Leaderboard

Im doing quantity takeoff of a building and just introduced to custom Lisps by google search. i wonder if the below task is doable using lisp. 1. batch label polylines (multiple selected polylines labelled with incremental numbers prefixed to a text which can be entered manually, for example, 1-Beam1, 2-Beam1 etc.. 1-Beam2, 2-Beam2 and so on). perhaps modify the attached lisp that labels selected polylines with its layer name ll-Label A line with its own layer name.lsp which i got from internet 2. create a table that would contain the label (as given by the above lisp), layer name, length, and area of selected polylines one by one. something like the attached lisp which create length and area of selected polylines. test area length.lsp i got that too from internet and originally gave polyline lengths and i modified it to give area too. thank you all

The dragon at the school of course

Just a note AutoCAD is a lot more precise than the 8 digits you can ask it to show, and you cannot reduce or increase that precision. As a test set your 'display precision' to just 1 decimal place and then draw a circle with a diameter of one unit. Select the circle and look in the properties for the circumference (3.1) I think everyone knows that Pi (3.142) goes on for ever, there are web sites showing Pi to a million** decimal places (has anyone read that many, why does anyone care ). Anyway now scale up your circle by 100,000,000 and compare the properties of the circumference to the value of Pi. Keep scaling to the point where numbers in properties are reduced down to exponential values and turn up the display precision to 8 places and AutoCAD accurately shows Pi to 314159265.3589793 First 1000 decimal places 3.1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128 4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196 4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091 4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 0249141273 7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436 7892590360 0113305305 4882046652 1384146951 9415116094 3305727036 5759591953 0921861173 8193261179 3105118548 0744623799 6274956735 1885752724 8912279381 8301194912 9833673362 4406566430 8602139494 6395224737 1907021798 6094370277 0539217176 2931767523 8467481846 7669405132 0005681271 4526356082 7785771342 7577896091 7363717872 1468440901 2249534301 4654958537 1050792279 6892589235 4201995611 2129021960 8640344181 5981362977 4771309960 5187072113 4999999837 2978049951 0597317328 1609631859 5024459455 3469083026 4252230825 3344685035 2619311881 7101000313 7838752886 5875332083 8142061717 7669147303 5982534904 2875546873 1159562863 8823537875 9375195778 1857780532 1712268066 1300192787 6611195909 2164201989 **Actually there is a link on this site showing Pi to 200 million places. With 64 bit technology I think AutoCAD might fall short of keeping that level of accuracy but it certainly goes beyond what most mortals need.

As far as I know, unless something has changed in the newer versions, you can't Stretch 3D objects in a dynamic block. You can still Array them though, and the cylinders would just stack up end to end. I created a dynamic block of your object, added an Array action, and it seems to work fine. If you want fewer rings, just make your cylinders longer.

I never used R13 or R14. I jumped from R12 to 2000, so I don't know about advantages of 2000 over R14, but here's an article that talks about some of the new features that were added in the 2000 release. https://fcw.com/articles/1999/05/09/featurerich-autocad-2000-debuts.aspx

Are you viewing the polyline from a rotated view? This will result in polylines appearing unfilled like what you're showing. Switch your view to "Top" and the polyline should appear filled.

Ellipse would give a very good approximation, but this is a 2D isometric drawing of an ellipse on an isometric plane at an angle to the 2D plane. In Reality the cicles shown would be true ellipses, how you construct the isometric ellipse is beyond me, other than drawing it in 3D and then using an isometric view.