Pipe size tags not respecting the Work Area

It's not going to move existing labels, so could that be case?

 

--J

I used the delete all tags using the delete station and resized them. As I said, I'm sure that it's user error.

Any help on this? Is this working for others?

Does it work if you size the valves one at a time?
You know you’re always welcome to send in the file so we can take a look.

—J

I never got this to work. Maybe I don't understand. If we have a lateral (or main) that crosses from one work are to the other, it's not changing the text rotation (or scale) to match the work area. Is it supposed to?

Seaweed,
We actually just found the culprit for why this isn’t working properly, and have it on our list to address. This did also open up a few other issues that we would like to figure out while in there.

Basically, if you have one pipe segment with no Work Area at all, and you have pipe segments that are in a Work Area that doesn’t have a ucs, so the system is rotating all of them to the one ucs.
So what do we do?

What if there were 3 Work Areas that the pipes went through? Would it respect all 3? If so, same thing, does the no Work Area get the WCS or maybe the set UCS outside any Work Area?

That’s the worry, if a user sets a UCS active, then sizes pipe, it’s going to put all the labels at WCS because they aren’t inside a Work Area with a UCS. It’s really tricky.

Here is where your thoughts and ideas are welcome, and maybe it can be something like this:
If the valve is in a Work Area with a UCS, then it does this logic for all labels.
We just need to figure out the logic on when this fires, because this fires on EVERYTHING.plant labels, you name it.

I will stop there and give the floor back to you

Wow. This is great news. It sounds like IF all areas are I’m non overlapping work areas, and IF all work areas have an assigned UCS, THEN all labels will be rotated to align with the UCS of the work area’s UCS. Is this correct? If so, that’s awesome!

Now, IF a label falls within a work area, AND the work area is not assigned a UCS, THEN the label should align Ruth the WCS. Also, IF the label falls in a work area without a UCS assigned should it align with the current UCS, or should it default to the WCS? Maybe the default should be the WCS in this instance. But I’ve had multiple projects that have only one UCS and no work areas at all. In that case, I’d prefer it default to the current UCS, as it currently does.

I could go either way. It seems more like an educational issue. KEY: Always use work areas with a UCS assigned to it. Even if one has a single work area that covers the entire project.

I think that the default should me the current UCS if there is not a work area with a UCS assigned. But my opinion could be changed. I’d like to hear from other users.

Seaweed (Steve Cook)

I think that the default should be the current UCS. We have used this in the past and it has worked for us albeit with a couple of "quirks" like Seaweed mentioned. We'd find ourselves working in an area and then realize that the rotation was wrong on what we were placing. A little frustrating but easy to fix. Still, it was one more thing to keep track of and we like to keep things simple. Now, we don't rotate our viewports on our plans. We pick one UCS orientation for the whole drawing (even if there are several work areas) and then create all of our "sheet cuts" (paper space viewports) at the same orientation. We also pick one overall scale. This has the setback of usually increasing the number of plan sheets that we have (due to not rotating them to fit more on each sheet), but it reduces the amount of confusion both when we're working on the drawing and when the contractor/consultants/clients are looking at the drawings in the field. North is always pointing in the same direction on every sheet and every sheet is at the same scale. Of course, we only do irrigation design so we don't usually have a need to rotate viewports/UCS or have plan sheets at different scales like one would on a planting or construction plan to show a courtyard at a larger scale. The less things to keep track of, the better. In short. K.I.S.S.

-Cadmonkey

Hi Cadmonkey,

You work at Glasir Design Irrigation Consulting now. They are lucky and wise to add you to their team (IMHO).

That workflow works great in many instances. For instance, when we are working on Master Planned Communities where the streetscape is submitted with the common area plans, that makes all the sense in the world. But when we are working with Civil Engineers that set up their plan and profile sheets for streets, we have to match their sheets (but we double stack since we don't have profiles). We have to match their match lines at certain stations and match their rotation. KISS is nice if you can do it, but sometimes sheet setup is not a choice.

We do have an issue sometimes with importing UCSs's/work areas. It seems that sometimes when we import the UCS's the drawing doesn't allow updates to the UCS's once the exref is changed. In those cases, when we have to recreate them, it won't recognize that it's part of the xreffed work area. Maybe it will be better in the next release. But the LandFX wizards may have bigger fish to fry.

Thanks for the kind words, Seaweed. I'm lucky to be working with them.

Yeah, I figured that the issue you were gonna have is having to match someone else's sheet cuts/rotation/scale. I too am looking forward to checking out how the imported UCS's work out in the next release for when we too will have to match someone else's setup at some point.