, etc., and supposedly (at least from what I've heard second
> hand) this is exactly what this program is suppose to do. Anyhow, I'll
get
> the name of the program so that you can check it out if you like. I know
> how hard it can be to get the upper managment to agree to stuff, but at
> least it is nice to know what is available out there and what can/can't be
> done (at least at the current point in time).
>
> >
> > I think the guy at Cadentity.com probably has the best idea. "Fire 'em
> All"
> > LOL
>
> I know the feeling.
>

[Anonymous]

How about this.

1. I get an isometric viewpoint of 3-D wireframe piping in MS.
2. Change to UCS View and create a block of piping.
3. Change to plan view of World UCS and insert block.
4. Explode block and create selection set #1 of all exploded ents.
5. Create selection set #2 of all lines in set #1 that are say less that 6"
long.
6. Step through set #2 and for each member change one of it's endpoints in
order make it's total length equal to 6".
7. I would save the old endpoint and the new endpoint of the changed line
to variables.
8. Create selection set #3 of all members of set #1 except for the member
of set #2 just changed.
9. Now I can just move selection set #3 from the old enpoint to the new
endpoint.
10. Repeat for all entities in set #2

I'd also have to set up a maximum length to test for as well. This way I
could assure that no pipe is shorter than 6" or longer that say 10 feet.
Perhaps I could also add Xdata to the shortened or lengthed lines indicating
their original length for my balloon routine.

What do you think?

Donald Butler
design@butler-plumbing.com

"Chico_Don" wrote in message
news:172B8FE6EC19CD21615216FE6FD38CFA@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...

[Anonymous]

Right On!!

"Cadentity.com" wrote in message
news:854706633E6C9C4628195F93CAF58CDA@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...
> Poor management.
>
> Fire everyone, it's all politics or they're too lazy.
>
> Any excuse, just for not willing to change.
>
> --
> rudy@cadentity.com
> Practical Utilities for Productive Solutions
>
> Chico_Don wrote in message
> news:172B8FE6EC19CD21615216FE6FD38CFA@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...
> >
> > We're in the new construction plumbing business.
> >
> > Typically, we draw piping systems as lines in wireframe 3-D, create
> > isometric views and plot them out usually at D Size.
> >
> > We've developed routines that, among other things, tag each piece with
a
> > numbered bubble with attributes such as color, cut length, fitting,
> > description, etc then extract information to Excel for prefabrication
> > reports.
> >
> > Here's the question that has had me pulling my hair out.
> >
> > The company I'm doing business with has been at this manually for many
> > years. They draw their Iso's by hand with no scale. They then manually
get
> > the CxC dimensions from architectural plans, look up the fitting
takeoffs
> in
> > a book and then create their prefabrication reports.
> >
> > There-in lies the rub. By drawing at no scale, they can fit their entire
> Iso
> > on an 18x24 sheet of paper where ours require a D or E size.
> >
> > No one wants to use a D or E size drawng. The fabricators complain, the
> > field installers complain, etc.
> >
> > Any ideas on how to shrink my iso's while maintaining legibility? They
> can't
> > simply be scaled down because small pieces wouldn't be seen. As near as
I
> > can figure, I'll have to recreate the Iso and I'd hate to have to do
this
> > manually.
> >
> > Thanks for any ideas
> >
> > Donald Butler
> > design@butler-plumbing.com
> >
>

[Anonymous]

If you do your iso in paper space, scaled to fit the viewport and then do small viewports at larger scale referencing the congested areas. Or do multple viewports at a larger scale of only the congested areas and make sure that all dimensions etc. are adjacet to the congested areas and then it sort of ends up like an assembly drawing. Dave Alexander

[Anonymous]

Thanks Dave

"davea" wrote in message
news:ef3b925.11@WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...
If you do your iso in paper space, scaled to fit the viewport and then do
small viewports at larger scale referencing the congested areas. Or do
multple viewports at a larger scale of only the congested areas and make
sure that all dimensions etc. are adjacet to the congested areas and then it
sort of ends up like an assembly drawing. Dave Alexander

[Anonymous]

End-to-end fittings should be drawn as one unit, and if my scaling strategy
is used, scaled from the same point so that they will not overlap. The 4
branches 2" apart should be drawn a greater distance apart in the final
drawing. I understand that your first initial skeleton might not want to be
drawn that way, but you could add a routine that would move them apart for
the final drawing, attaching xref data to indicate the movement. Anyway,
I'm convinced that there's a work-around for everything, but it might not be
easier than accepting the consequences of simply plotting on a larger
drawing--only you can determine that.

There are a lot of technophobes out there that will seize any excuse to say
that the old hand-drawn methods are better (I should know--I was one of them
once). Looks like the problems you're experiencing here are going to give
them some ammo. Oh, well. There are two sides to everything.

Good luck.

Chico_Don wrote in message ...
>The problem is that there are balloons attached to leaders pointing to each
>piece. Sometimes the distance between pieces is only 2". If you have a 20'
>run of pipe with 4 branches, each 2" apart, they can't be seen if you scale
>down.
>
>Scaling the fittings up, I don't think would help me. Also, some of the
>fittings are end to end, which would have them overlapping themselves.
>
>I use two types of routines for inserting balloons.
>
>The simplest has you select the pipe first and then get the fittings from a
>dialog box. Fitting takeoffs are looked up in an external file and then the
>balloons are inserted with all data. Fittings are not necessary to this
>routine.
>
>The next has you first draw a piping skeleton and then drag fitting blocks
>from a template. Each fitting block is the exact dimension of the fitting.
>The fittings auto-align to the 3-D intersections, or each other. After the
>fittings are placed, the skeleton is removed and piping is drawn from
>fitting to fitting. Xdata is automatically added to the pipe which is used
>by a balloon insertion routine which is run later. Since these fittings are
>drawn at full scale, i.e. the exact size of the fitting, you have the same
>problem. Small fittings can't be seen.
>
>I'm out of ideas.
>
>Donald Butler
>design@butler-plumbing.com

[Anonymous]

Thanks Randy

"Randy Richardson" wrote in message
news:DA9854F620EC34AC040CD348AE1CE890@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...
> End-to-end fittings should be drawn as one unit, and if my scaling
strategy
> is used, scaled from the same point so that they will not overlap. The 4
> branches 2" apart should be drawn a greater distance apart in the final
> drawing. I understand that your first initial skeleton might not want to
be
> drawn that way, but you could add a routine that would move them apart for
> the final drawing, attaching xref data to indicate the movement. Anyway,
> I'm convinced that there's a work-around for everything, but it might not
be
> easier than accepting the consequences of simply plotting on a larger
> drawing--only you can determine that.
>
> There are a lot of technophobes out there that will seize any excuse to
say
> that the old hand-drawn methods are better (I should know--I was one of
them
> once). Looks like the problems you're experiencing here are going to give
> them some ammo. Oh, well. There are two sides to everything.
>
> Good luck.
>
> Chico_Don wrote in message ...
> >The problem is that there are balloons attached to leaders pointing to
each
> >piece. Sometimes the distance between pieces is only 2". If you have a
20'
> >run of pipe with 4 branches, each 2" apart, they can't be seen if you
scale
> >down.
> >
> >Scaling the fittings up, I don't think would help me. Also, some of the
> >fittings are end to end, which would have them overlapping themselves.
> >
> >I use two types of routines for inserting balloons.
> >
> >The simplest has you select the pipe first and then get the fittings from
a
> >dialog box. Fitting takeoffs are looked up in an external file and then
the
> >balloons are inserted with all data. Fittings are not necessary to this
> >routine.
> >
> >The next has you first draw a piping skeleton and then drag fitting
blocks
> >from a template. Each fitting block is the exact dimension of the
fitting.
> >The fittings auto-align to the 3-D intersections, or each other. After
the
> >fittings are placed, the skeleton is removed and piping is drawn from
> >fitting to fitting. Xdata is automatically added to the pipe which is
used
> >by a balloon insertion routine which is run later. Since these fittings
are
> >drawn at full scale, i.e. the exact size of the fitting, you have the
same
> >problem. Small fittings can't be seen.
> >
> >I'm out of ideas.
> >
> >Donald Butler
> >design@butler-plumbing.com
>

[Anonymous]

This just happened to land in my mail box today. They have a piping goodie
on there (no connection and unsolicited).
--
Eric S. eschneider@jensenprecast.com

www.asvic.com.au

[Anonymous]

Thanks Eric.

These guys are basically process piping... factories, plants and the like. I
deal in primarily wood framed 2, 3 and 4 story apartment complexes.

Donald Butler
design@butler-plumbing.com

"Eric Schneider" wrote in message
news:848775DF0840A4A99D64A586AA840731@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...
> This just happened to land in my mail box today. They have a piping goodie
> on there (no connection and unsolicited).
> --
> Eric S. eschneider@jensenprecast.com
>
> www.asvic.com.au
>

[Anonymous]

Why don't you split a large drawing into several smaller sheets plotted at
the same scale as the large one?

Jadranko

Chico_Don wrote in message
<172B8FE6EC19CD21615216FE6FD38CFA@in.WebX.SaUCah8kaAW>...
>
>We're in the new construction plumbing business.
>
>Typically, we draw piping systems as lines in wireframe 3-D, create
>isometric views and plot them out usually at D Size.
>
>We've developed routines that, among other things, tag each piece with a
>numbered bubble with attributes such as color, cut length, fitting,
>description, etc then extract information to Excel for prefabrication
>reports.
>
>Here's the question that has had me pulling my hair out.
>
>The company I'm doing business with has been at this manually for many
>years. They draw their Iso's by hand with no scale. They then manually get
>the CxC dimensions from architectural plans, look up the fitting takeoffs
in
>a book and then create their prefabrication reports.
>
>There-in lies the rub. By drawing at no scale, they can fit their entire
Iso
>on an 18x24 sheet of paper where ours require a D or E size.
>
>No one wants to use a D or E size drawng. The fabricators complain, the
>field installers complain, etc.
>
>Any ideas on how to shrink my iso's while maintaining legibility? They
can't
>simply be scaled down because small pieces wouldn't be seen. As near as I
>can figure, I'll have to recreate the Iso and I'd hate to have to do this
>manually.
>
>Thanks for any ideas
>
>Donald Butler
>design@butler-plumbing.com
>

[Anonymous]

> Perhaps I could also add Xdata to the shortened or lengthed lines indicating
> their original length
>
I think you need to maintain the "actual length" of the piping as XDATA
somehow, whether it is attached to individual lines or a polyline which
represents the run of pipe. If you do this, you can draw the lines on screen at
any convenient length to fit on a plotted sheet, using a plot scale which is
large enough to show the _fittings_ in sufficient detail when drawn at actual
size.

Clearly, if you do it this way from the get-go, you will have to write your own
dimensioning routine which picks up the value of the XDATA to plug in as the
dimension value.

The high-end piping programs I have seen do something like this, I believe.
Some may have a working demo version which you could request, & pick its brain,
so to speak. I used to have one for CADPipe (Orange Systems) for R12.

As an interim solution, you could draw everything full scale & dimension it,
"freeze" the displayed dimension value at what is measured (without exploding
the dimensions), then selectively shrink the uninteresting parts (where nothing
is happening but pipe) until it fits on the sheet. I know this can get hairy in
3 dimensions, so I think that is not the best solution in the long run.
However, if you would like a program which plugs the measured value from the
dimension block into the group 1 code of the DIMENSION entity, there is one
available on my website, free of charge.

I detail structural steel for a living, which has similar requirements. The
drawing scale must be distorted, at least partially, in order to convey the
intent to the reader. Where & how much to distort dimensions is left to the
judgment of the draftsman. Basically, if the shop can't make sense of it, then
"drawn accurately to scale" is wrong.