Orientation of text in custom linetypes

[SAFeSTeR]

I'm using a couple of custom linetypes which I created and one is reading logically (ELEC) but when I changed to another linetype (GAS) the text reads as it follows the direction of the polyline.

 

I didn't expect it to read logically but it looks better on the drawing. I created both linetypes and followed similar formatting (see below) so I've no idea why this is happening. Does anyone know how to achieve this purposely so all read logically?

 

*ELECTRIC,Electric Cables -- ELEC ---- ELEC ---- ELEC --

A,0.5,-0.3,["ELEC",Text - Arial,s=0.1,r=0,x=-0.175,y=-0.05],-0.3

 

*GAS,Gas Pipes -- GAS ---- GAS ---- GAS --

A,0.5,-0.3,["GAS",Text - Arial,s=0.1,r=0,x=-0.15,y=-0.05],-0.3

 

 

[dbroada]

are you sure both polylines were drawn in the same direction?

 

There is a command (the name of which I have forgotten) that will reverse the direction of a polyline.

[eldon]

Have you tried to use "U=0" instead of "r=0" in the linetype definition?

[BIGAL]

When a pline is made up of a lot of joined lines you can have two directions in one pline, fix by exploding flip 1st line etc to correct direction and rejoin. This fixes arc problems.

 

Dbroada PE pick pl "R"

[eldon]

Not being able to see your attached picture (if any??), but based on Bigal's remark, have you checked that Pline generation is enabled?

[SAFeSTeR]

are you sure both polylines were drawn in the same direction?

 

...have you checked that Pline generation is enabled?

 

Maybe I should have said, the polylines in my examples are actually the same one, I just changed the linetype and this is how I discovered the issue. It must have to be something in the linetype definition rather than the polyline itself?

 

Have you tried to use "U=0" instead of "r=0" in the linetype definition?

I will try, but would this make a difference as both linetype definitions use "r=0".

 

When a pline is made up of a lot of joined lines you can have two directions in one pline, fix by exploding flip 1st line etc to correct direction and rejoin. This fixes arc problems.

I wasn't aware of that, but like I already said, the polyline is in fact the same one so this shouldn't occur. I will experiment with this technique when I have some time.

 

Anyway, thanks for all the replies and suggestions, the designer has decided he doesn't want utilities shown in the drawing now as they are not guaranteed to be accurate, so there is no issue now.

[eldon]

The easiest way to get a definitive answer would be to post a drawing containing only that polyline and with both linetypes loaded.

 

Otherwise we are peering into a crystal ball, and giving you more work to try out our suggestions.

 

The "U" factor gives Upright text. The "r" factor only gives a rotation relative to the line, and if the line is going the other way, then the text is the other way. Why it should change with different linetypes might be revealed by letting others work with your drawing.

[SAFeSTeR]

Like I said, I'm not that bothered now as it is not required in the drawing any longer, however, I have replicated the situation for you to look at if you want.

 

Strangely, the first time I trimmed the drawing down, both linetypes behaved the same, reading in the direction of the pline as in the 'gas' example, the same thing happened when I copied the portion of the drawing into a new drawing. The attached drawing was my 3rd attempt and it left here as intended, maybe it will behave differently when someone else opens it?

LinetypeOrientation.dwg

[eldon]

Thank you for taking the trouble to post a drawing. Unfortunately, the problem is one of those quirks in AutoCAD which defy explanation.

 

I converted the drawing to r2000, and opened it in my AutoCAD 2002, and then opened the same drawing in DwgTrueview 2013, with the results below.

 

I think the way forward is to try the "U" factor in the linetype definition and see how that goes. Unfortunately, I cannot do that myself, because the "U" factor is too modern for me.

[SAFeSTeR]

I did actually begin to type in my previous post that maybe it's one of those quirky things but removed it before posting. Oh well, I will do some experimenting when I'm not so busy and will post my results if I find anything conclusive.

 

Thanks all once again.

[eldon]

It should be pointed out that both Polylines had the Linetype generation disabled.

 

It has been noticed in other threads, that this allows some elements of the line to "run" the other way.

 

In this case, if the Linetype generation is enabled, then some of the placement of the text is inconvenient.

[BIGAL]

Safester so there is no issue now

 

When you dig up a 22,000 volt electricity cable tell the guy who said you dont need them to explain to the widow why her husband is dead. I know of one being 100mm below the ditch level a back hoe was digging. Right outside a electricity sub station. Another a gas main being dug in the town I live in blew the guy next to the back hoe out of the hole suffering burns and a trip to the hospital. Our construction team who search for gas etc before digging was advised by the gas board the main was dead yeah that was the one 200mm away from the new one that had been installed, full fire brigade turn out evacuation etc

 

A fibre optic cable rupture here can be start at about $20,000 to repair, hit Melbourne to Sydney fibre optic the million dollar bill.

[SAFeSTeR]

Well, we don't want to add utilities to the drawings so as not to give the impression that we know exactly where they are.

 

This encourages them to locate them using the drawings supplied by the utility companies themselves and tracing methods, if possible, not only that, they use safe digging techniques to minimise risk.

[eldon]

..... using the drawings supplied by the utility companies themselves .......

 

From personal experience, some utility drawings can be very creative.

 

But they all usually have a strong caveat that any service shown may not be in the correct place!

[SAFeSTeR]

But they all usually have a strong caveat that any service shown may not be in the correct place!

Indeed, they all carry a disclaimer as no one wants to take responsibilty for utility strikes.

 

In my early CAD career I was involved with transferring British Gas' (SE area only) paper records to digital and most of the team didn't take much pride in their accuracy. In their defence though, most of the old records were void of any real measurements or dimensions so everything was done by eye. Not only that, but the old maps were often out of date. When you consider this then the utility companies cannot guarantee the accuracy of their records.

 

I stayed on after this was completed and continue to updated the records as the new work was done. The incoming sketches were all drawn up accurately, with dimensions, and I used these to digitise the new mains on to the system. It's a shame that not everyone has adopted this approach and that utility drawings generally won't show dimensions.

 

Even with the accuracy of GPS recording the companies will still add disclaimers to their drawings.

[eldon]

The main problem is that the base map used is the Ordnance survey mapping, which is like the curate's egg - good in parts.

 

The OS mapping has a policy of generalisation, so not all feature lines are shown.

 

The attached picture of an accuracy table is snipped from the Ordnance Survey web-site

[SAFeSTeR]

Yes, I forgot about the level of accuracy of the OS maps. However, I do think that when digging down on utilities the lack of accuracy is somewhat minimised due to the size of the holes they dig.