|
Posted by Jude on April 30, 2007, 4:49 pm
>> Does anybody have a 30" Monitor to do their CAD work and what is your
>> level
>> of satisfaction?
>
> I don't. If that's all you care about, you can stop reading here.
I'm not sure what you mean "if that all you care about." I have hand drawn
for a long time and got used to being able to read different information n a
regular sheet size without having to zoom twice in to something and then
zoom twice out and then compare what I saw on the first 2 zooms to other
information on the drawings that I have to AGAIN zoom in and then out, on
and on.
A bigger monitor, as long as the resolution is correct, is always better on
the eyes and ability to read more information on drawing without zooming.
>
> I have a 21" tube which I adore. Run the thing at 2048 x 1536 pixels
> and if I'm tired really should switch the UI to "big buttons".
I have a 19" and I don't adore it.
> There is still aliasing (I work light on black, unlike some Don's I
> could name) but it's fine grained enough not to be a distraction. The
> details don't smoosh together into bright blobs at reasonable levels
> of zoom out. That's something of an aesthetics issue, but I prefer to
> look at drawings that look like drawing not greeking.
>
> I used a 19" tube at 1600 x 1200 at the office for five years and it
> was... perfectly adequate.
Well, we obviously don't agree on what's adequate. I'll say that it
WORKABLE. One can do the work but it is far from the best experience.
> When the drivers for the 21" permitted 2048 pixels I suddenly found
> myself not maximizing my applications as much. I generally keep n apps
> open and would alt-tab between them. Now I keep the big apps (cad, 3d,
> painting) un maximized with bits of others showing to be monitored
> visually and grabbed by mouse (if that's what suits me at that
> moment). For apps like Photoshop (ok, ok, I'm using Elements) with
> unconstrained child palettes, I move them outside the app.
>
> I do keep a second tube around (currently a dump find... looks like
> maybe a 17", running at... whatever suits me. 1280 if I want the real
> estate. I was running at 800 the other day because the Illustrate
> options are pickyass in small type and the extra distance to the side
> monitor isn't good). Had a task correcting some drawings based on
> PDFed scans of faxes of field sketches. CAD on one tube, PDF on the
> other. Yeah, I have to turn my head a bit but it's better than
> switching windows to front on the one tube, imo. ymmv.
>
> There are times, less so with the monitor in a lower position than a
> higher one, when schlepping all the way across the monitor for a
> button or menu gets to be a distraction. UI people have a 2 second
> rule for responsiveness. There may be an n inch rule for head turning.
> And that is the issue. It's a head movment not just an eye flick. It
> probably wouldn't be as bad if I didn't wear glasses which put the
> nose piece right between my right eye and the upper left corner ;-).
> Still, it may be a consideration. Makes you learn the keyboard
> commands and that's good for you. Builds character. Increases
> employability.
>
> If you're running a wide 30" then I can see putting up CAD here and
> reference material next to it, or getting a better view of a web page
> or using more of them new fangled palette thingies (which I'm finally
> getting around to integrating into my workflow usefully). Or keeping
> the properties panel open ALL the time. Or properties AND palettes!
>
> I had a... musta been a 17" flat running at ... some stupid low cheap
> LCD pixel count at the last job. That was not enough. In order to work
> smoothly I had to print out those floor plans on real paper. And
> that's one of the problems I have with the LCDs. You want how much
> money for how much screen that will run how few pixels (and look how
> marginal)?
>
>> The resolution checks out with AutoCAD's suggestions on their site.
>
> I could only find:
>
> 1024x768 VGA with True Color (more under Vista)
>
> Is that what you mean, or something else?
>
> If so, sure we used to run on far less back in the day, but IMO unless
> you are talking special vision needs, assume 1280 minimal. I know I'm
> a freak with the 2048, but 1024 and you are just talking too crowded
> in this day and age. And CHUNKY on a 30". That's gotta be what... like
> 60ppi.
>
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap