Paperspace Vs Modal Space

I'm not realy a Autocad heavy user,but I would generally like to know
if paperspce is commonly used as opposed to doing all the dimensions
etc in modal space. What are the major advantages of using paperspace
?

Sorry if this topic has been thrashed out before.

Thanks in advance,
HB

 

I think you will get a different order of magnitude between the number of
people who "use paperspace" and those who dimension in it.

 

Basically Model space Din are accusative (change if you change the length
dia etc) depending of what dimassoc is set to. Whereas Paperspace Dims are
NON ACCUSATIVE (they DO NOT change if you change the length dia etc).
Also if you change the view or scale in paperspace the dims created in
paperspace stay where they were drawn whereas the dimes created in
modlespace move with the drawing

 

"NON ACCUSATIVE"?

If you mean "non-associative," that's no longer necessarily true, either.
Trans-spatial associative dimensions have been around for a couple of
releases, now.
___

 

Not to be pickey, and I realize it may just be a typo, but if you are
performing a search for solutions, you need to know that it is spelled
"Modelspace".

Also, on my 2002 verison I only dimension in Modelspace, but use
paperspace to create all views and for titleblocks. The reason is that
I work in 3d, and the 2002 version of transpacial dimensions has
problems with many objects, expecially 3d objects.

Joe Dunfee

 

Check out the FAQ Page of my web site for links to articles on
this subject at http://www.cadalot.co.uk

 

The original poster may be right - it may be just an "AutoCad Thing" -
because modelSpace/PaperSpace is unique to AutoCad (as far as I know).
Being a long-time AutoCad user, I am very convinced by this method. Since R14
I have used paper space for plot views, and it has just gotten better and
better with subsequent releases.

For many of my models - both 2D and 3D - I typically have three to seven
different layouts, for different sheet sizes, detail views etc. Annotations
are different for each layout. If I change a detail in the model, it updates
in all the layouts. I honestly cannot see how one could get this flexibility
and efficiency out of model space alone. You will have to create a multitude
of .dwg's and xref them in - then when you make a change you'll have to spend
a day making sure everything got updated and correctly annotated.Sooner or
later you'll get yourself into a mess, and it's always embarrassing to say in
front of a client "Um, I'm not sure where this particular drawing came from. .
.."

Of course, not everyone's needs are the same - if you generally create only
one view for a drawing, there's no need to use paperspace, and in fact AutoCad
makes it very simple to dimension, annotate and plot directly from model
space. So, if paperspace doesn't answer a particular need for you, as it does
for me, then just don't use it!

G Faris

 

Here's one that's had our ACAD guys scratching their heads :

The drawing is nicely laid out with dimensions and text and a border in
paperspace.
There are several views in modelspace.
But the drawing in paperspace does not conform to the drawing in modelspace?
The plot from paperspace looks fine, and if you measure the plot what you
measure agrees with the printed dimensions.
But if you use ACAD to measure in paperspace then nothing is right?

Nobody quite understands the drawing, or how the guy managed to do it?
It's almost as if it was done in another ACAD session and copied and pasted
into paperspace.
It's most odd!

 

Not so strange. . .
If you alter the zoom factor within a viewport, any subsequent dimensions you
make in Paperspace will be affected by your zoom factor. When dimensioning in
paperspace, you must either do your dimensions with a zoom factor of 1XP, or
adjust your dimension scale (dimlfac) to your zoom scale.

If you don't want to do this, you can make your measurements in modelspace,
then change the dimension text in Paperspace, using a "modify" command.

If you are using solview and soldraw commands, you must make your dimensions
within the viewport, which really means they are modelspace dimensions - but
AutoCad takes care of this by putting dimensions for each view on separate
layers, so they don't show up in the model or in the other views. You can do
this too - making your dimensions within a viewport and creating a layer you
can turn off, so you don't see them on the model or in other views.

In theory, if you set up your work carefully, plot to scale and chose your
sheet sizes accordingly you should not get into anything too messy - but
admittedly it is possible to create a confusing situation.

G Faris

 

Quite correct G Farris

However further up this string Paul Turvace say different. But it looks like
he got confused "TRANS SPECIAL ASSOCIATIVE DIMENSIONING" dose not mean that
the dimensions done in PAPER SPACE are associative with the actual model.
All that TRANS SPECIAL ASSOCIATIVE DIMENSIONING" means is that model-space
dims can be seen in BOTH MODEL VIEW and PAPER-SPACE VIEW

I've been in AUTOCAD from R10 up over, long before appearance of paper-space
as we know it now, and I have never seen paper-space dims change with the XP
scale or even move when with the drawing as it was PANed

As it the names suggests MODEL SPACE and PAPER-SPACE are two different
things other wise why bother having different names

The two space have differing affects on things as can be seen if you draw a
simple square in Model-space and dimension it. Then change to Paper-space
zoom 1XP and then dimension it again, alter the zoom XP to a factor of 0.5
and the dims in paper-space stay in the same place, regardless of how the
dim variables for them are set, but the model-space dims move any where with
the drawing but do mot scale to the XP scale where as scaling in paperspace,
depending on the dim variables are set, the model-space dims may well change
BUT they stay with the drawing regardless of its movement

 

But it looks like he got confused "TRANS SPECIAL ASSOCIATIVE DIMENSIONING"
dose not mean that
the dimensions done in PAPER SPACE are associative with the actual model.
All that TRANS SPECIAL ASSOCIATIVE DIMENSIONING" means is that model-space
dims can be seen in BOTH MODEL VIEW and PAPER-SPACE VIEW

I've been in AUTOCAD from R10 up over, long before appearance of paper-space
as we know it now, and I have never seen paper-space dims change with the XP
scale or even move when with the drawing as it was PANed

As it the names suggests MODEL SPACE and PAPER-SPACE are two different
things other wise why bother having different names

The two space have differing affects on things as can be seen if you draw a
simple square in Model-space and dimension it. Then change to Paper-space
zoom 1XP and then dimension it again, alter the zoom XP to a factor of 0.5
and the dims in paper-space stay in the same place, regardless of how the
dim variables for them are set, but the model-space dims move any where with
the drawing but do mot scale to the XP scale where as scaling in paperspace,
depending on the dim variables are set, the model-space dims may well change
BUT they stay with the drawing regardless of its movement

 

Actually, that's exactly what it means. Paul is correct (as usual.)

That's NOT correct. MS dims have always been visible 'in' PS, if you set it
up properly. To avoid confusion, it's probably more helpful to talk about
the state of the TILEMODE variable than to simply say 'modelspace' or
'paperspace', since modelspace entities are (potentially) visible with both
settings of TILEMODE , but paperspace entities are not. Paperspace
dimensions are visible "in modelspace", (more like "over" or "under" it)
when TILEMODE is set to 1 and the current space is modelspace, but have
never been visible "in modelspace" when TILEMODE is set to 0.

That's what this new feature is supposed to do. I haven't used it, but
that's what I understand is now possible for a couple of versions.

 

Paul *who*?

Transspatial associative dimensions are, indeed, associative when set up
correctly; if you change the model (again, doing so correctly), the
dimensions will update. And, no, dimensions done in paper space are *NOT*
visible on the Model tab. *You* are the one who is misinformed.

Oh, yeah: and it's trans *spatial*, not "trans special"...
___

 

If you dimensioned with tilemode=0 and then change the XP scale or pan the
view, the DIMREGEN command will move the dimensions back to the reference
points that they are associated with and there will be no effect on
dimension variables. Generally, if I'm going to dimension this way, I first
apply the appropriate scale, and then LOCK THE VIEWPORT. I'm beginning to
prefer this method with drawings that would otherwise require many different
dimension layers, i.e. drawings with many layouts and viewports where you
would need a different dimension layer for each viewport and all the rest
frozen. It also keeps modelspace from getting cluttered with dimensions.
If I'm working with a less complex drawing, I dimension with tilemode=1, but
again only after setting the scale and locking the viewport. Locking the
viewport is convenient anyway because zoom and pan will not screw up the vp
scale. With the viewport locked and with tilemode=1, tilemode automatically
changes to 0 when you invoke pan or zoom and then changes back when exiting
zoom or pan.

In my opinion, what causes the most difficulty is due to one of the things
you stated. If you dimension in paperspace, with tilemode=1, the dimensions
stay with the model if you change the XP scale. Very convenient. However,
even with DIMSCALE set to 0, the text height, arrow size, offsets, etc, also
scale according to the change in XP. So then you need to update all the
dimensions so that they scale back down or up to the correct sizes as
defined by the variables. If you had an override, it's gone after the
update. And then you have to contend with mtext associated with leaders.
(Sorry people, but I believe that leader text should be dimension text, not
mtext). Trans-spatial dimensioning avoids this whole mess but then you
still need to do the DIMREGEN after an xp scale change.

Moral of the story? No way is perfect. But one way will work best for you.

As Michael helped clarify, there are three modes that you can dimension in:
1) model space, 2) paperspace with tilemode=1, and 3) paperspace with
tilemode=0). Everyone has their own preference. For me, dimensioning in
model space is the least desirable. The fact that you're investigating the
different options should in no way be discouraged considering the
inexplicable number of users that are still avoiding paperspace layouts
completely and still scaling and plotting from modelspace. Someone needs to
take their toy away and sit them back down at a drawing board.

Pete

 

The two space have differing affects on things as can be seen if you draw

I repeat my earlier post:

If you dimensioned with tilemode=0 and then change the XP scale or pan the
view, the DIMREGEN command will move the dimensions back to the reference
points that they are associated with and there will be no effect on
dimension variables. Generally, if I'm going to dimension this way, I first
apply the appropriate scale, and then LOCK THE VIEWPORT. I'm beginning to
prefer this method with drawings that would otherwise require many different
dimension layers, i.e. drawings with many layouts and viewports where you
would need a different dimension layer for each viewport and all the rest
frozen. It also keeps modelspace from getting cluttered with dimensions.
If I'm working with a less complex drawing, I dimension with tilemode=1, but
again only after setting the scale and locking the viewport. Locking the
viewport is convenient anyway because zoom and pan will not screw up the vp
scale. With the viewport locked and with tilemode=1, tilemode automatically
changes to 0 when you invoke pan or zoom and then changes back when exiting
zoom or pan.

In my opinion, what causes the most difficulty is due to one of the things
you stated. If you dimension in paperspace, with tilemode=1, the dimensions
stay with the model if you change the XP scale. Very convenient. However,
even with DIMSCALE set to 0, the text height, arrow size, offsets, etc, also
scale according to the change in XP. So then you need to update all the
dimensions so that they scale back down or up to the correct sizes as
defined by the variables. If you had an override, it's gone after the
update. And then you have to contend with mtext associated with leaders.
(Sorry people, but I believe that leader text should be dimension text, not
mtext). Trans-spatial dimensioning avoids this whole mess but then you
still need to do the DIMREGEN after an xp scale change.

Moral of the story? No way is perfect. But one way will work best for you.

As Michael helped clarify, there are three modes that you can dimension in:
1) model space, 2) paperspace with tilemode=1, and 3) paperspace with
tilemode=0). Everyone has their own preference. For me, dimensioning in
model space is the least desirable. The fact that a user is investigating
the
different options should in no way be discouraged considering the
inexplicable number of users that are still avoiding paperspace layouts
completely and still scaling and plotting from modelspace. There is NO good
reason to plot from model space.
Someone needs to take their toy away and sit them back down at a drawing
board.

Pete