Snap to Dashed lines

Whenever I zoom in on two dashed lines that intersect over a mutual void acad will not snap to the intersection. Is there some convenient way or an option that can be turned on to get the snap to snap to this point, w/o having to zoom way out. If for example I want to copy multiple of a circle to several of these types of intersection, how would I do that if I can't get the snap function to snap to this particular intersection? It would also be nice to not have to type app. I just want auto cad to treat those two lines as though they were not dashed lines, and snap to the intersection even though they don’t appear to intersect when you zoom in close.

 

Select one line then the next, the apparent INters should find the intersection.

or

zoom out to so that the aperture can touch both lines, and it will find the intersection.

or

make the APERTURE bigger so that it can touch both lines.

 

OR after zooming, regen;

Or change the linetype scale to relocate the voids.


Russ

 

Thanks. I was hoping there was just some option I could check. But I guess I'll just have to settle for these work-arounds.

 

Another method is to change the dashed lines to solid lines and then
after snapping to the intersection and performing whatever task you
wanted, the change the lines back to dashed.

 

It IS rather sad that a simple function like this requires a work-around at
all.

 

Not sure what you guys mean by "work-around", and it's VERY simple to pick one line, then the next for ACAD to automate the APP INT.

 

LOL.... It's a "work-around" because the INT snap does not work in these
situations, forcing the user to find another method.

By the way, while using this work-around, you do not have to use APPINT,
INT will do the job (unless of course the intersecting objects are
non-coplaner)

 

If it's designed to work that way, then it's not a work-a-round. It's just
the way it works.

And it's working as designed. :O)

Have fun,
Dave

 

<<LOL.... It's a "work-around" because the INT snap does not work in these situations, forcing the user to find another method.>>

Very true, it doesn't work where there's nothing to select. but isn't that obvious?

To find the intersection of two lines you have to be able to select two lines, right? Selectable portions of both lines must pass through the aperture for them to be selected, if not the intersection can not be determined. Setting it up so that two lines are selected is not a work-around, but just the way it works, always has.


<<By the way, while using this work-around, you do not have to use APPINT, INT will do the job >>

That's why I said "for ACAD to automate the APP INT".

 

"...automate the APP INT" ? What does that mean?
If two lines intersect on the same plane, then they intersect,
regardless of their linetype. APPINT object snap is not necessary.

 

Hm? ... INT does not work, so you have to use INT ... ??
___

 

Hold over a visible part of one line until the extended intersection kicks in, and then click the other line.

 

Huh?

 

If the gaps between the dashes are long enough, and the aperture is small enough the INT will not select the intersection because it can't select the line in the gap.

Before we go any further, everyone knows that the intersection does not need to be in the aperture, but selectable portions of both lines do, right?

Now after you've entered INT (in whatever way you choose) you discover that it won't find the intersection because the gap is there, and the aperture is not large enough to cover selectable portions of both lines at the same time. Then just move the aperture over a selectable portion of one line, click, then the second line, ACAD will find the INT.

 

Ok...so I have *an issue* with how it is designed to work. In my mind a
LINE
entity itself is continuous regardless of its symbolic representation.

If I want physical breaks, I will create them. Otherwise, I feel linework
should
be treated as a single continuous object. Does a centerline not exist at
the gaps?
Does a boundary line not exist at the gaps? I think of linetype as
something to add
a graphical message rather than something that alters the "physical" object
itself.

 

<< I feel linework should be treated as a single continuous object>>

hmmm... okay, I'll bite, how do you go about electing something that isn't displayed?


<< Does a centerline not exist at the gaps? >>

ummm... that's why there's gaps? Okay, I understand what you mean but the fact is the element has to be selectable. In a GUI it is difficult to select something that isn't graphically displayed. You wouldn't want it selecting layers that were off would you? Just because they are off doesn't mean they don't exist.

I'm still wondering why picking one line then the next is a big problem. Or moving the APERTURE until selectable portions of both lines are in it. Seems pretty simple to me.

 

fact is the element has to be selectable. In a GUI it is difficult to
select something that isn't graphically displayed.

the "center" osnap is also found when the aperture passes over the center of
a circle, it doesn't have to be anywhere near the actual visible geometry of
the circle.

so i would think it *is* possible to find an "invisible" intersection, if a
programmer had the time/desire to spend on the core command.

 

fact is the element has to be selectable. In a GUI it is difficult to
select something that isn't graphically displayed. You wouldn't want it
selecting layers that were off would you? Just because they are off doesn't
mean they don't exist.

Or moving the APERTURE until selectable portions of both lines are in it.
Seems pretty simple to me.

Simple in concept? yes. Yet, in practice sometimes there is a mess of other
linework that makes picking elsewhere cumbersome. And a variation is where
appint really does come in handy - when the actual intersection is in a mess
of other linework. It would be simpler to just pick the actual
intersection. This is not a monumental issue. We're not talking about
anything that stops work...just a productivity issue. Really, just a minor
peeve.

 

You have to be where that circle is graphically displayed though- you can't
zoom way in the center of the circle and still snap to it - you have to hit
the line that defines the circle.

Matt