Author Topic: .stb´s vs. .ctb´s (Read 10708 times)

tombon · « **on:** Oct 29, 2006, 00:10:15 AM »

Named plot style tables (.stb´s) seem like the more modern method. I assume that they are more flexible. Is anyone using them? Is there anything in the CADduct software that prohibits their use?

fishandchips · « **Reply #1 on:** Oct 29, 2006, 02:20:51 AM »

I'm kinda old school when it comes to plotting - trying to get my mind around stb's makes my brain hurt. We have one fella uses lineweight with ctb, the rest of us stick with ctb. If it isn't broke - why fix it.

Alemus3D · « **Reply #2 on:** Oct 29, 2006, 15:38:24 PM »

I am with you Ray! You ether go one direction or the other, and the direction that most of the people using CADduct is taking is towards .ctb's.
It is hard enough for Andy and the guys from MAP to keep up with our wish list, therefore; we need to be more conscience on the direction that we are taking and in order to accomplish that we need to standardize as much as possible to help create a more sound design program.
Tombon, I think this one will create some discussion.

Let me know how you feel about this.

tombon · « **Reply #3 on:** Oct 30, 2006, 03:57:32 AM »

I appreciate the value of not leaving one´s comfort zone, especially with a large staff. But with that said, are .ctb´s better to use than .stb´s?

And it sounds like good advice to go in one direction or the other. But why is that direction .ctb´s for most people? Is it just because they have been around longer?

Isn´t MAP promoting ABS which uses .stb´s by default? I really don´t know. Just wondering.

c2k · « **Reply #4 on:** Oct 30, 2006, 14:50:52 PM »

AutoCAD'S default is to use Color Dependent Plot Styles or ctb's according to the help file. From what I have read stb's are more powerful because they are not limited to 255 colors but they are much more cumbersome. My ABS installation appears to have ctb's setup as default, but that may have been a question it asked me when I installed it, I don't remember. As to which one to use, it sounds to me like it's a matter of opinion. I use ctb's and like them. The little bit that I have dealt with stb's, I thought it was messy. But in their defense it was somebody else's stb and maybe they just didn't do a good job creating it.

krstohr · « **Reply #5 on:** Apr 16, 2007, 18:18:47 PM »

My research has brought me to the conclusion that STB's are the best way to go, but CADduct will not plot Object Text correctly. Until this s fixed, plotting with STB's will cause object text to plot at the same lineweight as the duct, not the lineweight assigned to the object's layer.

Sean · « **Reply #6 on:** Apr 22, 2008, 15:55:47 PM »

I've started using stb's about a year ago, and am sold. We're a design build contractor so I receive countless changes in backgrounds(around 100 over 4 years). Stb's allow me to xref in arch's drawings and within seconds the drawings/backgrounds can plot correctly. Since architechs are inconsistent with their layers and color's inside of blocks ctb's require a redo of the background. I loved the days when I had the time to use laytrans and bind drawings together... but I can't.

Now that we've stepped our "build" potion of our company to CADduct I'm getting a little frustrated that we can't use stb's, or everything (text, insulation, duct, connectors) is all the same thickness.

VirtualPilot · « **Reply #7 on:** Apr 23, 2008, 13:28:04 PM »

I'm old school also, I am so darn used to colors having different pen settings that I know by heart exactly what each color that I used is going to give me for plotting results, I do not have a need for more than a hadful of pen settings, much less more than 255

cam-nav · « **Reply #8 on:** Mar 12, 2010, 19:38:58 PM »

I have been plotting with multiple view ports in paper space and would like to know if there is a way to specify different .ctb PER view port. I have not been successful.

If you go into a view port(model space) there are options in the properties to specify a .ctb but if you switch view ports(model space) the .ctb you specified for the other view port is now active.

Darren Young · « **Reply #9 on:** Jan 10, 2014, 16:04:27 PM »

While STB's on the surface appear to be more logical and make common sense, Autodesk has never implemented them fully.

Go to the Dimstyle properties....you can set color to dimension parts. This then allows a CTB to control color and pen weight.

If you use an STB, you can't control the pen weight of a dimstyle via the STB, you need to manage those settings independently in each dimstyle.

Plotting, Color and Pen weights use to be easy. CTB controlled everything. Now Visual Styles control some things and not others but only depending on certain plot settings. If you throw STB's into the mix, you're further fragmenting where all those plotting settings take place, some in the plot settings, some in the visual styles. If you use STB's, them some now also controlled in the STB, some in the Dimstyles, etc.

That's why I don't advocate using STB's. Just further complicates where things truly take place.

However the point is valid, they seem to be more logical and intuitive on the surface. If Autodesk truly supported them and made them integrated throughout the product, I'd likely switch. But it hasn't happened in over a decade. I'm not holding my breath.