drawing tables?

[mr.ska]

drawing tables?

I got lucky, in that I have existing AutoCAD templates that I imported and had to do only very minor modifications to in order to make Alibre drawing templates. However, now that I'm doing tons of drawings, I'm finding that making tables (especially for revision blocks) is extremely tedious in Alibre.

When asked to make a product process chart on a drawing, I managed to cobble something together using a BOM table. That worked fine, except for the fact that each table thus made is saved as its own entity, which means the number of files I'm dealing with has suddenly grown greatly.

What are you doing when you need to make a table or revision block? Freehand something in? Import something? Make a custom BOM template that doesn't reference any component properties? Let me know!

 

[Cameraman]

I agree that tables are a real pain. I am perhaps being overly simplistic, but I don't understand why Alibre doesn't understand standard Windows-type object embedding in 2D mode. Or at least a generic table function . . .

But enough of my whining and on to business . . . if you standardize on the sizes and shapes of certain objects, particularly those like revision blocks, you can create symbols that have the lines and text fields that you need to, say, add a new row into your revision block . . . without the ability to snap to an end point, though, you just have to place the object as accurately as you can (because we haven't found a way to move them later!), but at least you don't have to create it each time . . . this even works for one-time tables, with the same caveats . . .

Not a good solution, but one that works . . .

Regards,
Greg

 

[Gaspar]

Hi guys!

My 2 cents:

CAD programs sort of mimic a real world action.

:arrow: ACAD, mimics how you draw by hand. Like using a T ruler and a drawing board.
:arrow: Alibre mimics how you fabricate a part. Like on a mill or lathe.

2D sketching in Alibre is thought in a way that allows you to easily generate parametric geometric profiles. On the other hand, 2D sketching in Acad is thought in a way that lets you easily crete lines and circles around your work area.

These are 2 different approaches aiming in 2 different directions.

If you are going to do something like tables, pneumatic or electrical diagrams, a layout, a map or anything else that's plain 2D, something that will never get extruded, you'll be better off using Acad or any other 2D sketcher. There was a post recently about a good 2D companion to AD.

 

[Cameraman]

Re:

. . . If you are going to do something like tables, pneumatic or electrical diagrams, a layout, a map or anything else that's plain 2D, something that will never get extruded, you'll be better off using Acad or any other 2D sketcher. . . .

Let's see . . . how do I put this tactfully? :wink: . . . while your statements are absolutely correct, they ignore a very important fact of life (as engineers know it). If I have to use ACAD to create my 2D drawings, then I will not use Alibre to create my 3D models.

An obvious exception is a 2D drawing that does not require any sort of 3D model behind it . . . in that case, it would often make sense to use a 2D package, and we do exactly that here. And perhaps that is what you were talking about with your comments, Gaspar.

While I'm sure that there are some users that can live completely in the 3D world and therefore have no need for creating 2D drawings, I think it's safe to say that a CAD package that cannot easily create high quality 2D drawings will not thrive in today's marketplace. Drawings are how an engineer communicates with the outside world, and it will continue to be so for quite some time, I would imagine. And to create high quality 2D drawings, one needs to be able to draw tables and similar figures: revision blocks, product feature tables, etc. We can sometimes cobble up BoM tables to get what we need, but this is cumbersome and often results in sub-standard results.

So, I agree with Mr ska -- give us effective table drawing features, or give us a way to paste tables in from other applications!

Regards,
Greg

 

[Gaspar]

Re:

An obvious exception is a 2D drawing that does not require any sort of 3D model behind it . . . in that case, it would often make sense to use a 2D package, and we do exactly that here. And perhaps that is what you were talking about with your comments, Gaspar.

This is what I'm talking about :wink:

I had a hard time when I first approached AD coming from many years of Acad becuase of the difference in the methodology of 2d sketching, but once I understood that the aims were different it all fell into place. What you are requesting would be a really nice feature (I would have a lot of use for it), but there's a fundamental explanation for the way you sketch in AD, and I thought that making that clear would also help you understand why things are the way they are at this stage of developement. I was in no way trying to say the suggestion wasn't useful.

 

[jwknecht]

Drawings are how an engineer communicates with the outside world, and it will continue to be so for quite some time, I would imagine.

Cameraman,

Although the statement is correct at this time for most if not all the users that use Alibre Design or AutoCad, the world has adopted practices for digital product definition. Most of the large auto companies and aerospace companies have digital product definition practices. These practices define the product based on a "data set", including as the basis for the product definition the 3-D model. ASME Y14.41 was created as a standard for digital product definition. But your point is very well taken because you cannot define the product with just the CAD data. Annotations are required, whether on the model or on the drawing. Since AD does not offer adequate 3D annotations, the drawing becomes integral to the data set along with the CAD model. This is why AD must add the 2-D bells and whistles such as making tables easy. For the price, I think most of us are willing to forgive AD for the lack of the 2-D functionality and hope that they add it. I don't think the 2-D functions should be added at the cost of not getting improvements in 3-D modelling and sheet metal though!

The only use I would have for a pure 2-D package would be for plant layouts, floorplans, schematics, etc. Since I don't do those things, I have absolutely no need for a 2D package at this time.

If anyone is curious about digital product definition please visit my website and if you have questions, contact me. I am trying to build a side business by sharing these effective (labor saving and quality up) techniques.

Regards,

 

[barrykingwill]

Off topic, but I went to your website John, and your fonts are corruped (in my browser anyway)

I would attach the screen capture I took, but that would mean I first have to upload it to our website as a ftp file, to link here.

Maybe I will post it in the binaries (where I guess it is meant to be)

 

[Cameraman]

Well said, John. And I am certainly one of AD's biggest fans. To be honest, the only area where we might disagree slightly is the priority for adding 2D functions. :wink:

Yes, surely the world is heading toward completely digital data, and I very much look forward to that day. But that day is years, maybe decades, away for anyone not attached to one of the industries you mentioned (we still have vendors that cannot accept information via e-mail, let alone process completely digital 3D data). And in the mean time, we need to design and manufacture products.

We are looking for a process where we will take an AD drawing and overlay, for example, tabular information from a program that permits easy entry and formatting of data, which should give you an idea of how frustrated we are with this omission. Of course, the easiest solution for us would be if AD had all of the features we want, but that's hardly a reasonable expection on my part. But perhaps they will allow OLE (or at least copying and pasting) in 2D mode in v9?

Regards,
Greg

 

[Cameraman]

Re:

. . . but there's a fundamental explanation for the way you sketch in AD, and I thought that making that clear would also help you understand why things are the way they are at this stage of developement . . .

yep, understand it and like it a lot . . . and looking forward to the future . . . but the bottom line is still the bottom line . . . 3D models are pretty, and they significantly improve the design process, but I've still got to turn my 3D models into 2D drawings with all of the information required to correctly manufacture the products . . . but I guess if it were easy, they wouldn't need *me* . . . <heavy sigh> . . . :wink:

Regards,
Greg

 

[Cameraman]

Re:

. . . I went to your website John, and your fonts are corruped (in my browser anyway) . . .

worked okay for me (IE6)

Regards,
Greg

 

[Gaspar]

Re:

I went to your website John, and your fonts are corruped (in my browser anyway)

Fine for me also (IE6)

 

[mr.ska]

I think we can all agree that using AutoCAD (2D) and using Alibre (3D) are fundamentally different. My point, however, was that the end product - a drawing of what I've modeled - requires tables. The simple fact of the matter is that Alibre does not have a table function (or any really good 2D capability). All I'm asking for is tables, I am not asking for, and in no way under any delusion that Alibre should, could, or ever will be a fully featured 2D system. It is 3D, and that's the way I want it.

However, 3D can't escape the limitations of paper, and that's where tables for revisions on drawings come in. I just want a nice method of creating them.

 

[Gaspar]

I owe the group an apology :cry:

I was about to post a "great" suggestion about using a BOM for the tables only to find out that was Mr. Ska's original argument.

I didn't read carefully over Mr. Ska and Greg's initial posts and assumed they were asking for 2D only sketching capabilities.

My post was totally out of the subject and caused some discomfort. It was not intentional but the result of just quickly glancing instead of reading. I do not usually do this (I even thought we were under "enhacements")

Considering all that's been said, I agree with Greg in saying that probably allowing OLE embedding into the drawing would be a quick first step

 

[Cameraman]

I love it when we all agree on something! :shock:

And Gaspar, no apology required . . . I enjoyed the discussion . . . I've got tons to learn and this forum is a great tool for learning from those who actually "have a clue" (I don't put myself in that category yet, but I'm working on it 8) ).

Regards,
Greg

 

[Gaspar]

Thanks Greg!

Makes me feel better

 

[barrykingwill]

Re:

Off topic, but I went to your website John, and your fonts are corruped (in my browser anyway)

Tried it with IE6.02 and IE5, on different PC's. Both corrupted to a certain extent. See images posted in Biniaries

I think it depends on what installed fonts you have, and not on the browser.

 

[mr.ska]

So I guess that means that no one has a better suggestion than my modified BOM table?

Oh, to be able to insert an Excel spreadsheet!

 

[Gaspar]

I guess that taking a screenshot of the Excel document and saving it as JPG (or so) and then inserting that into your drawing could help :?

What do you think?

 

[Cameraman]

Re:

I guess that taking a screenshot of the Excel document and saving it as JPG (or so) and then inserting that into your drawing could help :?

What do you think?

Hey, not bad, Gaspar! 8)

I took a speadsheet table, copied it to the clipboard, then pasted it as a bitmap into Word (using Paste Special) . . . then copied it and pasted it into MS Photo Editor (comes with MS Office) and saved it as a jpg . . . then inserted it into a drawing and scaled it to the right size . . . very acceptable results, although admittedly somewhat cumbersome :? . . . Gaspar's screenshot (Alt-PrSc or similar) method would require one less transfer step, but would have to be cropped before saving -- I haven't tried it yet . . . either way, the overall result would be significant time savings (vs. cobbling up a BoM table) in my opinion . . . the really big problem with this process is keeping track of the original table file for future revisions, but I could probably come up with something . . . I've bounced this off the other guy here that's using AD to see what he thinks . . .

Regards,
Greg

 

[Gaspar]

Hi Greg,

I'm glad it more or less "worked"

As a side note, there is a very easy way to screen capture directly to an image file.

It was suggested at another thread in this forum and is called Snagit

Its cheap and works great. It has a 30 day free, fully functional trial period. (sort of the Alibre of the screen capture utilities :wink: )

A second technique could be to use InfranView. This is a free image viewer. After hitting PrtScr, you can open InfranView and just CTRL + V. You can select the portion of the image you want and cut it with CTRL + Y. Then just save it to any grapic format.

If you want to try InfranView, do a Google search or ask me, I can send you the file (just over 1Mb)