another paperspace question (V14)

You don't need tabs. You insert seven to ten titleblocks in PSPACE. In each of them you create one or more floating viewports. In each of those, you filter out layers you don't want to show within them, and pan/zoom to the appropriate part of the model for each port.

There are numerous benefits to having more than one sheet in paperspace 'on the same tab', especially relating to bulk-attribute revisions. They invented 'layouts' for people who couldn't get their heads around PSPACE.

My protocol has all plans and many sections and details drawn in exactly the same place in MSPACE (for coordination purposes) and uses the layer filtering ability of floating (PSPACE) viewports to create separate drawings. I DO NOT use distance to separate information in MSPACE. The same is true of elevations and sections. They are on top of each other in MSPACE, but the use of dedicated layer-groups for sections, elevations, details, various plan levels, and site plan means that in PSPACE everything looks fine after you use VPLAYER to set up the port layer filtering.

If you use the same layer for information in more than one type of view this will not work, and I'd suggest you look at your layering strategy. Prefixes or suffixes are a way to "group" layers for easy control through the fastest means: the command line/custom buttons. There is some related stuff on my website...

thanks Michael! I will try that. Sounds like that will work for me. even though I don't totally understand how to switch from one titleblock to another but will dive in and figure it out. Thanks. I am going to disconnect my computer after sending this message and go have Vista installed so I will be off line for two or three days.

you won't go wrong with Michael's post, but I used to do it just a little differently.

one titleblock in paperspace, and a layering system for viewports ( and page numbers, titles, etc.) page one would have viewports cut in layer VP-1, which I would make a NOPLOT layer. titles and such for the first page would be in layer 1 ( I did not use numbered layers for any other purpose.)

wrote a lisp routine for plotting where you just executed the lisp, named the page number, and it handled the layer manipulations.

see, Michael likes to keep his model "clean" by manipulating layers. it keeps his files from "spreading out" horizontally in model space. I would do the same, but the boss has trouble with the concept.

but multiple titleblocks in paper space is the same clutter, really. /to my way of thinking./

I still have that lisp routine here somewhere, I bet, if you have any inclination to use something similar.

You don't have to 'switch' from one to the other. They all sit there in front of you like cards on a table, ready to plot.

When you want to work on the model presented in one of the title blocks you have to issue the MSPACE command, and you'll see the USCICON change. Click in the port with the stuff you want to work on, and to leave the port issue the PSPACE command. If you want, I'll email you a sample. Go to my website and click the banner to send me an email.

"They invented 'layouts' for people who couldn't get their heads around PSPACE."

I have to disagree with that. I had a very good working knowledge of paperspace before layouts were introduced and I think layouts were one of the best things that happened in AutoCAD. The tabs make it make it very easy to navigate and quickly find and edit data and the versatility of page setups eliminated the need to change the plot settings for multiple viewports laid out on a single psace page. I use three different printers/plotters, three named plot style tables and up to six different page setups.

Pete

Before "layouts" very few bothered with PSPACE.

Compared to having them side by side in one 'layout'?

Another plus, in my opinion, is to use "Publish" to plot all layout sheets in a single operation.

Yes, compared to having them side by side in one layout, separate layout tabs are 10x better. In r14 you had one paperspace window with say a dozen viewports which were a) too small to see so you had to restore a view or fumble around to find the viewport you needed, and b) there were no page setups so you had to change all the plot settings if you weren't using the same sheet size and plotter for all the viewports. And you didn't have named plot styles in r14 to boot.

If you want to debate releases, r2002 was the best acad release mainly because it added some functionality but did not reinvent the wheel and was a smooth transition from 2000i and 2000. And the menu structure and customization was not that different from r14. r2006 was almost comparable to buying an entirely different cad program.

What good is a release with dozens of changes and new features if you haven't all day to learn them? It almost appears that Autodesk seems to think that everyone these days has a king cad guy that has nothing to do all day but fiddle with and learn the new release and then decide what his underlings will find useful. And we're regressing to the point where far too many people are using the program that don't know diddly about drawing. I see so many garbage drawings coming in from customers that would have been trashed by my engineering drawing professor (I learned with paper and pencil back in the 70's).

I really wouldn't be that concerned about not having a good handle on r2006 and 2007 if I intended to stay in my current position. But I worry that I could find an ideal position with better opportunity but they may insist on a expert with r2007 and not really care if I new 2002 well enough to teach it.