Conversion Autocad En Pdf

[Jacinda Saleeby]

Tryingto convert dimensions of old ACAD drawings, to show both mm and inches from just inches (or feet and inches). The problem is that being a global company, they want to show mm as the primary, and (feet &) inches as the alternate. This problem comes in 2 parts:

2) Thinking that I have the first part done (mathematically at least), I have a conversion from inches to mm, which shows everything OK in it's correct place, showing feet and inches, BUT it shows the metric part in mm not in meters. I've tried playing around with the factor of 1000 to convert mm into meters and get nowhere logical at least.

I am not sure about reversing the dimensions but I am happy to take a stab at it for you. Can you attach a sample file or email it to me? I will also look at the conversion issue and let you know what I discover.

This was done from a new drawing I'm currently creating. I was playing around with it, to see what I needed to do to have the desired effect. So as yet, there is no specific drawing example - draw a rectangle in inches, add a dimension, then set up the primary and alternate units as shown in the attachments and hopefully, you should get the same results.

Now that AutoCAD 2017 will convert a pdf to a drawing, is there a way to block conversion? Our AutoCAD drawings are our business products and are therefore proprietary information. We use pdf's to share drawings in a manner that allows clients and other stakeholders to see what we have created without "giving away the farm." If a pdf can now be easily converted to AutoCAD drawing, how to I protect myself from an unscrupulous client that will give the file to another designer that can use my hard work to create a cheap product?

Whilst it is indeed new to AutoCAD 2017, the ability to convert PDFs to DWGs is anything but new. There have long been tools to facilitate this conversion. I have personally used Adobe Illustrator for years to make DWGs of details in vendor cut sheets (received as PDF).

Recognizing the ability to convert PDF to DWG is far from new technology, I have to imagine the truly unscrupulous clients of the world have been using such conversion tools for years now. Thus it's only fair to ask whether you've found yourself "giving away the farm" over the last decade since the introduction of PDF publishing in AutoCAD 2007?

I don't mean this as an attack, but I just don't see the business benefit of plagiarizing another companies work. Let's keep in mind, even with the AutoCAD PDF conversion tool, some cleanup is necessary to create a production drawing from a converted PDF. For the sake of argument, let's assume a company is willing to invest the time to clean up that DWG, the bigger issue of plagiarizing is liability. Design firms carry insurance for errors and omissions. The fine print of such policies certainly have exclusions for things like plagiarism/piracy. No firm in their right mind is going to assume liability for the work of another firm (especially when their insurance is unlikely to cover them for such unscrupulous behavior).

Beyond that, good clients realize they are buying much more than a stack of drawings from you. They are buying your expertise, your ability to create an economical design, your superior customer service, and many other intangible benefits of doing work with your company. If your clients are shopping jobs around to unscrupulous firms willing to plagiarize the work of other firms, you have a client-relationship problem - not a technology problem.

If I use the method described in the link that you provided, I am, indeed, able to produce a raster pdf which is useless when attempting to convert the pdf back to a dwg. The catch is that when you override the shade plot options, the plot style pen tables are also ignored. Consequently, you end up with a color pdf that does not represent the monochrome pdf that you are expecting.

It is worth noting that this only works when plotting from model space. If you are plotting from a layout, the Shaded viewport options>Shade Plot in the Plot dialog box is grayed out. You can, however select your viewport, enter its properties, and change the shade plot there. If you do that, the result is a raster/vector pdf hybrid. Everything within the viewport is rasterized, but everything in paper space is still vectors, so only the paper space portion can be converted to dwg.

In summary, if you need to produce a pdf of a plan set that looks like a hardcopy, you're stuck with two choices. You can create a vector pdf which can be converted to dwg (albeit a dwg that will take a lot of work to be useful). If you don't want your resultant pdf to be easily convertible, you can plot a hard copy and scan it (if you're fortunate enough to own a large scale scanner) to create a raster file.

I don't like the Shadeplot options either. I plot to a high quality PDF, open the PDF in my reader program and Print it again to another PDF which will result in a raster PDF. It could still be attached to a drawing but it doesn't at least convert to vector linework.

I just came across the PDFIMPORT routine today for the first time. My father (who is my business partner) asked the same question. We came up with the idea of printing the PDF from AutoCAD to PDF using Adobe as well. It would be nice if Autodesk would offer printing it to a raster image rather than vector.

I am trying this Solution and it is NOT working for me... and I am wondering if it this because of the new PDFIMPORT functionality in newer versions of AutoCAD 2018? I printed it to PDF in AutoCAD, opened it Acrobat Reader DC printed it again (even tried a different name, to make sure.) and PDFIMPORT was still able to convert the 2nd generation PDF to AutoCAD geometry.

So my question is... does the same thing happen to other people using AutoCAD 2018 on Windows 10? (And this solution needs to be updated...) Or is this solution still working for them in AutoCAD 2018? ...If so whats the secrete?

I have found that if I export to BMP file format first in AutoCAD then open the BMP File and save that to a PDF; it will no longer convert, but the quality of the BMP is horrible, so the PDF is even worse.

I have a client that is converting the saved PDF to a TIFF then saving it back to a PDF then the quality is much better, but that is several steps, to create a protected PDF that will not convert back to AutoCAD Objects.

I'm not sure if this should be in AutoCAD or Revit forums but in the last couple years I'm dealing with more and more architects using Revit and having to use base files in my AutoCAD or Civil3D which were clearly originally in Revit (I'm a civil eng). I'm receiving files of all kinds of varying quality files. Some files are just OK where if I try to align property lines from a survey CAD file to a property line from the architect's base, it is "almost" correct. But other architects' files are absolutely awful where all the lines are being exploded into random lengths/ and not aligning or connecting (almost like it was somehow converted to a low quality pdf then back to a CAD drawing file). Whenever I speak to the architecture firm about the issue they act like I'm speaking a foreign language and throw up their hands like I'm crazy. To be fair, it might be driving me crazy. It causes me to have to essentially redraw site plans over and over again so they can be properly dimensioned etc. It only seems to have started in the last couple years but is definitely increasing. Does anyone else have experience with this or know what I can tell an architect firm about how to export the Revit file correctly? Or is this just how Revit conversions now function (aka absolutely terribly)?

I have a feeling they are exploding CAD files in their file. When you explode CAD in Revit, It's messy. It breaks it into thousands of line styles and pieces. They might be brining in a CAD file of questionable value, exploding it in Revit to then manipulating it however they want it to look on their views. In turn, when they export it to you, it's rough. Exploding CAD file is a big no no in Revit, but a lot of people still do it. Most newer architects now, don't know CAD either. You could ask them to reframe from exploding CAD file in their Revit file, but it all comes down to user knowledge and experience of why you don't explode files. No matter how many times I tell my users not to, they continue to do it.

You probably don't have a Revit subscription, so this may not help you. But if someone wants dwg from me, I just give them my Revit file, and let them deal with extracting what they want. I see that Civil likely never will use Revit, so dwg still is needed.

That also wouldn't help you if the Revit file includes " manipulated" imported dwg. So short of educating the architects on how to handle that better, there likely isn't much to do. You could add a fee to your contracts if they don't provide data in a format that works for you.

I got the same result from converting your roof. It might be the two different pitches used which is an interesting approach which I'm not familiar. I try to use the same pitch on adjacent slopes as it is easier to frame, roof. It helps with the fascia That's just something from where I live which could be different. That said, filling in those voids is an easy task as the ridges are all defined. I traced the outline from the original roof and converted that to a slab. Once I had the slab I changed the valley and hip edges to plumb cut. Once you have that you can shift the vertices into place as needed and the roof slab will maintain pitch.

Crazy how often i hear that, whereas from my perspective its been a really common thing the last 15 years or so, like i don't know the last time i saw a new residential build that didn't have a 16" rise or two on it. I always assumed we were behind the trends lol.

Anyway, thanks for the help but im an absolute mess with roof slabs, i can't successfully model a roof using slabs to save my life, like you mentioned spotting the vertex's into place, honestly i cant even do that, the entire thing just turns into the iron throne >>

3a8082e126