Topic Title

Yesterday I was doing some hatching on a floorplan that was brought in from AutoCAD and had the bright idea for a new DataCAD feature. What if you were able to set a tolerance amount for your contour search so that it would ignore small gaps based on the amount you had previously entered. If this has already been brought up then here is another vote

Thanks

I second that motion.

cheers to that

Greetings,

Yep, this would be a good thing. Kinda' like we had in the DC Sprint Line to Polyline...

It would also be great to have the Contour Search work on symbols and XRef's.

Here is a copy of a post from the beta domain on this topic.

Wow! Miguel what a great display / test! I would like to revoice an old previous wish for a miss distance setting for the contour search. Enter a miss distance (could be in In/MM or pixles) then when the countour search reaches a end point that's not closed it sweeps a radius around that point, if any points are within the radius, it measures the distance from the end point to each point within the radius and then "jumps" the gap to the point with the shortest distance. If there is no point with in the radius, then the countour is not closed message could appear. I think this would help a lot with those tiny little gaps that we can even zoom into enough to see . This doesn't really address the problem shown above with Miguels post because those items "should" be closed and not apply to this wish.

To add to this idea, if it reaches a point where there is no end point located, we should be prompted to pick a point to close the gap our self. The last point detected could be highlighted with the same marker used for symbol insert points.

I vote for this one as well. It i s very annoying when you think you have a closed area and you keep getting the not closed error message. If the area you are trying to contour search is very complicated it can take forever to find the problem and you may never find it. Then you have to spend the time tracing around it the old fashion way and you wind up spending twice the time.

I vote for this one as well.

My vote for this too.

Thanks,
Miguel