ArchitectureWeek DesignCommunity Forum Index » PowerCADD Discussion

View previous topic :: View next topic
Author	Message
lecan Joined: 07 Jan 2009 Posts: 13 Location: Belfast	Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:00 pm    Post subject: Now that the problem has been identified. Maybe ES can let us know what they think the issue could be and if they can attempt a "fix" on their end.[/quote] I think thats it Do we e-mail them ? or is this it ?[/quote]
Back to top	share:   blogger     del.icio.us     digg     slashdot
Damon Joined: 22 Sep 2004 Posts: 46 Location: Vancouver, BC	Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:01 pm    Post subject: Hi, I'm going to copy part of an email I received from a support person who questioned me about my use of mm line thicknesses. I thought it was quite interesting, as it related output to the physical design of ink jet plotters and the printed output. Perhaps it will be of interest to others. Please note: I am in no way claiming this information as my own. I hope that the author will understand that I am trying to be considerate, in case some new debate rages on. I'll happily publish credit if requested by the author of the original advice. The Message: "mm was the standard for mechanical pen plotters as there was a direct correlation physically. Points is the standard for current printers - both laser beam (Postscript) and dot (inkjet) printers. Given what you now see on the screen is postscript based (dpi based), it is important to realize the mathematical and mechanical correlation. There is a direct mechanical correlation between dpi and points. The base being 72 dpi or 1/72 of an inch. (ie 720dpi /72 = 10, 1440 dpi/72 = 20, etc) The secret of visual accuracy going to to dot printers is to use a mathematical base of 5. (points of 0.20, 0.40, 0.60, 0.80, 1.0 etc points) For Postscript use a base 4 where the output resolution is 300 dpi, 600 dpi, 1200 dpi, etc. (ie 0.25, .50, 1.0 etc points) There is no direct correlation between mm and current day printers as mechanical pen plotters are dead. (ie 0.10 mm = 0.283464, 0.15 mm = 0.425196 dpi) What does this mean to you? For example, itt means when you use mm as your line weights, your dot printer will take longer to try to print the mathematical equivalent of your mm line as a multiple of a point, having to do two head sweeps to print one line rather than one head sweep. The second head sweep is print an offset overlay over the first to simulate the mm line. Bottom line: You will never get accurate mm output to printers or to your screen. Hence my question. " Any thoughts about this contribution? I've always preferred mm, but I'm trying point sizes for a while. Damon _________________ Damon "Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months." Oscar Wilde
Back to top	share:   blogger     del.icio.us     digg     slashdot
phansford Joined: 18 Apr 2004 Posts: 832 Location: SW Ohio	Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:39 pm    Post subject: Damon, I use point size for my line weights and I have the issue being discussed. So I think I justed muddied the waters again. Sorry. FWIW - I use a HP DesignJet 110Plus NR
Back to top	share:   blogger     del.icio.us     digg     slashdot
Matt Joined: 13 Apr 2004 Posts: 525 Location: Sterling, Virginia	Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:53 pm    Post subject: I'll try that with the blossom tool, it sounds like something I probably should have known already. with regard to lineweights and the HP DesignJet 110Plus nr, why don't you set up a test document with a grid of lines (horizontal and vertical). Set your line weights to increments of 1/600 of an inch (.00167 ", .00333", .005", etc; print it and see what your results are. Reporting back here would be a bonus. As a general rule, I think we have a habit of using line weights that are significantly too thin in this industry; working on a job site and using documents printed conventionally is eye-opening. As far as I am concerned, anything less than 1/100 of an inch (.01) is ridiculously weak to expect to convey information, FWIW.
Back to top	share:   blogger     del.icio.us     digg     slashdot
raleighross Joined: 12 Aug 2004 Posts: 393 Location: Raleigh, NC	Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 8:31 pm    Post subject: phansford wrote: Damon, I use point size for my line weights and I have the issue being discussed. So I think I justed muddied the waters again. Sorry. FWIW - I use a HP DesignJet 110Plus NR If a point was 1/75 of an inch all would be much better. But as it's 1/72 and printers tend to work in multiples of 150 or 300 we have issues. Add to this that we have multiple types of drivers/interpreters in the mix and we have a mess. The best thing is to pick point sizes which translate closely into dpi. When you pick a line weight that results in 4.5 dots you get hassles. Postscript, Postscript clone, GIMP, Auto drivers, etc... all have different algorithms as to how to deal with the rounding. Add in curves and slopes and you get different results as you move from printer to printer, OS to OS, and even OS version to OS version. And even if all of this is the same you can still have two people where one is using GIMP and the other Postscript in the printer for the exact same set of hardware. There is NO easy solution except to pick line wights that give close results when divided by 1/72 of an inch and 1/300 of an inch. Also Postscript does not mean laser. We have postscript inkjet plotters, and GIMP to GL/2 lasers. David
Back to top	share:   blogger     del.icio.us     digg     slashdot
pbacot Joined: 15 Apr 2004 Posts: 959 Location: Northern California	Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:00 pm    Post subject: I have to say I have not seen this reduction in fine lines or quality. I'll have to look into it. I am using PC6. When I had an HP printer I only used .25 PT lines as the smallest. Nothing would print smaller. Now with a Canon I use a .1 PT and it is a nice step down. And my HP deskjet printer does just about as well. The thinner lines are for hatches mainly but you can use them for a lot of things in presentation as opposed to construction drawings. I have switched lately to adding very light lines in preliminary drawings (for example ceiling lines in a floor plan ) rather than dashing a heavier line, as I might in a construction set. It adds organization to the drawing and a little information without being obtrusive. I think a bigger problem is the cheap print and paper used by "blueprinters" now--and the quality of output compared to diazo. Peter- Not sure about your question in print reductions. It should be obvious what you are getting. Or are you concerned that it isn't an accurate size reduction of every line thickness. I always get a thinning of lines with the reductions, like a reduced photograph. Some lines might disappear or blur on extreme reductions. Matt- I have always had my number keys set to my main line weights. I just hit the keys as I work or set the tool. I think having multiple icons to choose from for each tool would be slow. Keys are always faster than icons. _________________ Peter B
Back to top	share:   blogger     del.icio.us     digg     slashdot
lecan Joined: 07 Jan 2009 Posts: 13 Location: Belfast	Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:27 am    Post subject: "Now look here chaps" For me the issue is as I had described earlier Its not a critical topic, but the reality seems to be that PowerCadd cannot (now) achieve a hairline output quite as 'hairline' as some other programs - or as it used to be able to do - and thats definite - as far as i am concerned I can compare output from yrs ago with what I've got now. I've swopped printers, drivers and paper types and I personally have run out of options. I personally preferred the delicate and detailed effect that using a fine hairline would give in a presentation drawing. The quality of the drawing shone through - especially if one was involved in a competitive tender situation. I am involved in commercial interiors and not heavy engineering and I still feel entitled to use the intuitive program that I 'cut my teeth on' over some 10+ yrs ago. I just wonder is it an issue that is fixable with a little input from minds far more technical than mine
Back to top	share:   blogger     del.icio.us     digg     slashdot
Alfred Scott Joined: 15 Apr 2004 Posts: 749 Location: Richmond, VA	Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:33 am    Post subject: To draw a line in Quartz (which is what PowerCADD uses), in the programming you do this: MoveTo(x,y); LineTo(x,y); Stroke; That's it. When you set a line width, it is set in points (1/72"), which is the coordinate system used for all of Quartz and also in PowerCADD. There is no difference between drawing a line for the screen or for a printer, and you don't know what type of printer, graphics card or monitor is being used. And the process where all this goes through the system and onto your monitor or printer varies with the machine, operating system versions and graphics cards. Go to Apple website and search for Core Graphics to see all the ways this can happen and how it is, and will be, changing over time. And in PowerCADD, you can set your line sizes to inches, millimeters or points, but the inches and millimeter settings are simply a user display of the line size, which is always in points. There are things that can be done to get the best performance out of graphics cards and a lot of work went into this in PC8 and that's why the program draws quickly on the screen. Alfred
Back to top	share:   blogger     del.icio.us     digg     slashdot
lecan Joined: 07 Jan 2009 Posts: 13 Location: Belfast	Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:33 am    Post subject: Hi Alfred Hmm.......Was that a politicians answer ? "There are things that can be done to get the best performance out of graphics cards" - or do I detect a glimmer of hope......
Back to top	share:   blogger     del.icio.us     digg     slashdot
raleighross Joined: 12 Aug 2004 Posts: 393 Location: Raleigh, NC	Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:13 pm    Post subject: lecan wrote: Hmm.......Was that a politicians answer ? "There are things that can be done to get the best performance out of graphics cards" - or do I detect a glimmer of hope...... I'll bet he's alluding to what was done to make PC8 so much faster than earlier versions. And it is.
Back to top	share:   blogger     del.icio.us     digg     slashdot
Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First

ArchitectureWeek DesignCommunity Forum Index » PowerCADD Discussion

Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous  1, 2