I have always set my lineweights by layer in Autocad and set pen assignments to none as this seems to me to be the best way to do things and avoids the client having to use a pen assignments file.
However I am regularly asked to provide a pen assignments file by architects but when I explain that the lineweights are set by layer I get silence as if they don't understand. Just wondering how many use pen assignments or layer settings. I understand that pen assignments was the original way of plotting but my understanding is that the best modern way is to use layers.
I was thinking of just sending a pen assignments file with each drawing but each colour is set to object lineweight.
I might be wrong but it seems I can remember being able to assign line weights by layer all the way back to R14 so I wouldn't necessarily consider either by layer or by color to be more "modern" than the other. In my neck of the woods I would say 90% use the by color method and a .ctb. Many times the Civil/Arch will rework the layer names/colors/line types for their use anyway so I only get asked about half the time for the .ctb that goes with the particular file. Internally our team all uses the same .ctb. As with most things Autodesk there's about 5 different ways to do the same thing.
The lineweight property was added in ACAD2000 according to Google. I've been a user since before then but only became conscious of it a couple of years ago. So I'm not that surprised that you client wasn't aware of it. The great mass of users aren't aware of whats going on under the hood and aren't interested in learning.
I have used both .ctb (color) and .stb (style) and prefer .stb. The .stb style that WisDOT uses is pretty much a WYSISWYG. Whatever the layer or line is set at is how it prints. For color vs. grayscale vs. black, they have styles for that. Existing is gray, Proposed is black and Normal is the color of the entity.
I used pen assignments for a very short time and that was when I had a pen plotter with 6 pen attachment. It was more cost effective to only use 0.25 pen for all plotting.
With modern printers in use, I will zoom to each line that needs to be wider and make appropriate offsets.
I may test those waters some day............
I prefer lineweights by layer as it ultimately allows for more control over color schemes on both the desktop and in color prints.Ctb made sense a decade ago, but new techs should be taught to control lineweights by actually setting them by layer. Don't ever question your CAD skills based on what an architect does.
I've always liked .ctb and linewwights by color. You can see exactly how something with print just by looking at it (no need to click on it to find the layer name).
You can also have multiple lines in the same layer plot differently. So in a lot line adjustment just the lines getting adjusted plot bold, while the others remain the second (or even faded out). All while remaining on the second lot line layer.
Brian, post: 373362, member: 11723 wrote: I've always liked .ctb and linewwights by color. You can see exactly how something with print just by looking at it (no need to click on it to find the layer name).
You can also have multiple lines in the same layer plot differently. So in a lot line adjustment just the lines getting adjusted plot bold, while the others remain the second (or even faded out). All while remaining on the second lot line layer.
Ford vs. Chevy.....With line weight by layer and AutoCAD set to display line weight you truly see the drawing the way it will plot. If an item on a layer needs to have a different weight, the line weight for that item can be set different than the layer (similar to changing the line color with .ctb). Personally it drives me crazy to work on drawings where colors are not bylayer. Maybe a Ford vs. Chevy reaction or perhaps flashbacks form working with a guy who would produce drawings with every color in the rainbow.......all on the zero layer.
I am WYSIWYG myself, never cared for pen assignments.
A Harris, post: 373306, member: 81 wrote: I used pen assignments for a very short time and that was when I had a pen plotter with 6 pen attachment. It was more cost effective to only use 0.25 pen for all plotting.
With modern printers in use, I will zoom to each line that needs to be wider and make appropriate offsets.
I may test those waters some day............
Very dangerous procedure right there. When you list the line, which distance do you get? (That's a LOT of time used up for just a look.) On longer survey legs that could be a killer. Your closure would be horrible. IF you are going to do it all with one pen width, I would look at making all my lines polylines and then polyline edit.....width. Setting a width on the poly will give the look you want without changing the linear geometry.
[USER=527]@cptdent[/USER]
That is the last procedure before printing.
All the offset lines are identical to the others and bearing and distance are the same, only in a different location.
There are some type of monument symbol at each end, so I can snap to those if needed.
For some reason, when I change the width of a closed polyline, it will result in a corrupt drawing file soon afterwards.
Has happened to me twice on rather complicated drawings.
Had to redraw them both because Carlson would flash a corrupted file and shut down shortly afterwards.
Later, like months, I was able to keep the file open for a few minutes change the name.
That enabled me to open it longer the next time.
I started erasing and redrawing segments at a time until I erased the boundary line that the width had been changed and poof, there it was.
So, I just stopped doing that.
I erased all the corrupted files because in my mind I saw them corrupting all my other drawing files.
I'm sure an update would fix the problem, it is Carlson Survey CES circa 2000.