Paper Space vs. Model Space

Looking for a consensus....which is better Paper Space (PS) or Model Space
(MS)? I currently work for a small civil engineering firm, which condones
the MS way of setting up sheets, especially with the help of polygonal
X-Clips. Thus, ALL our annotation is done on a sheet-by-sheet basis,
titleblocks are x-ref'd in, and maybe multiple x-refs are inserted to help
with formatting and appearance of our plans.

I've come from the Paper Space "school of thought," especially now that
viewports can be polygonal. I like how I can indepently freeze layers in
multiple viewports. However, I don't like the idea of having multiple
sheets kept in ONE drawing file that represents a plan set, e.g. Rough
Grading Plans.dwg, Street Improvement Plans.dwg, or Storm Drain Plans.dwg.
I can see the benefit of this when plotting your ENTIRE plan sheets in one
swoop or click of a button (or two). In going the MS way, I don't like
going into a drawing and finding multiple x-ref's (named differently) to
help format your plan set, e.g. BASE.dwg, BASE1.dwg, BASE2.dwg.

Any advice to help swoon the more experienced AutoCad folks in our company
to incorporate the PS way? I've also heard that the future upgrades to
AutoCAD will implement the MS/PS combination, any truth to this?

Thanks for your advice!!!!

 

I would disagree. I have used and will continue to use modelspace with as many
sheets as necessary for the job. The titles can either be xref'd or inserted
with attributes as well as notations (with or without attributes).

One thing I have noticed - in the last two years, about half a dozen users
have come into these discussion groups complaining their drawings (containing
many layouts) have been lost for unknown reasons and they haven't been able to
recover the drawings. That alone would give me reason to stick to one dwg for
each floor plan, etc. I am not saying that having multiple layouts in one dwg
is the culprit - it could be that many of these users have computer and/or
software problems not attributal to autocad. I for one am not willing to take
the chance - multiple drawings and multiple backups. Afterall, we're all
dealing with electrons and they have a bad habit of going astray.

 

You've answered your own question.

I don't understand your objection to multiple sheets in one drawing, but
using paper space doesn't prevent you from separating them if you must.
___

 

Check out the threads

"I need opinions please (title blocks)"in the Land group and "Quit changing
the linetype scale when the drawing scale is changed" in the Land Wishes
group.

I've been a fan of paper space since R12. It becomes almost vital when
working in LDD. I've never experienced any problem with unrecoverable
drawings even though we have drawing with about 100 layouts.
If you are working for a civil firm and ever anticipate using Civil 3D then
you would miss out on some great functionality in PS viewports and layouts.
The new Civil objects will respect not only the scale of the viewport but
the orientation as well. There is no more problem when creating a detail of
an area at a larger scale. Just create a viewport at the new scale and the
Civil objects like line and lot lables will be scaled properly when viewed
through that viewport.

Allen

 

I grew up with R14, where PS was new and only one layout per drawing, but
since R15, with up to 255 layouts per drawing, I've never looked back. The
biggest fear is that your whole drawing is lost due to corruption of some
sort. If you autosave often enough, backup your computer enough, the only
fear then is a total complete meltdown of your system, and those stories
are...one bad apple... Using multiple layouts allows us to draw first floor
ontop of second ontop of third and so on and so on etc... Then when the
Architect or owner changes the plan, modifying one drawing beats modifying
three or four. We xref architectural for structural, but foundation,
framing roof framing etc... is all in one drawing.
On the flip side, when sending drawings to contractors for bid sets as
individual sheets saves misunderstading because they couldn't understand
what they were looking at. opening a drawing, printing it, closing it and
opening another is easier then opening a drawing, picking the layout,
printing it and picking the next layout and printing it. (Speaking in the
sense of the contractor who don't know computers very well.) The industry,
especially the government, is not yet understanding this whole
paperspace/modelspace thing. So untill they have a clear understanding, we
are hindered by those who we need to understand our drawings.
Just my thoughts.

 

SOME of us civil servants understand Paperspace and layouts : )

Have you considered plotting your drawing sets to individual DWF's for the
contractors. They could view and plot them without any confusion.

Allen

 

We convert everything we receive to MS-only, single layout drawings. We
have two reasons. First is the possible loss of work if AutoCad locks
up. Most lockups here seem to relate to trying to change the linetype
of an entity. Second is that we have a choice of either converting all
the files we receive to our internal standard, or trying to keep track
of and be efficient in over a dozen different approaches from different
architects.

My pet peeve is that we seldom get any details from architects on how
their drawings are set up. We missed a lot at one point because we had
the layout tabs turned off and had no way to know that one of the
architects we work with who had never used layouts had gone to a class
(fixed with a lisp that turns on the tabs if there are multiple
layouts). Now we're getting drawings where we're somehow supposed to
know exactly which layer filter(s) we should turn on to see the
electrical. When there are 30,000+ layer filters in a drawing it's a
bit hard to look at all of them.

How drawings should be configured depends on what you do, whether you
receive drawings from others or send drawings to others, whether your
deliverables are paper prints or electronic files, and a number of other
issues. There's no one answer that's right for everyone.

Martin

 

<<Looking for a consensus....>>

Good luck, that won't happen.


<<which is better Paper Space (PS) or Model Space MS)?>>

yes.


We've been using PAPERSPACE for drawing presentation since it's inclusion in R11. There is no other accurate way to maintain real uinits, and produce different scaled views on the same drawing. Nor is there any other intelligent way to have multiple views of a 3D model on the same drawing. Add to that the major advantage of individual viewport layer visibility control, and the improved efficiency of PAPERSPACE is hard to argue with, though some seem to manage.

Multiple layout tabs is a separate issue, but we've been using those as well, since inception. If you have an unstable network, or poor network backup protocols, you may want to avoid lumping large chnks of data in single files, as the loss of a single file could be catostrophic. But if you have a stable network, and decent network backup proceedures, there is no reason not to use multiple layouts, if they will be productive for you.

They are for us, as we have many projects that require matchline spanning of several drawings. We may have a piperack that is several hundred feet long, with plans spanning several drawings. For us it is most productive to keep the layouts in one file.

 

<<I grew up with R14, where PS was new >>

Sorry, but PS was NOT new in R14. It was introduced in R11, seven years earlier, in 1990. Paperspace, (TILEMODE=0), has been around over 14 years. That's considerably longer than many "accepted" features of AutoCAD (like Windows compliance).


<<opening a drawing, printing it, closing it and opening another is easier then opening a drawing, picking the layout, printing it and picking the next layout and printing it. >>

But it not easier than opening one file, selecting all the layouts and printing them once.


<<(Speaking in the sense of the contractor who don't know computers very well.) >>

Sounds like you need better contractors.


<<The industry, especially the government, is not yet understanding this whole paperspace/modelspace thing. >>

Not sure what industry you're speaking of, but we've had very little trouble in ours. (Which is Heavy Industry, incl. Power/Distribution, Petro-Chem, Pulp/Paper, Highway, etc. encompassing all disciplines from Mechanical to Architectural) We've done several jobs for the federal government, and many for state and local governments with little or no trouble at all. We have run into the odd contractor that whines about it, but once we've shown them the cost to them for doing it their way, they have no trouble with ours.


<<we are hindered by those who we need to understand our drawings. >>

Maybe I've missed something here, but the drawings should be just as understandable, no matter which method of production is used. Now if you mean that you're hindered by those who need to USE your FILES, then it is a simple matter of education... theirs. We will do whatever the client wants (and is willing to pay for), so we show them the difference in cost. We have historical data for our type of work that indicates a 2%-5% savings in "engineering manhours to drawing", by using multiple tabs on tasks that span several drawings.

 

<<We convert everything we receive to MS-only, single layout drawings. We have two reasons. First is the possible loss of work if AutoCad locks up.>>

While that maybe a reason to avoid multiple layouts, it has nothing to do with MS only. The loss is the same whether the data is in MS or PS. The only difference there is you lose all the advantages of PS (different scales, layer control, etc) and gain... well... nothing.


<<Second is that we have a choice of either converting all
the files we receive to our internal standard, or trying to keep track of and be efficient in over a dozen different approaches from different architects. >>

Sounds like you need a better contract spelling out acceptable deliverables.


<<Now we're getting drawings where we're somehow supposed to know exactly which layer filter(s) we should turn on to see the electrical. >>

Well that would already be set in the viewport that views the electrical layout... oops, you've lost that view and data when converting everything to R10.

 

LOL
___

 

Vlad,

Interesting discussion, although it has gotten off the original question somewhat. I cannot imagine doing layout drawings without paper space. Yes, we did use only MS this what it was all that was available but those were also the DOS and non-associate dimension days.

As to the "side bar" issue of multiple layouts, I am quite opposed. Yes, I see some advantages, most which have been stated but there are some very large encumbrances and risks. Several of the advantages mentioned by the proponents can be otherwise resolved by selective use of XRefs. This is particularly true of large structures. We do conveyors that are several hundreds of meters long and this method works very well. One major hurdle I see hard to overcome is the very common, last hour effort to get a set of drawings "out the door". If there are many changes/additions to be made and if only one (or very few files) contain all the drawings, one cannot get more "bodies" onto this task. One of the risks is that if with one file, you wish to issue only one of the contained drawings, all others come along even when you are not ready (or willing) to provide the others. We have found this a large hindrance as so many of our clients/contractors require Cad files.

Ted

 

<<Several of the advantages mentioned by the proponents can be otherwise resolved by selective use of XRefs. >>

The ease of moving from one sheet to the next, or manipulating matchlines, or several other advantages are not resolved by using XREFs. Indeed, it only services to increase file count and management.


<<This is particularly true of large structures. We do conveyors that are several hundreds of meters long and this method works very well. >>

Only if you don't mind making the same change to several different files, instead of one, and don't mind the additional drawing count. and on and on.


<<One major hurdle I see hard to overcome is the very common, last hour effort to get a set of drawings "out the door". If there are many changes/additions to be made and if only one (or very few files) contain all the drawings, one cannot get more "bodies" onto this task.>>

One CAN if one really needs to, we've done it in the past, but this is really an issue of poor time management, not cad usage.


<<One of the risks is that if with one file, you wish to issue only one of the contained drawings, all others come along even when you are not ready (or willing) to provide the others. We have found this a large hindrance as so many of our clients/contractors require Cad files. >>

This may be something that is done in your industry, but in ours, it's not finished until it is finished. There is no intelligent reason to issue the middle of a piperack, when then ends are not yet complete. I'm finding it hard to imagine that issuing the middle of the conveyor is done prior to the finishing the ends of the same conveyor.

 

Mr. CADaver

Large, multi-discipline projects MUST use XREfs. We do projects with thousand of drawings from several sites and without this technique, we are lost. Same change to different files? I don't get that one.

I would like to hear from you how to edit one file with 2 or more people at once. This sounds a bit scary to me.

"poor time management, not cad usage."
Are you suggesting that these types of 11th hour panics are not part of your life? Government environment perhaps but in the private consultant business, rather too often.

"it's not finished until it is finished."
Wow, this seems a luxury. Does fast track come to mind?
I am working on a large container port site that is a 3 year program. As I speak, there are 2 major contracts "in construction", 2 significant suppliers are providing cranes which are being delivered later this year, and we are still needing to design 3 more large pieces of the site facilities before project is completed in mid 2006. No, we cannot wait till all is finished.

Cheers

 

earlier, in 1990. Paperspace, (TILEMODE=0), has been around over 14 years.
That's considerably longer than many "accepted" features of AutoCAD (like
Windows compliance).

Score one for OLD-CADaver. You're right, I meant it was new to me.

then opening a drawing, picking the layout, printing it and picking the next
layout and printing it. >>

printing them once.

I agree, but how often are all the layouts set to the proper settings,
especially when the they are being printed on another plotter not of our
office.

whole paperspace/modelspace thing. >>

trouble in ours. (Which is Heavy Industry, incl. Power/Distribution,
Petro-Chem, Pulp/Paper, Highway, etc. encompassing all disciplines from
Mechanical to Architectural) We've done several jobs for the federal
government, and many for state and local governments with little or no
trouble at all. We have run into the odd contractor that whines about it,
but once we've shown them the cost to them for doing it their way, they have
no trouble with ours.

I've recenlty worked with Education department of California. They still
require all drawings in R14 format for submittal and as-built. I've also
done work with the military on housing, again R14. US post office building
out of country, again R14. These were in the past couple of years, if
they've changed than yeah, but as you stated, there are still some who
whine.

<..hindered by those who need to USE your FILES...>

YES!! As much as I love to teach, I don't have the time or resources to
keep track of which way is quicker. Maybe I should just shoove this post in
my client's faces.

 

<<I agree, but how often are all the layouts set to the proper settings, >>

With the proper use of pagesetups, every time.


<<especially when the they are being printed on another plotter not of our office.>>

Pagesetups for outside plotting speed everyone's effort.


<<. I've also done work with the military on housing, again R14. >>

During the bid phase we gave the DOD two separate estimates, one our way, one theirs. We got the job our way.

 

<<Large, multi-discipline projects MUST use XREfs. >>

Oh, most assuredly, we use them all the time. But that is NOT a multi-tab issue, indeed has nothing to do with the decision as to use multi-tabs or not. Nor does it have much to do with MS vs PS issues, other than viewports are much easier than XCLIP.


<< I would like to hear from you how to edit one file with 2 or more people at once. This sounds a bit scary to me. >>

It can be very scary, we've only done it a couple of times. It requires the designers to be very aware of what they're doing. Save to file as a new file. In the new file delete everything EXCEPT the layout tab (and it's contents) that the other designer will be editing. That includes EVERYTHING in MS. XREF the original file into the new file and add annotation as required to the layout tab that remains.

Bear in mind we are exclusively 3D, with only one task model that is XREF'd into the drawing file. ONE person edits the model, but the drawings can be split for annotation with the above procedure.

When complete, cut-n-paste the separated sheet back into the original file. Save layer states for the various viewports first as vplayer settings may be lost. Turn the viewports on, and restore the layer states.


<<Are you suggesting that these types of 11th hour panics are not part of your life? Government environment perhaps but in the private consultant business, rather too often. >>

Rarely to the point of causing us to design a less efficient work system. A more efficient work system will reduce, if not eliminate, "last-minute-panic-engineering". BTW, only about 10% of our work is government.


<<"it's not finished until it is finished."
Wow, this seems a luxury. Does fast track come to mind?
I am working on a large container port site that is a 3 year program.>>

You've totally missed the point, or are purposely clouding the issue. No, I'm talking about an ENTIRE project, but one task within the project, hence my reference to "A" piperack or "A" conveyor. NO ONE places an ENTIRE contract in one file, and NO ONE is advocating doing so.


<<and we are still needing to design 3 more large pieces of the site facilities before project is completed in mid 2006>>

Each piece should be divided into manageable chunks of fabrication, correct? You wouldn't issue half a panel to fabrication without completing the other half, would you? That would be a single task that would span several sheets, and is an excellent candidate for multi-tabs.

Currently I'm working a major refinery upgrade, 70-90 designers working for the last 2 years in design, that will complete construction some time in 2007. Within this project are 11 major equipment structures. One structure is 200' long, 125' wide (10~ 20' bays by 5~ 25' bays) by 120' tall (8 varying floors) and contains some 60 pieces of equipment. The structural steel for this structure is one task with one model, and one drafting file that will contain, when complete, 38 sheets, and will be accomplished with one designer 'till check.

 

Hmmm.. Thought that's what BACK UP's were for

 

As regards "total system meltdown". It's standard practice here to ZIP the entire project drive, write it to a DVD and take it off site once a week (part of my job).

 

OLD-CADaver:

You're obviously working in a very different end of the industry. In
the 1000+ jobs that have gone through my office I think we've had
exactly two with fees over $20K. Our drawings tend to be simple, and
our drawing sets are usually just a few sheets. We rarely have details
at all, and when we do they're generally at the same scale as the
remainder of the sheet. We feel lucky when we have over a week to do a
project.

If I try to dictate deliverables to the architects I work with they go
elsewhere. I can't get most of them to even export their ADT files to
AutoCad before they send them. I don't get a 'viewport that views the
electrical layout' from the architect (I have to decide for myself which
layers in the architect's drawing have value for me), and I see no
reason to create one for the projects I do. Why keep a bunch of layers
we don't use or need? You would probably take exception to our binding
xrefs and refusing to use OLE, but those decisions give us the ability
to go back to any revision of any file we've ever done and be able to
print out an accurate copy of that revision.

If we were a really big company doing really big projects I'd probably
feel differently. Maybe we are at an R10 level. So what? Our system
works very well for us.


Martin