Fields gone haywire

[jmctamney]

Does anyone know why this is happeneing. I have a field the when rotated to vertical add a huge gap in front of the field. The insertion point is still the same, just the field moved. Anyone?

Thanks

[jmctamney]

Nothing yet huh?

[Chris.N]

no idea. is this rotation of the whole block?

[jmctamney]

no idea. is this rotation of the whole block?

No, it's just a piece of text. The field is referenceing another piece of text (to avoid typing it twice). The wierd part is the field for the sheet number (AD1.X) doesn't shift.

Here's a strange twist. I just went over to another person whos working on the same job and the field doesn;t shift on thier machine. The only difference I can think of right now is that they are using Acad 2007. I opened it up on my machine ( 2008 ) and it's shifted. Unless there is a variable somewhere could this be a bug?

[Chris.N]

i'd say either a bug or corrupt file.

does the same behavior rear it's ugly head in a fresh file?

[jmctamney]

i'd say either a bug or corrupt file.

does the same behavior rear it's ugly head in a fresh file?

Yes, in fact. I found through testing that it puts a gap in front of and behind the field and it offsets the text when rotated less than or greater than 90 deg. Curiously though, when moving or copying the outline displays correctly. I'm gonna say bug. Call the exterminator.

[hbisco]

I am having the same problem. I have lines of text with fields and when I rotate the line of text the field gets shifted up or down depending on which direction it is rotated and there is a gap between the rest of the text and the field.

Hopefully somebody has a fix for this soon - I have about 100 sheets of plan that have this problem - I don't want to have to go into each one and convert the fields to text. This kind of defeats one of the greatest features of using SSM.

Hugh

[jmctamney]

So, I'm guessing this is a bug. Can anyone using 2k9 test it to see if it's fixed?

[wroebuck]

I am having the same problem. I have lines of text with fields and when I rotate the line of text the field gets shifted up or down depending on which direction it is rotated and there is a gap between the rest of the text and the field.

Hopefully somebody has a fix for this soon - I have about 100 sheets of plan that have this problem - I don't want to have to go into each one and convert the fields to text. This kind of defeats one of the greatest features of using SSM.

Hugh

I have seen this before. Did you by chance rotate the lines with text through the properties dialog box? If so, try using the "rotate" command instead, the fields will not move.

My best guess is, with an unaltered dynamic block or block with attributes, using rotate or simply putting in a ratation value in the properties dialog box is fine. Once it has been modified or text filled in; when it rotates from the properties dialod box, the insertion points of the fields rotate vs the entire object.

[jmctamney]

I have seen this before. Did you by chance rotate the lines with text through the properties dialog box? If so, try using the "rotate" command instead, the fields will not move.

My best guess is, with an unaltered dynamic block or block with attributes, using rotate or simply putting in a ratation value in the properties dialog box is fine. Once it has been modified or text filled in; when it rotates from the properties dialod box, the insertion points of the fields rotate vs the entire object.

Not true, I used the rotate command. Did however find a 'fix'. It won't put a gap or offset the text if it is mtext. Strange huh? I'm not sure if any of this happens in a block since I don't normally use lines of text with fields in my blocks.

[hbisco]

I actually came up with a solution/workaround for this issue. The rotated text objects with fields that were behaving badly was dtext. I converted these objects to mtext (and had to reinsert the field after the conversion) and the fields behave as they should. Take a look at the attached image.

From now on I will use only mtext whenever I am also going to be using fields

Hugh

[hbisco]

Not true, I used the rotate command. Did however find a 'fix'. It won't put a gap or offset the text if it is mtext. Strange huh? I'm not sure if any of this happens in a block since I don't normally use lines of text with fields in my blocks.

I was just creating my reply to your post from yesterday when you posted this. Glad to see you found the mtext solution works for you also.

Hugh

btw, I also was using the rotate command.

[jmctamney]

I actually came up with a solution/workaround for this issue. The rotated text objects with fields that were behaving badly was dtext. I converted these objects to mtext (and had to reinsert the field after the conversion) and the fields behave as they should. Take a look at the attached image.

From now on I will use only mtext whenever I am also going to be using fields

Hugh

Thanks for the update.

[hbisco]

I'm not sure if any of this happens in a block since I don't normally use lines of text with fields in my blocks.

I just tried a little experiment to see if putting the text in a block would make a difference or not, and it does not matter. The mtext part of the block still looked good and the dtext part shifted the field. One difference with the block though is you actually see the field moving away as you rotate it unlike the preview you see when you rotate just the dtext.

I wonder is this is 2008 specific. The text that I was having problems with was fine in 2006 when I created it but only went haywire when I opened/saved the file in 2008. I will test it out when we get our 2009 software.

Hugh

[jmctamney]

I wonder is this is 2008 specific. The text that I was having problems with was fine in 2006 when I created it but only went haywire when I opened/saved the file in 2008. I will test it out when we get our 2009 software.

Hugh

It is 2008 specific. When I first discovered it I was the only one having this problem. I was the only one using 2008 also. Other using 2007 didn't have any problems. With it working in mtext it makes you wonder if Adesk is trying to 'force' people to start using mtext more.