Small Firm Standards

[markj.193961]

Good point Robert. That is the same point that was made by my drafters.

From what I am hearing, there are very few times when any dimensions or notation should be placed in paper space. What would some examples of putting text on paper space as a general rule?

[RobertB]

Our rule is that only the titleblock and its supporting text, and our plot stamp are directly in the layout. Everything else in the drawing must belong to modelspace.

Now, if we want to keep a pristine model for 3D coordination, we keep that in a separate file that we XRef into the drawing with the supporting annotation.

[cadtag]

WOW! Thanks for the help on the question even though I am now firmly in the minority. My theory on this (maybe because I'm old an out of touch) is that anything that actually appears in the field should be on the drawing. Any notes, dimensions or comments about what is actually on the ground should be on paper and not on the model.

Thanks for the help, my drafters are now saying 'I told you so'.

Well, IMHO Paperspace dimensioning and annotation is still the best way to handle everything that is not part of the actual elements being depicted on the sheet. There's 'drawing information' which belong to the sheet, and then there's the linework that depicts the elements being designed, which does belong in modelspace. There's little reason to have a dimension in model space -- I only want those to appear in one place in the set of drawings, not 2 or 22.

Especially with using Xrefs- Paperspace dimensions and annotation rule. It's much easier to deal with the xref information if it's not cluttered up with notes, dimensions, and callouts I don't need for the shhet I'm working on.

[jaberwok]

It was my impression that adesk wanted/expected us all to move to paperspace annotation - it's quite appropriate in some fields (like mech eng) but less appropriate in aec - simply because of the amount of annotation that is often involved. I believe annotative objects are a step backward (in adesk's eyes) and an acceptance that many people/companies will not move to paperspace annotation.

2 cents

[cadtag]

... annotative objects are a step backward (in adesk's eyes) and an acceptance that many people/companies will not move to paperspace annotation.

2 cents

A pity the C3D dev couldn't figure out how to make associative labels that would work in paperspace through a viewport.... I think that's part of the reason for this particular backward step.

Annotative symbol blocks and hatches are a neat idea - although I would prefer that linetypes and annotative hatches/blocks worked in a similar fashion, with one or two controlling setvars.

Notes and most especially dimensions however, rarely need to show up in multiple places. I've always considered that poor drafting practice. Paperspace and thoughtful organization are (IMHO) a much better solution that modelspace notes.

[cadpro78]

Oh what a topic to discuss over and over again... To use paperspace annotations or not? That is the question?

I think Autodesk was simple trying to make the software easier to use in general. Like others have mentioned, AEC users probably are well favored to putting a lot of their text, notes, symbols, etc. in MS. Although putting annotation like charts, schedules, and titleblocks directly in PS. I would definitely be one of these types of CAD users and if someone told me I had to switch to PS all the time for everything I would probably walk out on them. Well not really...but you get the point.

[markj.193961]

It seems to me that there is a difference of opinion between practices. While Architectural firms tend to place dimensions/text/annotation in model space, others may place that information in paper space. Would I be safe in assuming that more Civil work is dimensioned and annotated in paper space as a general rule?

[Harold Pei Jr]

It seems to me that there is a difference of opinion between practices. While Architectural firms tend to place dimensions/text/annotation in model space, others may place that information in paper space. Would I be safe in assuming that more Civil work is dimensioned and annotated in paper space as a general rule?

As John mentions above, people in the AEC fields tend to put their annotations in MS. That would include civil work as well.
As far as I've seen, that holds true here as well.

[CADDmanVA]

It seems to me that there is a difference of opinion between practices. While Architectural firms tend to place dimensions/text/annotation in model space, others may place that information in paper space. Would I be safe in assuming that more Civil work is dimensioned and annotated in paper space as a general rule?

In my experience, never. I have worked in civil firms before, and I do a lot of civil design at my current firm. I have always annotated in Modelspace, the main reason is always external referencing of the files. Just for fun though, I did do a project using the Paperspace principal. It was nice until the boss man said "change the scale". It took me hours to redo all my annotations. That was the last of that for me!

[guitarchitect7]

Wow, good to see this thread still being used for something.

I've always done dimensioning in model space specifically for the referencing part. At times we tend to even draw everything in one drawing and then freezing the desired layers in the viewport to get the desired view. This can allow to only have to draw something once and replicate it as many times as needed. If dimensioning in Paper Space, you would have to copy or redimension every time. Having in within Model Space you only create it once and see it everywhere!