Layout drawing title template

[Anonymous]

Can anyone show me where in the menu is the Layout drawing title templates. I have searched all Guides and tutorials and couldn't find it. Thanks.

[James Murray]

Link wrote:
I though it may have something to do with the subtypes, but it doesn't appear so.

The parameters are only half of it. The confusing part is the 16-team tournament of nested IF/THEN conditions. If this is off and that is on, do this, unless that is also off, then if the other thing is on, do something else. Open up 'NCS Drawing Title 10' 2D script and check out the scene under "! Positioning".

Also. The templates are weak, by which I mean, if you open a GS title, there's a ton of black parameters. They're not in the template, but they're doing most of the work. It's not like a window, where the simplest window will just act like a window.

I never used title types before, precisely because they weren't objects. I used an object placed in the drawing window. With 10, I successfully updated my title object to be a 'real' title, but it was a pain. And I only got it doing exactly what I need; not full service like the shipping titles.

Now, OT. This issue well illustrates the need for a new graphical-parametric object authoring environment. I'm not at all scared of GDL. Code is needed, and they better never take it away. But parametric object-making is too important to be limited to the code-hobbyists such as myself. Anybody might need to make drawing titles, and they're not just GDL, they're pretty advanced GDL. It's not right.

[Link]

Peter Devlin said:

Hello Link,
I have not tried to make my own title as a lib part
because our office does not title drawings this way.

Sorry - I thought we were talking about custom or imported titles.

James said:

The parameters are only half of it. The confusing part is the 16-team tournament of nested IF/THEN conditions. If this is off and that is on, do this, unless that is also off, then if the other thing is on, do something else. Open up 'NCS Drawing Title 10' 2D script and check out the scene under "! Positioning".

Oh I hear you James! In fact it's hard to tell GS to make our custom titles have the same parameters as the supplied titles, because there's just so many of them available under different circumstances. Didn't stop me though!

Now, OT. This issue well illustrates the need for a new graphical-parametric object authoring environment. I'm not at all scared of GDL. Code is needed, and they better never take it away. But parametric object-making is too important to be limited to the code-hobbyists such as myself. Anybody might need to make drawing titles, and they're not just GDL, they're pretty advanced GDL. It's not right.

Hear hear! I remember just about falling off my bar stool when I heard GS was making titles GDL parts. I thought about all those poor unfortunate(?) GDL dummies out there (me included) struggling to make their own title types. I thought we were saved with the ability to save our own title types, but that has turned out to be just a teaser.

I'm all in favor of making GDL usable for the people who actually want to use it. I rarely meet an architect who wants to dive into computer programming in their 'spare time'. Not really why they got into architecture I guess.

Big ask though isn't it?

Cheers,
Link.

[Anonymous]

James wrote:
Now, OT. This issue well illustrates the need for a new graphical-parametric object authoring environment. I'm not at all scared of GDL. Code is needed, and they better never take it away. But parametric object-making is too important to be limited to the code-hobbyists such as myself. Anybody might need to make drawing titles, and they're not just GDL, they're pretty advanced GDL. It's not right.

Amen, brother!

I still think the greatest value of GDL is in making the (relatively) simple parts that just do exactly what you want them to. For my clients I started to look at modifying GS' standard title parts and (as usual) found it much easier to write them from scratch. It took about twenty line of code as I recall, instead or the hundreds to be found in the general purpose ones.

I think that the thousands of line of code in the all purpose parts are another strong argument for making the roll-your-own scenario more viable. Considering the number and persistence of errors in the US library it seems that the old way is becoming unmaintainable.