January 19, 2011

ACA Section Tail Scaling

Here is a heads up to anyone who may be placing Section Marks with "tails" in Model Space from a Layout through a Viewport. The AecCallout command has an apparent defect in the way it creates the anonymous block for the tail. It works fine when placing the Section Mark from the "Model tab" (when "Model" or TILEMODE 1, rather than a "Layout" or TILEMODE 0 is current). It also works correctly when in a Layout and working through a Viewport when the scale of the Viewport is the same as the scale set for "Model".

But if the Viewport's scale is not the same as the "Model" scale, then the anonymous block that gets created is improperly sized. The correct annotation scale (matching that of the Viewport) is applied to the tail block, but the improper size of the block definition results in the final block displaying the same size as one placed through a Viewport that has the same scale as "Model".

To avoid this problem, you can do one of the following:
  • Place all callouts from the "Model tab" (TILEMODE 1), setting the desired drawing scale prior to placement.
  • Remember to switch to "Model"/TILEMODE 1 and set the drawing scale to match that of the Viewport and then switch back to the Layout.
  • Place the callout in the Viewport and then, after placement, change X-scale factor of the block to get it to be the right size [Viewport scale factor/Model scale factor]. The anonymous block created has uniform scaling, so the change to the X-scale factor will be applied to the Y- and Z-scale factors as well.
I imagine that I would generally be placing the callout in TILEMODE 1, but if not, I would most likely change the scale factor of the anonymous block, rather than hopping back and forth from "Model" to "Layout". As noted in this thread in the AutoCAD® Architecture Discussion Group, this problem has been observed in the 2009, 2010 and 2011 releases.

The block at the other end of the Section Mark, displaying the Section Number and, possibly, the Sheet Number, does not suffer from this defect.

No comments: