Can Tables do more,,,?

[boyerd]

Good morning,
Once in awhile I have to create an elevation chart/graph which illustrates the vertical and horrizontal terrain along a route. This involves setting a vertical scale as well as a horizontal scale (usually different scales). I find doing these charts to be very difficult and time consuming.
I submitted a Wish List suggesting that Autodesk incorporate the above mentioned in their next version of Autocad(for all I know it probably exists in the Civil package but we don't have that product).
But in the mean time I thought I would ask the AUGI world if there might be someone out there who might know how to do it with the current Table command or maybe a lisp routine. The way I see it working (either a Lisp or the Table command) a dialogue box would allow me to specify the vertical scale & horizontal scale. Then the placement of the points along the route. All I would have to do is connect the dots , place my text.
Thank you
Don Boyer
Calgary, Alberta
Canada

[jaberwok]

Any of these might help but all involve using other software (like Excel) to create a graph.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/autodesk.autocad.2000general/browse_thread/thread/fc37328a7b95d8b2/1816a5f2af2521b2?q=graph+autocad&rnum=2&hl=en#1816a5f2af2521b2

http://www.cadtutor.net/forum/showthread.php?p=245697

http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Best/graph-function.html

[boyerd]

Thank you for the help. I will be visiting those links.

[Capt. Computer Crasher]

Good morning,
Once in awhile I have to create an elevation chart/graph which illustrates the vertical and horrizontal terrain along a route. This involves setting a vertical scale as well as a horizontal scale (usually different scales). I find doing these charts to be very difficult and time consuming.
I submitted a Wish List suggesting that Autodesk incorporate the above mentioned in their next version of Autocad(for all I know it probably exists in the Civil package but we don't have that product).
But in the mean time I thought I would ask the AUGI world if there might be someone out there who might know how to do it with the current Table command or maybe a lisp routine. The way I see it working (either a Lisp or the Table command) a dialogue box would allow me to specify the vertical scale & horizontal scale. Then the placement of the points along the route. All I would have to do is connect the dots , place my text.
Thank you
Don Boyer
Calgary, Alberta
Canada

so basically, you want something to do profiles. If you do alot of those, I would seriously consider get Civil3D. The time it would save would be well worth the cost. This would probably never be put into vanilla CAD because by doing so Autodesk would be eliminating the need of some of its civil programs.

[jamesw]

Another option is to create a script file. Start the script file & start with the pline command and input all the x & y coordinates. Save and exit the script file and now run the script file in acad. You should now have a profile at 1 to 1. Now create a block of the profile and then insert it at the proper ratio i.e. a scale of 1 in the X & 10 in the Y. With some experimentation, you can get quite sophisticated with doing it this way.

[boyerd]

That sounds pretty slick. I will give it try.
Thanks to all who responded and Happy New Year to everyone.
Jan 29 - I have experimented with the Block option and I'm impressed with it's possibilties. The nice thing about it is that once you create the block at 1:1 and then insert it at whatever X & Y scales are appropriate any modifications which are needed can be done using the Block Editor in the 1:1 block and the scaled version updates.

[oliveoil]

Another option is to create a script file. Start the script file & start with the pline command and input all the x & y coordinates. Save and exit the script file and now run the script file in acad. You should now have a profile at 1 to 1. Now create a block of the profile and then insert it at the proper ratio i.e. a scale of 1 in the X & 10 in the Y. With some experimentation, you can get quite sophisticated with doing it this way.

Used to use the block trick quite a bit when I did civil. Never used scripts for it though... Pretty cool. Here is my weak attempt. I made the Y scale factor 10 times the X scale factor, which can be edited. The user, obviously, can change the points within the .scr file. I've attached this as a word document that can be dropped into Notepad and saved as a .scr file.

Just a note, only use this in a blank dwg. It selects "ALL" in order to make the block. Also, if you run this script twice within the same dwg, you will need to redefine the block "profile"(i.e. the X & Y scale factors). Hope this helps Boyerd.

[cadtag]

so basically, you want something to do profiles. If you do alot of those, I would seriously consider get Civil3D. The time it would save would be well worth the cost. This would probably never be put into vanilla CAD because by doing so Autodesk would be eliminating the need of some of its civil programs.

to call that overkill is an understatement. There are lots of routines, free or otherwise, that can be used to create profiles without requiring the hardware overhead, upfront cost, subscription cost, learning curve, and instability of civil 3d. If you really want commercial software and support, you can use Carlson Civil for a lot less money, and a lot less hassle.

Note: yes, it may well be true that c3d crashes less than it used to. But crashing less is a very narrow and inherently poor definition of software stability. the constant annual redefining of object definitions, rendering them useless in any other version of c3d, is the inverse of software stability. The fact that SaveAs to an earlier version does not convert objects to the previous definition is inexcusable, as is the lack of C3d OEs for 64bit Acad. Enterprise level software stability is not 'crashes less often'.

Add to that that reading in older c3d drawings, say 2006 C3d, into 2009 or 2010 C3d, is highly problematic. Migrating a drawing one version at a time is not acceptable, especially since there's no legal way to have a 2006 C3d on site, and next spring it won't be legal to have a 2007 seat. Subscription allows 3 previous versions top be installed, nat every one you ever bought.

[oliveoil]

to call that overkill is an understatement. There are lots of routines, free or otherwise, that can be used to create profiles without requiring the hardware overhead, upfront cost, subscription cost, learning curve, and instability of civil 3d. If you really want commercial software and support, you can use Carlson Civil for a lot less money, and a lot less hassle.

Wow! I guess I'm glad I got out of civil when I did. Sounds like Civil 3D is a real beast.

[Capt. Computer Crasher]

to call that overkill is an understatement. There are lots of routines, free or otherwise, that can be used to create profiles without requiring the hardware overhead, upfront cost, subscription cost, learning curve, and instability of civil 3d. If you really want commercial software and support, you can use Carlson Civil for a lot less money, and a lot less hassle.

Note: yes, it may well be true that c3d crashes less than it used to. But crashing less is a very narrow and inherently poor definition of software stability. the constant annual redefining of object definitions, rendering them useless in any other version of c3d, is the inverse of software stability. The fact that SaveAs to an earlier version does not convert objects to the previous definition is inexcusable, as is the lack of C3d OEs for 64bit Acad. Enterprise level software stability is not 'crashes less often'.

Add to that that reading in older c3d drawings, say 2006 C3d, into 2009 or 2010 C3d, is highly problematic. Migrating a drawing one version at a time is not acceptable, especially since there's no legal way to have a 2006 C3d on site, and next spring it won't be legal to have a 2007 seat. Subscription allows 3 previous versions top be installed, nat every one you ever bought.

Well if your constantly doing profiles you do need a program that is geared toward that specific task. Otherwise your using a fork to eat your soup, you can still eat it but a lot harder.:wink:

[cadtag]

Well if your constantly doing profiles you do need a program that is geared toward that specific task. Otherwise your using a fork to eat your soup, you can still eat it but a lot harder.:wink:

Yes, that's perfectly reasonable. But if what you need to do is profiles based on a small set of points running down the baseline, then you do not need a DTM generator/corridor maker/parcel placer/section cutter/style maker/ etc etc etc. you need a profile builder. There are a lot of them out there.

A fork may be the wrong tool to eat soup with, but so is a backhoe.

If your tasks do need much or all the rest, then a simple profile builder is not going to be adequate, and a reasonably complete civil package is well worth looking into, be it c3d, carlson, or one of the other packages.

[oliveoil]

Really what it comes down to is making do with what tools you are given. Boyerd seems to be in that position. Unless you work for yourself, and have the funds to purchase the software of your choice, you will just have to adapt. Jamesw's script idea is a perfect example of making it work with little. When I worked for a civil firm, we had one of specialized civil packages. There were things that it did well, and things that it didn't. You just learned to work around the things that it didn't do well(i.e. lisp routines). This is one of the ways the software progresses. I've used some lisps in the past that now are part vanilla AutoCad. If you do a lot of civil, the big package is adviseable, but not always feasible.

[boyerd]

Well we do have a variety of opinions out there and every one is valid for a given set of circumstances. I have a lot to sift thru. Thanks to everyone who contributed. If members continue to drop by who knows what other options will be offered.