Topic Title

I can't for the life of me think why these need to be two separate things. Both contain parameters for layers, clip cubes, and plot scale.

Conceptually, is there any reason that they cannot be integrated into a single menu?

Many of the user problems that I have to deal with center around the need to update both a GoTo View and an MSP Detail when doing something as simple as adding a single layer to a "detail."

I hope that this provokes some discussion.

I don't know if they can be combined. One is relatd to plot layout while the other is not. I know we can get the plot scale saved with a GTV but we can't orient it in relation to other GTV without MSP.

I would vote for having the ability to link GTV to MSP details so that when one is updated they both are.

...One is related to plot layout while the other is not.

Why not, AJ ?

For me both are sides of the same coin as different ways to check the result of a project detail, GTV on the screen, and MSP Detail in the paper sheet.
Why can't it be treated with the same source nature, what actually they are ?

Philip is right to suggest a discussion over this subject. I'd love to see arranged the "ability to link GTV to MSP details so that when one is updated they both are". My wish would be a bit ahead, for a future intelligent text handling, that both dimensioning styles and text strings would be dynamicaly associated to the plotting scale, what would allow that any change in the plotting scale of a MSP Detail would be accurately adjusted with this features.

Aren't fine things to concern ?

Thanks,
Miguel

Miguel,

My thinking is that GTV's serve a specific function to aid in the drawing while MSP Details serve an even more specialized purpose. I certainly don't want to answer for DataCAD itself. My answer was as most users an opinion.

I am sure that not every GTV is going to be a MSP detail so there must be some distinction between the 2. I do admit they are very related to each other but I find them different as well.

Perhaps they could be combined somehow. That said I would be very concerned as to the new animal that would be created. DataCAD has been the best software for maintaining how users use the program while they add in new features. A merging of the GTV & MSP details would be an interesting test to see how the way we use it now can be maintained after the merger.

Just my thoughts.

Maybe all I'm suggesting is to have a GoToView placed as a Detail (which we can do now) and to have a mechanism whereby that Detail automatically updates when the GoToView is updated. (Perhaps this would be an optional toggle)

In practice, virtually every Detail should have an associated GoToView for working on it. The "update in two places" thing is very confusing for some users.

Maybe all I'm suggesting is to have a GoToView placed as a Detail (which we can do now) and to have a mechanism whereby that Detail automatically updates when the GoToView is updated. (Perhaps this would be an optional toggle)

In practice, virtually every Detail should have an associated GoToView for working on it. The "update in two places" thing is very confusing for some users.

Phil,

I have no problem with this and should think an option for linking the GTV with the Detail a great idea. The orignal post sounded alot more intensive than a link.

...I am sure that not every GTV is going to be a MSP detail so there must be some distinction between the 2. I do admit they are very related to each other but I find them different as well.

Agreed. May be we can be outlining an old wish for a GTV manager, which would integrate the MSP Details (eventually derivated from there), plus plotting scales for screen and sheets, layers, pen tables, and a few more.

...
(this is not actually for now! I'd prefer to stretch the ideas much more.)

Thanks,
Miguel

...In practice, virtually every Detail should have an associated GoToView for working on it.

This is a point. I guess it might be handled right now. Although it looks as simple as it gets, many people don't use Multi-Layer plotting sheets because are not comfortable on this subject, or simply don't understand its clean relationship.

Thanks,
Miguel

Or some of us use it only sparingly because our techniques do not require it.

Or some of us use it only sparingly because our techniques do not require it.

I have to admit I used to use MSP much more. Now though with XREF's I can produce a much more WYSIWYG product. MSP still has it's uses though.