"When I need a point three units to the right and two units down from the last point, I'd much rather just type "@3,-2" than answer a whole series of prompts about in what way I want to designate the next point, and give it each element of that separately, and the quadrant to do it in, and so on. Even with the varieties that can't be entered as directly, I think I would find it easier to draw a Line at, say "@10<32" and then use Lengthen on it to get the length I want, than plow through all those mega-steps. But one of the nice things about AutoCAD is that it is capable of accommodating many approaches to the same task."
Yes, but what would you do when you have downslope = 7% and you have to draw line which's Length_X =3000 mm?
Will you calculate it on the sheet or calculate it in Autocad's Calculator (Ctrl+8)?
These options, which are default in AutoCad (@3,-2 works even if both ORTHO and POLAR are OFF. @10<32 too, but at every time I use it I don't know between what Objects is this angle measured.), are good only in two cases: @3,-2 is good when you have given Length_X and Length_Y, and @10<32 only when you have Total)Length and Angle (Decimal Degrees - that depends on current AUNITS value. But we all prefer situation, when before using @10<32 we haven't to set System Variables. Didn't we?).
What's more, even if I would be forced to choose between @3,-2 and lisp with two prompts, I would choose lisp. WHy? Because if @3,-2 would be good, I wouldn't give it up. I tried both options: @3,-2 and lisp. And for me lisp is faster way, because, you have to press buttons which you set for yourself. WHen you use this lisp all the time, you know its prompts, so you just type a number, Space (as Enter), number, Space, and that's the end.
And the situation looks completely other with @3,-2. you HAVE TO (yes, you didn;t set this key. And you can't assign to it another key. At least it seems to me so) press [Shift] and [2] - that's uncomfortable for me. And that only in order to being forced to diametrally change position of hand on keyboard to press [,] just after entering first of two required numbers. So at the beginning you have left hand on the keyboard's left side and you are forced to press two buttons - [Shift] and [2]. Then your hand types a number, goes on the right side to type [,], type second number, and press [Space] or [Enter].
In both methods we type two numbers - so that is no differrence. Difference is, that between typing number:
- in lisp method you press only [Space]
- in @ method your hand have to go from left to right, than either go back to press [Space] or it goes further to press [Enter].
Maybe if I have to draw six Lines with @ method, I probably would be able to resist it. But imagine you draw 900 Lines, every time using hand like if you play pingpong. Maybe that is too big hiperbolization 😉
In one thing I agree - I am such specify type of man, who likes to have all collect together in one. Sometimes it is cause for errors. That I hear from many my familiars.
And one more thing. I try to solve easy problems with great machines, so that my opinion about MEGALINE doesn't wonder me.
Sometimes I forgot about simple methods which are so good as these "bigger" methods.
I will end 1st degree of Civil Engineering and when I remember, that on the project of road I had to draw road with i=2% and it had 1300 m length, and I had not lisp which on ground of given Downslope in Percents and Length_X would draw a Line, and I had to count its Length_X on a sheet which I had to take with me... Only four letters express what I think about it: A.R.G.H! Something awful...
So, I think that there commands which draw Lines on ground of given i[%] or i[Delta_Y/Delta_X] are useful, and that was point on which I started thinking about creating MEGALINE.lsp.
Thank you for your notices.
