Pen weight & Templates

[Dennis Lee]

Hi, I just got my hands on AC9. I've been through the training guide level 1 & 2, and have managed to grasp some of the basic concepts of the virtual building. I have also been reading this forum for a while, but can't seem to find a definitive answer on:

1) What is the best way to set up your pen weights ? - considering the AC9 library objects' predefined colors, as well as other common objects such as MSA detailer. Seems like MSA and MaxATS as well as default ArchiCAD all have different pen setups.

2) Related to the above question, which template / detailer should one start off using? Or am I expected to start off with blank ArchiCAD and build my own?

I'm very concerned about the plot quality, so I'd like to know what pen I should use to model everything before I do everything. I mean even when I'm drawing my first title block, I need to use some sort of "pens" to get this set up, right? Is there a "best practice" concerning this kind of stuff?

[James Murray]

Djordje wrote:
By the default pen sets in 10, not any more.

I don't know about the INTs, but the default US pens still have white 91. However, the default 2D object background pen is -1, drawing background (as far as I can see). A mistake, IMO, since the point is to have the backgrounds appear invisible, not be invisible to the user.

[Karl Ottenstein]

James wrote:

Djordje wrote:
By the default pen sets in 10, not any more.

I don't know about the INTs, but the default US pens still have white 91. However, the default 2D object background pen is -1, drawing background (as far as I can see). A mistake, IMO, since the point is to have the backgrounds appear invisible, not be invisible to the user.

I think the -1 (background) choice was a compromise, James. Since the white pen can be anywhere (and in fact is different for INT and USA AFAIK), an object with a white default will only work with specific pen tables. Makes an objects-online kind of download challenging. But, with -1, while invisible, it will give the desired output with all pen tables.

Apparently a solid -1 background becomes an AutoCAD 'wipeout' during DWG export, which makes for better DWG production for consultants.

I like to use white on an offwhite screen background so I can see these things, though. So, my wish for the future is some kind of preference item that let's me choose how the -1 color will appear on screen: matching my background color, or in a color that I choose (e.g., WHITE).

Karl

[Anonymous]

Karl wrote:
I like to use white on an offwhite screen background so I can see these things, though. So, my wish for the future is some kind of preference item that let's me choose how the -1 color will appear on screen: matching my background color, or in a color that I choose (e.g., WHITE).

You're definitely onto something here Karl. I have always had my misgivings about the arbitrariness of the pen 91 choice. To have a defined background pen function (my mantra - pen settings by function) which can be made to contrast or not (according to the display settings) with the background (while remaining non-printing) is an excellent idea. This looks like an opportunity to turn this compromise into a best practice.

[James Murray]

Karl wrote:
I think the -1 (background) choice was a compromise, James. Since the white pen can be anywhere (and in fact is different for INT and USA AFAIK), an object with a white default will only work with specific pen tables. Makes an objects-online kind of download challenging. But, with -1, while invisible, it will give the desired output with all pen tables.

You're right, and it could have been worse...

Apparently a solid -1 background becomes an AutoCAD 'wipeout' during DWG export, which makes for better DWG production for consultants.

It's certainly wise to have a dedicated pen for this purpose.

I like to use white on an offwhite screen background so I can see these things, though. So, my wish for the future is some kind of preference item that let's me choose how the -1 color will appear on screen: matching my background color, or in a color that I choose (e.g., WHITE).

That would be a welcome improvement. I've never understood the appeal of actual invisibility.

[Djordje]

Still have to check the final INT, but it was so until RC ...

I would be more than happy if at least one of th edefaults keeps 91 white in INT, as I do have a habit of not customizing if it can be helped. Makes you more mobile ...

[Karl Ottenstein]

James wrote:
I've never understood the appeal of actual invisibility.

Haven't read the Potter books, then?

I do agree with you, of course, in terms of CAD.

Cheers,
Karl

[TomWaltz]

James wrote:
That would be a welcome improvement. I've never understood the appeal of actual invisibility.

Yeah, it's one thing to not plot, it's another to not ve visible on my screen when I'm working....

.... and when do we get actual "non-plot" instead of "plot white, so be careful it's not hiding something important". It would be nice to have both!!

[Anonymous]

TomWaltz wrote:
.... and when do we get actual "non-plot" instead of "plot white, so be careful it's not hiding something important". It would be nice to have both!!

Tom,

This is another one of those little things with big implications. It sure would ease a lot of things and avoid those embarrassing white marks.

[Anonymous]

So, is there a clear explanation of what the default US template pens are for? Has Graphisoft produced anything like Matthew's excellent PDF?

[Paul King]

Hi Matthew - do you still subscribe to the pen color by function philosophy under AC11?
I am struggling to understand the benefits of the default international pen tables, which seem to be set up with that in mind.

Surely this adds a significant overhead in terms of effort and memorization required if you need to remember 5 different pens each representing a .25 line weight - and with so many pens with nearly the same color how likely are you to instantly spot at a glance whether you have exactly the right one to achieve desired pen weight & function?

In reality, just how many pens do you need to adjust independently of each other based on function for different drawing purposes? Don't layer switching combined with model view options and scale sensitive library objects cover pretty much all the bases?

Aesthetically, I struggle to find a use for more than about 4 pen weights -

By default all my line work uses the thinnest line, with thick lines being used only for graphical emphasis on things like outlines, ground lines and dimension markers etc and by use of fills with various tones of grey.

With this approach, you get more visual impact and clarity than using a multitude of intermediate pen weights (which become virtually indistinguishable after copying)

Isn't mapping to function dangerous graphically? - for example globally mapping a heavy pen to roofs would look pretty bad if that particular roof had no eaves , or for example making all lines depicting a joinery fitting the same would kill any graphical distinction between elements and edges within that fitting or "function" type.

... but seeing how Graphisoft have provided for a functional breakdown by default, I assume I must be missing some significant productivity benefit?

Matthew wrote:
I am a strong proponent of assigning pen numbers by function. That is, I generally use a specific pen for a specific purpose (this is an only and always proposition - the pen is always used for its specified function and only that pen is used for that function). For example I typically set up pen 1 to be the outline pen for cut elements (in plan as well as section views) and pen 2 for the section fill pen; pen 3 is the primary door & window pen; pen 4 is for floors in 2D & 3D and for walls in 3D; and so on.

The main advantage of this approach is that it is easy to remember what pen to use for what purpose and when the time comes to adjust your output it can be tweaked....