CADForums.net

C Witt · Guest

one for the guru's..

Can a hatch pattern be made that uses wipeouts?

Tim Decker · Guest

express tools has a super hatch that can hatch with a wipeout

"C Witt" <cwitt_AT_trkeng.com> wrote in message
news:424d8c65$1_2@newsprd01...

C Witt · Guest

that however does not create the hatch pattern. (it's the actual pattern
i want).

Shane-W · Guest

you create the hatch as a regular block or image etc
refer to express tools help for futher info

C Witt · Guest

i've been able to create a hatch that way.. just not a hatch pattern.
it can't be re-used or modd'ed.

my goal here is to have it listed in the hatch dialog, not to have to
re-create it every time i want to use it.

Tom Smith · Guest

To the best of my knowledge, that's not possible. To be a regular hatch pattern, it's got to be made up of vectors conforming to the syntax of a pat file:

angle, x-origin,y-origin, delta-x,delta-y,dash-1,dash-2, ...

There's no provision in there for anything other than these "line" elements.

doug k · Guest

Do you want the entire pattern to behave as a wipeout, or just parts of it?

If the whole thing is to be a wipeout, you can use a solid hatch colored
with a pen set to 0% in the ctb file.

Only works if the linemerge setting within the pc3 file is set to "lines
overwrite".

"C Witt" <cwitt_AT_trkeng.com> wrote in message
news:424d8c65$1_2@newsprd01...

C Witt · Guest

ok.. a little more in-depth..

take the standard ansi31 hatch as a demo..

I'd want to combine that pattern with a wipeout. The result would be a
hatch that could be overlaid on another pattern, obscuring it without
having to edit it. (it's hard to make you see how this would be of use
without you knowing the inner workings of what we do).

doug k · Guest

you couldn't use a hatch with the color changed to a 0% (plots white) pen ?

"C Witt" <cwitt_AT_trkeng.com> wrote in message
news:424dba7b$1_3@newsprd01...

Tim Decker · Guest

Okay, try this, place a wipeout around the are you want to obscure (pline,
or boundary command for flood), then hatch the wipeout, make sure the hatch
is associative, and set to place in front of the wipeout boundary. this
will let you move or stretch the wipeout and the hatch will alter
automatically. Unfortunitly, it would not be a single object, or be place
all at once, but you could then get some lisp to tie the commands together
into a single command, and maybe a reactor to bind the objects together (if
one goes, they both go, type of thing) with some fancy vb.

"C Witt" <cwitt_AT_trkeng.com> wrote in message
news:424d8c65$1_2@newsprd01...

C Witt · Guest

you are not understanding...

hatch a
hatch b (looks like ansi31 but has a wipeout behind it)

hatch A exists in a drawing, I create hatch B and move it ontop of hatch
A. You can no longger see hatch A below Hatch B, but can still see hatch B.

Follow?

this new hatch isn't ment to just block out other objects, it's ment to
funtion/look like a regular hatch with the added bonus of being able to
hide the objects behind it.

C Witt · Guest

that isn't an option. the only time we allow wipeouts in our drawings
is when they are a part of a block (zero chance of being left behind
after a move, erase, etc.. and we did try reactors, they don't do the job).

we also have a handy lisp that removes ALL wipeouts that are not safley
inside a block (as they should be).

Tom Smith · Guest

Now that you've described further, I think Tim's onto a valid approach that could probably be automated, but it's not going to be through your hatch dialog, because what you're wanting simply isn't within the realm of possibility for pat files as they're presently defined.

I can understand your wipeout rule -- it's a reasonable safeguard against "what if" problem scenarios. But it's also worth considering that when a rule gets in your way or prevents making an improvement, it may be a sign that the rule needs to be reconsidered.

I chair our firm's "standards committee" and this is something we often reflect upon. The rule, after all, is our own creation. We can change it, abolish it, strengthen it, revise it, give it exceptions, or sharpen its focus, if we choose. Some rules are firmer than others. Sometimes, in response to a perceived need, we compose a working or provisional rule, and attempt to apply it for a while, just to see how it bears out in practice. Usually, after trial period, we're able to restate the rule in a simpler and more pertinent way. But we never would have gotten there if we insisted that every rule be perfect and absolute from the get-go. None of the rules, ultimately, are absolute values in and of themselves. They're only a means to a larger end. Sometimes you can find a way to accomplish the goal in a new way, and the whole reason for the old rule just evaporates.

So okay, what about a routine that made the wipeout and hatch as per Tim, then combined them into an anonymous block? That's not hard. Or what about making them a group? Either of those would get around your orphan-wipeout rule.

Gordon Stephens · Guest

"C Witt" <cwitt_AT_trkeng.com> wrote in message
news:424dc8b4$1_1@newsprd01...

C Witt · Guest

it's very true that every rule has it's time.. and on occasion that time
runs out.

the problem being how to "adapt".

"isn't within the realm of possibility for pat files"
- that cuts off hope for this "idea"

your suggestions while they would work in a limited capacity, they would
fall flat in the wide world of cad.
it's all about finding the solution, without giving up the ability to
edit "on the fly".

But thanks for trying (really).
C Witt

	CADForums.net Forum Index -> Customization	All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2