--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 146 AUTOCAD Ref: DFA00000 Date: 11/02/96 From: FLOYD WILLIAMS Time: 08:49am \/To: ERIC HERRING (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: Printer/Plotter -=> Quoting Eric Herring to Floyd Williams <=- -> I'm using autocad Release 12. Anyone recommend a printer (brand name) -> for a home office that uses paper up to size 11 x 17 inches. One that -> will allow setting line intensities so that background or center -> lines will appear on the printed page much lighter than -> the principal parts of the drawing. EH> In what price range? If you want a laser the HP 4V works well for EH> about $2000. Eric, Thanks for the information. Would you know of cheaper ones that allows weight control of lines? Speed is not important. Again Thanks, Floyd . . . Fido: 1:3625/500 or Internet: floyd.williams@bytebbs.com ... Your taxes lower your std-of-living; raise others! ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] --- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] * Origin: Byte Junction, Citronelle, Alabama, 334-866-7895 (1:3625/500) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 146 AUTOCAD Ref: DFA00001 Date: 11/03/96 From: RAY BURNETTE Time: 08:45am \/To: FLOYD WILLIAMS (Read 2 times) Subj: Printer/Plotter -=> Quoting Eric Herring to Floyd Williams <=- -> I'm using autocad Release 12. Anyone recommend a printer (brand name) -> for a home office that uses paper up to size 11 x 17 inches. One that -> will allow setting line intensities so that background or center -> lines will appear on the printed page much lighter than -> the principal parts of the drawing. EH> In what price range? If you want a laser the HP 4V works well for EH> about $2000. Cannon has just introduced a color BJ printer capable of handling ledger size (11x17). The model BJC-4550 sells on the street for about $500. All previous brands and models that would handle this size of paper, STARTED at about the $1700-1800 price range. So, it's really a breakthrough. More details about the BJC-4550: Print Resolution - color: 720x360dpi on plain paper black: 720x360dpi with smoothing Paper types: Plain, high resolution paper, back print film, high gloss film, transparencies, fabric sheets, T-shirt transfers, water resistant BJ paper, greeting cards, brochure paper and envelopes. Built-in sheet feeder/letter-100, legal-100, ledger-50, envelopes-15 Print speed: high quality color - 1 page/min high quality b/w - 5 pages/min 64KB Buffer/Ram Mac or PC interface Dimensions: 17.6"W x 8.5"H x 10"D Weight - 9.5lbs. Comes with 300+ True-Type(tm) fonts on CD-ROM, 7 resident bitmap. No I don't work for or sell this product. Just wanted to pass on this info, 'cause I spent several months looking for just such a machine, to find out that they were out of my price range, and settled on a HP 820Cse, instead. Which is an excellent machine, don't get me wrong, but I would have been happier with one that would have allowed me to retire my old Panasonic KX-P-1624, dot matrix dinosaur. Just a hunch, but now that Cannon has broken the ice, don't be surprised to see the other major players follow suit. So if you don't care for Cannon, perhaps it might be wise to wait a while and see what shakes out. ... What was I doing again???? ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 --- QScan/PCB v1.16b / 01-0075 * Origin: PSL Online Houston, TX 713-442-6704 @psl-online.com (1:106/6256) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 146 AUTOCAD Ref: DFA00002 Date: 11/03/96 From: IAN UNDERWOOD Time: 04:28pm \/To: ALL (Read 2 times) Subj: Hot keys ;-) Hello All, For occasional Acad users (like engineers doing their own drawings) that are not likely to get to grips with a tablet First create a file that loads your favourite lisp files and include keyboard.lsp - call it acad.lsp and put in in the main acad dir - it then loads automatically I:\acad12\acad.lsp (load"keyboard") (load"chgtext") (load"asctext") (load"wtext") (load"chtext") Then cut and paste the following file and edit it to suit. Ie all the most often used commands are a single press, then come the two character aliases, etc Eg copy is c circle is ci erase is e extend is ex explode is exp Next speed tip: Using the left hand on the keyboard and keeping the mouse on the target allows faster working than anyone (here) using a tablet - as soon as the left hand can quickly type the following: mid, end, int, tan, cen, qua, ins Tablet users are forever losing crosshair position on the drawing to pick the above from the tablet outer areas Here is that Keyboard lisp file I referred to earlier i:\acad12\keyboard.lsp (defun c:a ()(command "arc")) (defun c:ar()(command "array")) (defun c:b ()(command "break")) (defun c:bl()(command "block")) (defun c:c ()(command "copy")) (defun c:ch()(command "change")) (defun c:cha()(command "chamfer")) (defun c:ci()(command "circle")) (defun c:d ()(command "dist")) (defun c:dt()(command "dtext")) (defun c:e ()(command "erase")) (defun c:ed()(command "ddedit")) (defun c:el()(command "ellipse")) (defun c:ex()(command "extend")) (defun c:exp()(command "explode")) (defun c:f ()(command "fillet")) (defun c:g ()(command "grid")(command "s")) (defun c:h ()(command "hatch")) (defun c:i ()(command "insert")) (defun c:l ()(command "line")) (defun c:la()(command "layer")) (defun c:li()(command "list")) (defun c:m ()(command "move")) (defun c:me()(command "measure")) (defun c:mi()(command "mirror")) (defun c:ml()(command "'ddlmodes")) (defun c:of()(command "offset")) (defun c:os()(command "osnap")) (defun c:p ()(command "'pan")) (defun c:pe()(command "pedit")) (defun c:pl()(command "pline")) (defun c:po()(command "point")) (defun c:pol()(command "polygon")) (defun c:q ()(command "quit")) (defun c:r ()(command "'redraw")) (defun c:re()(command "regen")) (defun c:ro()(command "rotate")) (defun c:sa()(command "save")) (defun c:sc()(command "scale")) (defun c:se()(command "select")) (defun c:sn()(command "snap")) (defun c:st()(command "stretch")(command "c")) (defun c:sta()(command "status")) (defun c:t ()(command "trim")) (defun c:te()(command "text")) (defun c:txm()(command"text")(command"m")) (defun c:v ()(command "vports")) (defun c:w ()(command "wblock")) (defun c:z ()(command "'zoom")) Have fun y'all -=> Ian >=- Sincerely yours, Internet : ian.underwood@esoftc.seuk.com .!. Confidence, the feeling you had before you knew the problem. --- Terminate 4.00/Pro*at * Origin: Terminate Point System - the easiest in the World! (2:253/417.3) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 146 AUTOCAD Ref: DFA00003 Date: 11/04/96 From: IAN UNDERWOOD Time: 08:22pm \/To: JERRY MYER (Read 2 times) Subj: SDRC Hello Jerry, 02-Nov-96 05:24:19, Jerry Myer did write to Ian Underwood Subject: SDRC >> Now what do you think of SDRC - netmail or another echo ? >> Err Cad-cam? JM> SDRC - just another overpriced, overdone program that is JM> never a finished product. Interesting - the 3D version or their 2D version. (They hang out in the UK near where I used to live and we have had some good demos.) It's a big commitment to buy one 3D package "over" another - evaluated a few. If anything I'd have thought the "never finished" bit applied to all major programs including Acad but especially the their modeller rendition ;-) The biggest (commercial) pressure came from ProE and it wasn't nice to use at all. JM> With AutoCAD and AutoLISP you can JM> generate a toolpath and postprocess it with a conventional JM> postprocessor like SCLPOST which costs only $34.95. Now are you saying that I should consider Acad as a serious 3D modeller? I want something slick and polished with a nice interface that knows about surfaces, etc. Don't like the maintenance agreements tho' I'm fed up with 2D modelling and having to draw complex surfaces and sections (particularly in side view) far better these views are auto drawn as soon as the depth information is given. Far better that a late design change doesn't mean a nearly total redraw of /all/ views. I'll be interested to read your/other_users' ideas/views on this. :-)) -=> Ian >=- Cheers! Internet : ian.underwood@esoftc.seuk.com .!. A clean desk is a sign of a Manager! --- Terminate 4.00/Pro*at * Origin: Terminate Point System - the easiest in the World! (2:253/417.3) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 146 AUTOCAD Ref: DFB00000 Date: 11/05/96 From: JOHN BEAL Time: 01:15am \/To: IAN UNDERWOOD (Read 2 times) Subj: REDEFINED KEYS IU> I'm crashing this as we are getting out of step there's IU> another message saying I've found UNDEFINE :-) understand...I saw your other message the day after I posted mine. JB> Another good tip. Redefine keys to get your commonly JB> used ACAD commands assigned to the function keys. you may have misunderstood me, here. When I used the dos version of ACAD, I had the function keys redefined to do endp, midp, etc. You need to load ansi.sys in the config.sys file, and load and unload the keyboard definitions through your acad.bat file. If you are using the dos version and are interested in this, let me know and I'll run you through the basics (I'll need to retrieve them from the grayer reaches of my mind first :) IU> Will that work with TAN, END, MID, QUA, CEN selections as it's IU> those that I cannot shorten to single keys yes, that is specifically why I the defined function keys. I had F11 and F12 mapped to 'zoom w and 'zoom p (respectively) and F5 - F8 were the endp, midp, cent, perp; Alf-F5 - Alt-F8 were int, etc. another favorite of mine is the keyboard + to , so that coordinate data entry was all right there. F3 became @ and F4 became <, for polar coordinate entry. if you're using ACAD/DOS and are interested, let me know and I'll go into greater detail. jpbeal@mindspring.com, Monday, 11-04-1996 --- KWQ/2 1.2i Do the voices in my head bother you? --- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 5 * Origin: Riverdale, Ga (1:133/9024) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 146 AUTOCAD Ref: DFB00001 Date: 11/05/96 From: PETER DERLE Time: 09:11pm \/To: JERRY MYER (Read 2 times) Subj: SELECTION SET INCREMENT Once the selection set is cleared I can use the same variable for a new selection set. I am not so sure why your are not able to redefine the selection set this way. Originally this routine came from Cadence or Cadalyst Magazine. --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: City Limits BBS (1:221/503) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 146 AUTOCAD Ref: DFJ00000 Date: 11/06/96 From: JERRY MYER Time: 02:05pm \/To: IAN UNDERWOOD (Read 2 times) Subj: SDRC JM> SDRC - just another overpriced, overdone program that is JM> never a finished product. IU> Interesting - the 3D version or their 2D version. (They hang IU> out in the UK near where I used to live and we have had some IU> good demos.) It's a big commitment to buy one 3D package "over" IU> another - evaluated a few. Didn't know there was a 2D version. And they are "pricey". IU> If anything I'd have thought the "never finished" bit applied IU> to all major programs including Acad but especially the their IU> modeller rendition ;-) Yes, so I look for tools that are as simple as possible. Already been burned by Computervision. IU> The biggest (commercial) pressure came from ProE and it wasn't IU> nice to use at all. I thought ProE was a good demo, very powerful for making pictures/design, but manufacturing is a completely different story. IU> Now are you saying that I should consider Acad as a serious 3D IU> modeller? I want something slick and polished with a nice IU> interface that knows about surfaces, etc. Well, yes, I say you should consider it, depending on what your requirements really are. As for the slick interface, well that may be what you want, but maybe not what you need. I got my AutoCAD R12 for $200 or so as a bona fide student in a night class. The whole college tuition and all was about $1400. That got me into AutoCAD, some instruction, and a couple of college hours. I tried to do some work with DesignCAD 2D but it was more trouble than it was worth, and I paid the same price ($200) for DesignCAD. In some respects AutoCAD R12 surpasses Computervision capability that cost probably about $1,000,000 a decade or so ago. IU> I'm fed up with 2D modelling and having to draw complex IU> surfaces and sections (particularly in side view) far better IU> these views are auto drawn as soon as the depth information is IU> given. I don't follow the phrase "auto drawn". You may mean parametrics. That is a nice design feature. IU> Far better that a late design change doesn't mean a nearly IU> total redraw of /all/ views. I have yet to see a convenient way to go from 3D to a 2D drawing. Fortunately, I usually just import geometry and machine it, rather than need to dimension it myself. But I have done some design work and it takes considerable forethought and additional layering in different views to do the right kind of modeling that appears as a 2D object in each view. Solids make super pictures, very quickly. Blending of fillets is often a nightmare, and sometimes just not supported in certain cases. Unless you need mass properties, the solids representation may not be of much real help. But this depends on the kinds of toolpaths that are required. If you just need some "canned" routines for running around mold surfaces it may be just fine. But if you need 5 sided machining where you flip the part around on the table, the graphics concept of copying and flipping the part geometry to the machine reference system is not copacetic. What you get is duplicated geometry, and as you mentioned, a problem in the case of design changes. I prefer to use a single part representation, upon which the tool path can be verified as a single setup, and the complete part emerges from a solid piece of stock, and it only takes one file to contain the part program, not multiple tapes or files. Then to accommodate the orientation of the toolpath to the machine tool I put transformation statements into the source file to flip the punch file (G codes) of that particular section of part program into the machine tool's coordinate system, at the appropriate position. (I'm getting long winded here.) Sorry, I don't use the cutesy surfaces much at all, one exception being to check out a toolpath in a solids verifier program apart from AutoCAD. The trick to me is to get a variety of programs that do the individual functions well, (design, drafting, toolpath generation, feedrate/auxillary function calculation, toolpath verification, etc.) but that work together. When I couldn't find a program to perform a function, I wrote it myself. For design and drafting, and with a good bit of customization and lisp routines R12 is not bad. --- FLAME v1.1 * Origin: The Manufacturing Technology BBS! // 210-821-6356 (1:387/783) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 146 AUTOCAD Ref: DFJ00001 Date: 11/06/96 From: IAN UNDERWOOD Time: 07:13pm \/To: ROBIN CLAY (Read 2 times) Subj: RULES Hello Robin, 02-Nov-96 23:23:41, Robin Clay did write to All Subject: RULES RC> This echo is under threat of removal from the UK RC> backbone because : Wrong echo Robin? Has someone put the UK echo feed into the wrong echotag? Your message came via Address : 2:250/410 System : The Pillarbox Sysop : Neil Croft Address : 2:442/403 System : The Coracle MNL & BBS Sysop : Cliff Harrold Address : 2:255/1 System : Trinity Midnight Line Mail Sysop : John Burden Address : 2:250/107 System : Aspects Sysop : Dave Gorski Address : 2:254/153 System : Barney's Rubble Sysop : Jon Morby Address : 1:106/2000 System : COMM Port OS/2 Sysop : Bob Juge Address : 1:396/1 System : The Southern Star Sysop : John Souvestre Address : 1:270/101 System : Pennsylvania Online! Sysop : George Peace and thence back to the UK Since this is the USA echo and not a UK one, a US moderator has the onus of keeping it on the Zone 1 backbone with the US echolists, I for one can't see what it's got to do with UKEC / UKREC at all! ;-) Perhaps the moderator will be confirming this for you (I am receiving it from the US backbone) -=> Ian >=- Take care Robin! Internet : ian.underwood@esoftc.seuk.com .!. To err is human, to forgive is against FidoNet policy! --- Terminate 4.00/Pro*at * Origin: A Terminate 4 a day keeps the doctor away ;-) (2:253/417.3) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 146 AUTOCAD Ref: DFJ00002 Date: 11/09/96 From: IAN UNDERWOOD Time: 09:52pm \/To: JERRY MYER (Read 2 times) Subj: SDRC Hello Jerry, 06-Nov-96 14:05:21, Jerry Myer did write to Ian Underwood Subject: SDRC JM>> SDRC - just another overpriced, overdone program that is JM>> never a finished product. IU>> Interesting - the 3D version or their 2D version. IU>> It's a big commitment to buy one 3D package "over" IU>> another - evaluated a few. JM> Didn't know there was a 2D version. (That was where my reference to "Navigator" came in) JM> And they are "pricey". Appertaining to all 3D modellers and their wretched maintenance terms ? (not sure where your comment fitted - just checking) IU>> If anything I'd have thought the "never finished" bit applied IU>> to all major programs including Acad but especially the their IU>> modeller rendition ;-) JM> Yes, so I look for tools that are as simple as possible. JM> Already been burned by Computervision. I see from the rest of your message that my wants are quite different - The main aim is to speed up the design cycle So good "publicity" type pictures show the marketing guys what the design looks like much earlier than "cutting metal" and I can send them "wordwide" easily And given a parametric modeller or equivalent, the "What if" and late design inputs can be readily tried without the pain of the major redraw suffered with conventional 2D like the Acad 9 to 12 we have used No need to visual difficult interfaces or worry about wall thicknesses as features are put in. Sections are a doddle As more prototype services become lower priced I will probably add the rapid prototype features to my desires, but that's not where the time (well MY time :-) is wasted at present. IU>> The biggest (commercial) pressure came from ProE and it IU>> wasn't nice to use at all. JM> I thought ProE was a good demo, very powerful for making JM> pictures/design, but manufacturing is a completely different story. The strong area for me is in making design changes, also an important feature is being able to confidently pass a drawing to someone else. On some modellers this is fraught with danger. Unless the steps are able to be re-run and changes made (without having to re-model from the point at which the change is introduced......) It's worse if the "shape" was created in a novel way and the new operator cannot get his head round it, IYSWIM. IU>> Now are you saying that I should consider Acad as a serious 3D IU>> modeller? I want something slick and polished with a nice IU>> interface that knows about surfaces, etc. JM> Well, yes, I say you should consider it, depending on what your JM> requirements really are. As for the slick interface, well that may JM> be what you want, but maybe not what you need. I got my AutoCAD R12 JM> for $200 or so as a bona fide student in a night class. The whole JM> college tuition and all was about $1400. That got me into AutoCAD, JM> some instruction, and a couple of college hours. I tried to do some JM> work with DesignCAD 2D but it was more trouble than it was worth, JM> and I paid the same price ($200) for DesignCAD. In some respects JM> AutoCAD R12 surpasses Computervision capability that cost probably JM> about $1,000,000 a decade or so ago. I regard Acad R12 used for 3D work with loathing - I wont use it. I have no problems "driving" Acad in 2D - but I do want a 3D modeller Their (Acad) 3D modeller product is in it's infancy IU>> I'm fed up with 2D modelling and having to draw complex IU>> surfaces and sections (particularly in side view) far better IU>> these views are auto drawn as soon as the depth information is IU>> given. JM> I don't follow the phrase "auto drawn". You may mean parametrics. JM> That is a nice design feature. I do, although the name and implementation varies from one package to another IU>> Far better that a late design change doesn't mean a nearly IU>> total redraw of /all/ views. JM> I have yet to see a convenient way to go from 3D to a 2D drawing. Nearly all the packages reviewed readily gave 2D "manufacturing" drawings the let down in the demos was the auto dimensioning etc and what tools were to be found if the auto features were not used. JM> Fortunately, I usually just import geometry and machine it, rather JM> than need to dimension it myself. But I have done some design work JM> and it takes considerable forethought and additional layering in JM> different views to do the right kind of modeling that appears as a JM> 2D object in each view. That's saying that you pick up where I leave off JM> Solids make super pictures, very quickly. Blending of fillets is JM> often a nightmare, and sometimes just not supported in certain JM> cases. Unless you need mass properties, the solids representation JM> may not be of much real help. But this depends on the kinds of JM> toolpaths that are required. If you just need some "canned" routines JM> for running around mold surfaces it may be just fine. But if you JM> need 5 sided machining where you flip the part around on the table, JM> the graphics concept of copying and flipping the part geometry to JM> the machine reference system is not copacetic. What you get is JM> duplicated geometry, and as you mentioned, a problem in the case of JM> design changes. I prefer to use a single part representation, upon JM> which the tool path can be verified as a single setup Have to stop you there :-) That's not my line at all JM> being to check out a toolpath in a solids verifier program apart JM> from AutoCAD. The trick to me is to get a variety of programs that JM> do the individual functions well, (design, drafting, toolpath JM> generation, feedrate/auxillary function calculation, toolpath JM> verification, etc.) but that work together. When I couldn't find a JM> program to perform a function, I wrote it myself. For design and JM> drafting, and with a good bit of customization and lisp routines R12 JM> is not bad. Forgive me - that sounds like a real slog, I admire what it says tho' all the bells and whistles with absolute minimal outlay - but it's not a direction industry can really follow ;-) -=> Ian >=- Kind regards, Internet : ian.underwood@esoftc.seuk.com .!. Careful planning will never replace dumb luck. --- Terminate 4.00/Pro*at * Origin: A well connected point, even if I do say it from (2:253/417.3) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 146 AUTOCAD Ref: DFJ00003 Date: 11/09/96 From: IAN UNDERWOOD Time: 10:39pm \/To: JOHN BEAL (Read 2 times) Subj: REDEFINED KEYS Hello John, 05-Nov-96 01:15:00, John Beal did write to Ian Underwood Subject: REDEFINED KEYS IU>> I'm crashing this as we are getting out of step JB>..I saw your other message the day after I posted mine. always the way :-) ^^^^ JB> you may have misunderstood me, here. When I used the dos JB> version of ACAD, I had the function keys redefined to do JB> endp, midp, etc. Hmm, I don't want to use function key redefinition as they already do a few useful things by default (and I've gotten used to them being there :-) As I said in my other message UNDEFINE works well, but it's far from permanent - open another drawing and it's lost. IU>> Will that work with TAN, END, MID, QUA, CEN selections IU>> as it's those that I cannot shorten to single keys JB> yes, that is specifically why I the defined function JB> keys. I had F11 and F12 mapped to 'zoom w and 'zoom p JB> (respectively) and F5 - F8 were the endp, midp, cent, perp; JB> Alf-F5 - Alt-F8 were int, etc. I may well consider that approach - but in the meantime I'd still like to know where in Acad (r12) the "end" (as in quit) is defined and of secondary importance where I could tailor mid, end, tan, qua, cen, ins etc to become single hot-keys I suppose the .mnu files are not the one's I ought to try altering? The above selection names are in there! :-) JB> if you're using ACAD/DOS and are interested, let me know JB> and I'll go into greater detail. Let me hang in with the desire to attack an Acad file first :-) Thanks for sharing your solutions - I may have to fall back on them. -=> Ian >=- That's all for now! Internet : ian.underwood@esoftc.seuk.com .!. Today is a day for making firm decisions!!!!! Or is it? --- Terminate 4.00/Pro*at * Origin: HighLander Point 01452 384557/384702 (2:253/417.3)