exporting line drawings

[pkleinbeernick]

I am having difficulty getting enough resolution in a line drawing (for a manual). Printing direct from a 2D dwg works fine. Exporting that same image as an eps seems to be limited to low res. Exporting to a hi res tiff requires 24 bit tif which is only good when viewed at 1:1 and it is a grayscale. If I export this into Word or other publishing programs it turns out very 'pixelated' like a bmp. I tried the "create a file in Word" with no success, yielding "the specified data is unavailable".

Its late, I'm bummed out. Any tips?

 

(also how do I change my "email address" when logging in here? and for whatever reason my name is mispelled. (its unpronounceable I know but most can spell it)

[Guest Urban Olars]

I have also tried every imaginable way to create good looking line drawings for use in machine manuals but haven't had much sucess. The ultimate way to do this is to have an option in the 2D environment to export the whole or part of the drawing in a vectorized format like .wmf. This has been on my wishlist for a long time, but I guess it has low priority.

The PDF export in IronCAD 5.2 has solved some problems, at least for sending drawings to other people, but it's not good enough quality for use in manuals. The way I do it now is to export the IronCAD 2D drawing as a .dwg, and then import it into AutoCAD or some other 2D software, and from there export it in a vectorized format. Then I can import it into Microsoft Word or whatever. Unfortunately I cannot get the 100% result I would like, because IronCAD cannot show "3D" views in true perspective view on a 2D drawing.

 

 

[B. Ludin]

The exported PDF is vectorized and you can import and edit it in any PDF-savvy editor (e.g. Illustrator), so I'm not sure what you mean when you say it's not good enough for manuals. The only thing I'm not sure about is why they didn't give the option of saving as vectorized EPS also (which is supported by some programs that do not read PDF, like Word for instance), now that they have PDF, since the two formats are essentially identical.

 

Beat

 

 

[Rick Dorrington]

You boys need to get a Mac. We have office staff trying to do this stuff all the time and inevitably it ends up being done a whole lot easier and with the quality you want on our old Macs in the programming office. Windows just doesn't cut it.

[B. Ludin]

Rick - I've been a Mac user for many years and I still prefer MacOS to Win but I had to give in and join the Dark Empire for business reasons. Anyway, pertaining to this thread, what exactly is it that a Mac wil do easily which is difficult or impossible on a PC?

 

 

 

 

[Chris Lohman]

I wonder if this could have something to do with the print drivers and PostScript verses PCL. It could just be a case of antialiasing that would smooth it out. We don't antialias printing.

 

Go into the "My Area" link and hit "Edit Profile" to change your info.

 

 

[Rick Dorrington]

Beat,

 

We've had to give in as well for alot of things. We still use the Mac a bit because our old CAM software runs on it - however, the software is way out of date and we have not upgraded a Mac in 5 years or so although we do have a few newer IBooks and I also use a newer Mac at home.

 

Chris is on the right track with the Postscript vs PCL thing. PCL doesn't cut it. Postscript is a very mature page description language and is well supported in the print/graphics industry. Don't even try to send a PCL file to a print house, they'd laugh you off the planet.

 

The way the Mac handles files is also much different to the PC. I can take almost any file format you want (graphics/text) and make it print perfectly in no time. Or place it into a Word doc or whatever and it's not a problem to do anything you want with it. No hassles.

 

One of the big differences is the way the Mac displays things. The Mac monitor is 72 dpi - exactly the same as the number of points in an inch. Fonts and lines and stuff are usually layed out in points ( or some alternate such as picas ). That is where the whole WYSIWYG thing comes from. Your document will print the way it looks on the screen. Windows uses something like 70 points to the inch (don't quote me on this) so what you see on the screen is kind of close to what you might get but not exactly. It may seem like a small difference but when you are laying out text/graphics or other elements in a document that you expect to print it can make a HUGE difference. Especially if you have a large document like a manual with page breaks and other typographic stuff like orphans/widows. We won't even go into the whole colour thing, that's another issue altogether.

 

As an example, I created a 2 page document in Word (front/back) for IronCad to send to potential customers. (They asked us to be a reference account)

The sales department liked it so much they wanted to use it as a sales tool at shows. I sent the file up front so they could print it off whenever they wanted to and the file went berserk. Windows just could not format the file in a manner that would print properly. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the file and it works beautifully on the Mac. It prints exactly as it displays.

 

Any time we have a request for logos or pictures or something we almost always have to hook up with the requester through our Macs because the office staff can never supply files that are satisfactory.

 

I've been working with both OS's for ten years ( Windows since V1.0 / Mac since V6.0 )and I just know what works. I can get at least 3X as much work done on a Mac as on a Windows machine. No contest.

 

BTW, Microsoft might even admit that Office for OS X is the best product they make. It puts Office for Windows to shame.

 

Rick

[dsulli]

You'll have to admit, Rick, that there are few, if any, mid-range solid modeling software that runs on a Mac. That being the case, it makes little financial sense to buy Macs when most of the MRP, CAD, and office systems are perfectly happy with Windows 2000 or XP professional. Companies specializing in graphic arts and other printing-concentrated work (small minority overall) are probably better-off with Macs.

 

However, schools are choosing Dells in ever-increasing numbers.

[B. Ludin]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rick Dorrington:

Chris is on the right track with the Postscript vs PCL thing. PCL doesn't cut it. Postscript is a very mature page description language and is well supported in the print/graphics industry. Don't even try to send a PCL file to a print house, they'd laugh you off the planet.

---

id=quote>

id=quote>

I won't argue with that. That's why I like working with Illustrator. It uses PS internally and not just as an ouput format. However, while it is true that PCL doesn't really exist in the Mac world, PS does exist in the Win world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rick Dorrington:

The way the Mac handles files is also much different to the PC. I can take almost any file format you want (graphics/text) and make it print perfectly in no time. Or place it into a Word doc or whatever and it's not a problem to do anything you want with it. No hassles.

---

id=quote>

id=quote>

That's true. But still, I haven't had problems opening files under Win ever since I've turned my back on MacOS (sigh!). And I've been working on publishing projects including multimedia data coming from dozens of labs around the worlds in all formats imaginable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rick Dorrington:

One of the big differences is the way the Mac displays things. The Mac monitor is 72 dpi - exactly the same as the number of points in an inch. Fonts and lines and stuff are usually layed out in points ( or some alternate such as picas ). That is where the whole WYSIWYG thing comes from. Your document will print the way it looks on the screen. Windows uses something like 70 points to the inch (don't quote me on this)

---

id=quote>

id=quote>

Just

If you're talking about unit definition, all the professional programs I work with use 72 point per inch. So a guess you means screen resolution. The theoretical standard is 96 ppi under Win (vs. 72 ppi under MacOS). But why would it matter that something has a different absolute size on screen (unless you want to take a ruler and measure something directly on screen) if the resolution of screen and printer are vastly different anyway?

Last but not least, Apple has stoppped sticking to 72ppi screen resolution several years ago, anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rick Dorrington:

.

I've been working with both OS's for ten years ( Windows since V1.0 / Mac since V6.0 )

---

id=quote>

id=quote>

Same here. But different applications, I would assume.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rick Dorrington:

and I just know what works. I can get at least 3X as much work done on a Mac as on a Windows machine. No contest.

---

id=quote>

id=quote>

That weas certainly true a few years ago. But I must admit that XP isn't that bad an OS.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rick Dorrington:

BTW, Microsoft might even admit that Office for OS X is the best product they make. It puts Office for Windows to shame.

---

id=quote>

id=quote>

Pretty ironical, isn't it?

I long for the day when people will change over to MacOS in flocks because of the great software MS produces for it

[Rick Dorrington]

Beat.

 

It wasn't my intent to start a pissing contest. Windows is certainly much better than it used to be. I don't have much trouble with W2K, probably because we have really decent hardware underneath it.

 

I'm a firm believer in using the right tool for the job. As Sulli says, it might not be practical for everybody to own a Mac if the resources are not available. And it is true that there are some areas of software that are limited, hence we use IC on Windows. You have obviously lived on the other side of the fence and can appreciate that almost everything about the Mac environment is far superior. All else being equal, and given the choice of using a platform to achieve a result, I would choose the Mac every time. You probably would too. And you know that most people cannot understand what the big difference is because they never lived with a Mac. Anybody who has used a Mac for any amount of time is converted. I've seen it a dozen times.

 

I can tell you this. When it comes to putting my own cash into a system I choose the Mac. Not only are they better but the computer will be useful years beyond any PC that you might purchase. As I've said before, we have ten year old Mac's (some older I think) that still provide useful duty every day around here. Not only are they useful but they also require little if any maintenance. They just keep running. Try that with a ten year old PC. I don't think so. One of the things I love so much about IC is the feel of the Mac. In my opinion there is no doubt that IC is the best implementation of software I have ever seen on the Windows platform. Stable, well designed and fun to use. What more could you want? If only our CAM software could do the same. Oh well, I guess you can't have everything.

 

Rick

[jcraig]

Controlling line weight on published 2D drawings can be done by using

two other software packages: AutoCAD LT (Win 95 version)

and Corel Ventura 8 Publisher. [ Ventura 8 is a very powerful and robust

publisher]. The trick is to plot the drawing to a early version HPGL file

and assign pen numbers to line thicknesses.

 

** Do not use the Hewlett-Packard HPGL plotter drivers built into

Windows software. They do not work and H-P admits it!

Use the plotter drivers delivered with AutoCAD LT - they work.

 

1. Export the 2D drawing from IronCAD as a AutoCAD drawing.

2. Load into AutoCAD LT. Set various lines to layers and set layers

to different colors. Plot the drawing to HP7475 plot file.

Assign different pen numbers to different colors based on line weight needed.

I use red = thin, blue = hidden, black = object, cyan = heavy, etc.

3. Ventura 8 allows the importing of HPGL (NOT HPGL-2!)

plot files. Set all pen colors to black. Set the line thickness desired

to each pen number. Save the plotter information file for future use.

 

This process takes a bit of setting up but it works well.

[jcraig]

Another option is a software program NORMICA v2000.

http://www.normica.com

This program allows the manipulation of line thickness from

a number of different input formats and allows the export

to other formats. I have not used it much so I cannot vouch

for the results. There may be a free trial period.

[jcraig]

After I mentioned NORMICA, I dug out my copy and tried it using

WIN2000. The HP HPGL/2 driver in WIN2000 seems to work O.K.

Plot the drawing to a file with a .plt extension. Open it in NORMICA.

Click CHANGE .... Pen Assignments. Set the line width desired per pen.

EXPORT to EMF, WMF, DWF or bitmap. Bitmap files are a bit ragged

but you can change the resolution, size, etc.

 

It looks like the "pens" are related to the layers in IronCAD. Some

experimenting with layers may be needed.

 

You can download a free trial version of NORMICA.

http://www.IT-BASE.com or http://www.normica.com

 

[Guest dlalonde]

You're right that the problem (and solution) lies within Ironcad.

 

The 'Export Image' function will create an image with camera perspective (which I want) but not in a scaleable vector format, in fact not even in large image line art such as tif. Other raster formats are limited to 1280 x 1024 size, which I can already get with a screenshot.

 

The 'General View' creator in the drawing environment will create something that can be exported as dxf or dwg but does not allow camera perspective.

 

I failed to deliver on one promise that I made when justifying Ironcad to management (back in 1999) - that it would provide quality line art for instruction and service manuals. Instead I give goofy looking non-perspective views.