If you’ve been keeping up with the blogs, you’ve probably already read your share about parametric constraints/drafting, contextual ribbon, 3D modeling, and the like. Not to say those topics aren’t appreciated additions to AutoCAD, but to me sometimes the little things make all the difference in the world. If my memory serves me correctly AutoCAD 2006 brought us the JOIN command. Sure I used to have a LISP command that would join two objects together, but there’s one thing all AutoCAD commands have that LISP commands don’t – support!
While I appreciate those who customize AutoCAD beyond belief, I am of the camp where the less customization you can do the better. My core reason is support. If I make it I have to support it. As a Subscription customer, if Autodesk makes it, they have to support it for me. Nonetheless, the new REVERSE command in AutoCAD 2010 is a very welcome addition IMO.
Not sure what the REVERSE command is all about?
At my firm we use a lot of linetypes with text and/or symbols. For our lines with text, we want the text to read with the plan sheet it will be shown on. For our lines with shapes (ie. arrows), I need the shapes to read in the correct direction. Using the REVERSE command I can flip the linework to read correctly.
To use the REVERSE command, expand the Modify panel from the Home ribbon tab. There you will find the 
icon. Simply click it to run the REVERSE command, and then click the object(s) you want to reverse. In the illustration below I used the REVERSE command to make the W’s read correctly.
this isn’t related to support or the reverse command but is related to lisp. I am hoping somebody smarter with lisp than i am will read this and have an answer. ok, here is the the question. i have a lisp routine that reads the dimscale of a drawing. it was written before annotative text and scale were introduced. basically if your scale factor was 40 it read the dimscale variable and drew everything to scale as far as text heights and everything else was concerned. is there a variable that reads the annotation scale instead of the dimscale, that can be used inplace of the dimscale variable?
this isn’t related to support or the reverse command but is related to lisp. I am hoping somebody smarter with lisp than i am will read this and have an answer. ok, here is the the question. i have a lisp routine that reads the dimscale of a drawing. it was written before annotative text and scale were introduced. basically if your scale factor was 40 it read the dimscale variable and drew everything to scale as far as text heights and everything else was concerned. is there a variable that reads the annotation scale instead of the dimscale, that can be used inplace of the dimscale variable?
@thecadgeek & @EricK –
Reverse is aptly named because it reverses the order of the verticies. A polyline that contains vertexes at location 1,2,3,4. When REVERSE’d that same polyline is now stored and displayed as 4,3,2,1. Its actually reversing the order of in the drawing of that entity and works in a similar manner as the Civil3d alignment reverse.
If FLIP, would be flipping the text only.
@thecadgeek & @EricK –
Reverse is aptly named because it reverses the order of the verticies. A polyline that contains vertexes at location 1,2,3,4. When REVERSE’d that same polyline is now stored and displayed as 4,3,2,1. Its actually reversing the order of in the drawing of that entity and works in a similar manner as the Civil3d alignment reverse.
If FLIP, would be flipping the text only.
AutoCAD pet peeve: CALL IT WHAT IT IS!
If this command flips call it FLIP. I am still puzzling how they got REVERSE. Who tests this stuff before they release it?
e.
@EricK – I am certainly with you with respect to the way verbiage doesn’t always match throughout the software. Not that I have any better explanation than you, but I know in Civil 3D we have a command to “reverse” the direction of an alignment, and also one to “reverse” a label (South to West, not North to East in bearings).
Judging from how AutoCAD Civil 3D is structured, it seems the logic is we “reverse” direction and “flip” location. Not being overly familiar with AutoCAD Architecture, MEP, etc, it’s certainly plausible that my suspicion be blown out of the water. But long story short, my guess is the command was named REVERSE not FLIP to maintain as much consistency as possible with the vertical products that are built on AutoCAD.
AutoCAD pet peeve: CALL IT WHAT IT IS!
If this command flips call it FLIP. I am still puzzling how they got REVERSE. Who tests this stuff before they release it?
e.
@EricK – I am certainly with you with respect to the way verbiage doesn’t always match throughout the software. Not that I have any better explanation than you, but I know in Civil 3D we have a command to “reverse” the direction of an alignment, and also one to “reverse” a label (South to West, not North to East in bearings).
Judging from how AutoCAD Civil 3D is structured, it seems the logic is we “reverse” direction and “flip” location. Not being overly familiar with AutoCAD Architecture, MEP, etc, it’s certainly plausible that my suspicion be blown out of the water. But long story short, my guess is the command was named REVERSE not FLIP to maintain as much consistency as possible with the vertical products that are built on AutoCAD.
I have just had LT2009 installed.
I started to use the -ATTEDIT command and the “X” which normally appears over the first attribute to be modified covered the whole of the drawing area.
I have been through the list of setvars and am unable to identify anything which will scale this “monster” down.
Can anyone help?
Thanks.
@Boyd – I see what you mean. The X doesn’t take up the entire drawing area on my computer, but it is much larger than it should be. My first suspicion was the annotation scale, but that didn’t seem to do anything. I’ll try bouncing it off a couple people I know, but as it seems there’s no real way to control it’s size.
I have just had LT2009 installed.
I started to use the -ATTEDIT command and the “X” which normally appears over the first attribute to be modified covered the whole of the drawing area.
I have been through the list of setvars and am unable to identify anything which will scale this “monster” down.
Can anyone help?
Thanks.
@Boyd – I see what you mean. The X doesn’t take up the entire drawing area on my computer, but it is much larger than it should be. My first suspicion was the annotation scale, but that didn’t seem to do anything. I’ll try bouncing it off a couple people I know, but as it seems there’s no real way to control it’s size.
Autodesk Support can vary widely in quality, from day to day, depending on who answers, and depending on what product you’re submitting for. Sometimes it is good, producing useful results, although usually this is still a slow back-and-forth-several-times process. Sometimes the results are infuriating or very disappointing. In a recent example, where links on the Revit Architecture 2009 welcome page gave errors and peculiar behavior on sevceral computers, after several go-arounds, they came back at me and said to take the problem up with Microsoft! Instead, I dug in, googled everything I could find, and found the solution myself as to why Revit was misbehaving, and got it fixed.
I’m also not happy with their trickery of supposedly converging VIZ into a single MAX product (as first announced with an official Autodesk subscriptions notice to their subscribers), then being forced to cross-grade to Max Design, which they charged for big $$$ even though my 20 or so licenses were on subscription! Then to find out when Max Design 2009 came out, that they also still had two products… there was still a Max 2009, and Max Design 2009… the latter really being VIZ rebranded. So, I was forced to cross-grade, forced to pay for something I already had on subscription, get to pay almost double the annual subscription for each MAX Design license compared to VIZ, and if that wasn’t enough, to add insult to injury, the phasing out of VIZ (which was really just a rebranding as Max Design) means that I no longer have Autodesk Support (because MAX is not supported by Autodesk Subscription tech support). So I get to pay a lot more, but get less.
Autodesk Support can vary widely in quality, from day to day, depending on who answers, and depending on what product you’re submitting for. Sometimes it is good, producing useful results, although usually this is still a slow back-and-forth-several-times process. Sometimes the results are infuriating or very disappointing. In a recent example, where links on the Revit Architecture 2009 welcome page gave errors and peculiar behavior on sevceral computers, after several go-arounds, they came back at me and said to take the problem up with Microsoft! Instead, I dug in, googled everything I could find, and found the solution myself as to why Revit was misbehaving, and got it fixed.
I’m also not happy with their trickery of supposedly converging VIZ into a single MAX product (as first announced with an official Autodesk subscriptions notice to their subscribers), then being forced to cross-grade to Max Design, which they charged for big $$$ even though my 20 or so licenses were on subscription! Then to find out when Max Design 2009 came out, that they also still had two products… there was still a Max 2009, and Max Design 2009… the latter really being VIZ rebranded. So, I was forced to cross-grade, forced to pay for something I already had on subscription, get to pay almost double the annual subscription for each MAX Design license compared to VIZ, and if that wasn’t enough, to add insult to injury, the phasing out of VIZ (which was really just a rebranding as Max Design) means that I no longer have Autodesk Support (because MAX is not supported by Autodesk Subscription tech support). So I get to pay a lot more, but get less.
SUPPORT? I can’t believe you said that. Where exactly are you getting your support? from Autodesk? lmao
Want a good tip? Stay away from any new command in AutoCAD that creates custom objects (which is anything that has to do with new entities, or parametrics). If you insist, you will be put in proxy hell.
Your drawings will quickly become incompatible with anyone else, your contractors, your customers, etc. unless they are using AutoCAD 2010. No viewers, no CAD clones, no other system that can read and write DWG will be able to read them since they will display proxies.
One more way your friend Autodesk who is always looking out after your best interests, never their own, has made it so that you are locked into using the $4000 AutoCAD rather than the $400 progeCAD.
Granted I provide the vast majority of support for my company, so it’s only the toughest of the tough problems I submit to Autodesk support. Still, love them or hate them, they are generally pretty good at getting back to me with a solution I can use. In fact just yesterday Autodesk responded to a bug I found, and provided me with a patch to try in advance of a forthcoming service pack.
I’m sure others have had dramatically different experiences, but my personal experience has been rather positive. As for your other pain points, IMO that’s a matter of drawing maintenance. You don’t drive a car without ever changing the oil, you don’t draw thousands of entities without cleaning up your drawing from time to time.
SUPPORT? I can’t believe you said that. Where exactly are you getting your support? from Autodesk? lmao
Want a good tip? Stay away from any new command in AutoCAD that creates custom objects (which is anything that has to do with new entities, or parametrics). If you insist, you will be put in proxy hell.
Your drawings will quickly become incompatible with anyone else, your contractors, your customers, etc. unless they are using AutoCAD 2010. No viewers, no CAD clones, no other system that can read and write DWG will be able to read them since they will display proxies.
One more way your friend Autodesk who is always looking out after your best interests, never their own, has made it so that you are locked into using the $4000 AutoCAD rather than the $400 progeCAD.
Granted I provide the vast majority of support for my company, so it’s only the toughest of the tough problems I submit to Autodesk support. Still, love them or hate them, they are generally pretty good at getting back to me with a solution I can use. In fact just yesterday Autodesk responded to a bug I found, and provided me with a patch to try in advance of a forthcoming service pack.
I’m sure others have had dramatically different experiences, but my personal experience has been rather positive. As for your other pain points, IMO that’s a matter of drawing maintenance. You don’t drive a car without ever changing the oil, you don’t draw thousands of entities without cleaning up your drawing from time to time.