track in autocad lines and polyline from coordinates on excel or csv files

[enzoibba]

Good morning
use autocad map from different time
I would like to know if there is the way to automatically track and flycemetne lines whose starting and end coordinates are indicated in a table of excels, such as that exportable in a csv file, and of which I attach an example?
Thank you.

 

[GP.]

1) in a cell write line2) in the right cell split =concatena(d1;"); e1) or the line start coordinate
3) in the cell still right write =concatena(f1;";g1) or the end line coordination
4) in the cell still right do one space that is equivalent, in autocad to press sending
5) select the four cells, then the + black that appears on the bottom right of the selection and drags down to the last line that contains data
6) ctrl + c of all selection
7) in autocad, from command line, ctrl + vIf you take your hand, it'll take 10 seconds.

 

[enzoibba]

Thank you so much for the answer!
I had read something like this, but I couldn't proceed because the indications always gave for granted some passage or minimal concept, but for those who do not chew every day these topics, so discounted are not.
your indications were instead of an exemplary clarity and completeness!
Thank you very much
but I add two things
1) the system separator for decimals must be adjusted in excel: I had set the comma so some lines tracked her others became points etc. once changed the Separator for decimals from comma to point, it was a moment to trace the lines!
2) at a certain point though in the columns of the coordinates all numbers were approximated to the second decimal digit, between row 111 and row 112 at a certain point in the chain column the rounding is gone and from the second decimal digit appeared a nine periodical! I couldn't understand why, I had to apply the formula rounding function in the cell that originated the mysterious behavior! to better understand I attach images
thanks again and good work to allhowever who would like to try there is the original file that I had posted in opening the discussion
Hi.

 

[exxon]

the rounding has disappeared and from the second decimal number a nine periodic appeared!

like when using a screwdriver or a lathe, even for a tool like excel, you need to know what you take in hand, whether to do a sensible job, or not to get hurt.

excel is not a mathematical tool, and to use it you must be aware of its limitations. In the specific case, you must know the way it stores the variables and how the repeated sum of small amounts to even not particularly large numbers, means to go to encounter accumulations of error.

Unfortunately, to understand these mechanisms it is necessary a bit of mathematics that, from most people (and also from some engineers) is considered useless matter or even spoof from those who illustrate the need.

the propagation of errors is exquisitely mathematical matter and those who studied it (and understood) immediately develops the internal alarm when very different dimensional numbers are approached, when subtractions between very similar numbers and for other cases a little more complicated.

when these operations are repeated on the same variables for a high number of times (as is the case of the op), the result is discounted. In fact, they are situations that are solved easily, but it is necessary to understand where the error was generated (memorization of the variable in binary format) and how the same propagated (summ of order numbers of different size).

in most cases, it is enough to round, but sometimes rounding puts a tombstone over calculation errors that would not have to be neglected (see the case of subtractions...) and you get a completely wrong result.

excel is a tool suitable to make the accounts of the expense and little more. the use by engineers (including some who have elected it to the sole instrument for the solution of universal calculations) is a risk that most assumes without even knowing it, assuming that a computer does not miss the sums and that if the formula inserted is correct, so will also be the result.

the automatic rounding in the presentation of the results is one of the worst defects of this tool (cause of the problem detected by the op). the other is the insufficient accuracy of the storage of variables (64 bits).

there are other tools (matlab, to say one) that are made especially for scientific calculations. Unfortunately (for some, but fortunately for others) are more complex tools to use, but they also make the difference between "excel-based" engineers and others.

 

[GP.]

...the rounding has disappeared and from the second decimal number a nine periodic appeared. . .

It's the last of your problems, you can leave them quietly without any rounding.
autocad displays at most 8 decimals, so also setting them all you would still see the rounded number.
Unless you're dealing with genetic engineering and dna... :

excel is a tool suitable to make the accounts of the expense and little more. the use by engineers... .

Perhaps the first statement is a bit exaggerated, but sti engineers...

 

[+forte]

always funny "sentence"
Maybe "sentence" forgets the programming language integrated in excel: visual basic for applications
and perhaps he does not know that excel vba courses for engineers even at nasa, e.g.:https://www.amazon.it/engineering-analysis-modeling-excel-vba-course/dp/1482332752

 

[Cristallo]

when I graduated (eons ago) the first electronic calculators to "10 digits" began to come out, meaning that they represented a number with 10 digits, between the whole and the decimal part. they did not write, nor did they pass data elsewhere. You transcribed it on paper.
then after a few years on the market came the 12 digits, and it was then that I actually realized that 2 extra digits allowed you to do amazing things :d
the absurd thing is that some time before, born with a computer whose memory was ferrite nuclei, brought on the moon of people with a 3-line display of 5 digits, without decimals. What arrogant dolls, playing with people's lives with five digits...
later I met an engineer who designed with the computer ruler, and I thought: that they cheer, pulls up a building with a ruler where nothing stands out. who was lying to him who was trying to build bridges with a stumento that is not even suitable to count potatoes in the basket. but today (and only today) the engineers are such, before they were a bit like those halls with salt and powder that are spread for doctors :d

 

[exxon]

reading comments to my posts is always educational... the myopia that draws from some of them is in itself a confirmation of my own statements.

think, crystal, that the ruler used it too... who really learned to use the ruler (or the numerical tables) clearly has the concept of approximation and propagation of errors. who instead thinks that ten digits, twelve, or even sixteen "bastine and leftover", is like the blind who crosses the highway trusting his own stick.

 

[Cristallo]

If you really had used it, there would be no need to philosopher on the propagation of errors.
the numerical tables of which you speak, usually report a print to 6-8 decimals (evidently more than satisfactory for the use to which they are directed).
say of a tool that manages 2^64 digits (over 18 billion) that is good for shopping, it means that when you used the ruler or the numerical tables you were weighing 4 oxygen atoms with the stadera. Mah.
but the concept is quite clear to the most: you have wrong study address. You are more humanist, given your displaced propensity to philosophy.
in all cases, those who have absorbed the concepts of error theory, have well known that the error is not eliminated, that many times it self-compensates with a subsequent error of opposite sign and that being undeleteable must be managed to make so that you feel in that range that has no significant impact on the final result sought (not null, but not significant).
Actually, the image I'm making of your way of thinking is this:

And I think I'm not alone.

p.s. known a similarity between the avatars and the character... But isn't it that you're pija for the foundls? ?

 

[ale47p]

reading comments to my posts is always educational... the myopia that draws from some of them is in itself a confirmation of my own statements. . .

I can only learn from your "technical" posts, but when you write that "excel is fine to do the expense accounts and a little more" it is obvious that you are just provoking.
Okay, you enjoy us, and I hope that people will continue to listen to you, to quote, to answer. . .

we excel use it massively, both stand-alone and interfaced with software written by us in visual basic, and we benefit from it immensely in everyday work compared to other companies in which I worked, where it is done in other ways. and we don't even use it for 5% (maybe) compared to its potential.

Do others do without? we use it, and we gain. We can't help it anymore.
Obviously the most specialized software for calculations we do not need, not for this reason must be snobbed excel, please. op is working, could be offensive to him.
I doubt that I'm advising the housewives who do the shopping, in any case it would have cmq my respect.

is the user if anything that must be able to use the software well and be able to verify its results.
here has not doubted the importance of mathematics applied to mechanics. That's out of line.
the remainder are only arrows addressed to some users related to other discussions here and there in the forum.

p.s. known that your brain compares too often apples with pears, op must pull lines in autocad starting from reading the values of some excel cells, is not using excel for calculations that you think that people expect excel to be able to do instead of them, without knowing how to make them with paper and pen. one has a doubt about why of a cell with a "packed" rounding...and breaks the dam...more or less like in your answer of the other day in the discussion in which a guy wants to draw the pc case...you immediately poisoned against 3d printers, arduino, youtube and photoshop crackkato... :roflmao: make a joint, relax. ..good Sunday

 

[exxon]

I repeat, pointing out that strangers' insults slip above me. are if anything an interesting means to see the reactions of a certain part of the moderation of the site that uses more weights and more measures. small things anyway. . .

we come instead to the technical part, much more interesting.

say of a tool that manages 2^64 digits (over 18 billion) that is good for shopping, it means that when you used the ruler or the numerical tables you were weighing 4 oxygen atoms with the stadera.

see, if you are convinced that excel "manage" 2^64 digits... Then it is clear why you cannot understand the meaning of my interventions. Unfortunately (for you), those 64 bits are used for storing variables in a much more complex way than a simple binary coding.

I doubt that you might be interested, but in case you should look for iee 754, we Europeans accepted as iec 60559:1989. You would find that the amplitude of the values that can be represented with those 64 bits is much wider than you believe (from about 10^-308 to 10^308), but you might also see that this is not the only parameter to take into account, and above all that precision has nothing to do with the number above.

for those who are really interested in the matter, let us give some information of some value.

As I mentioned above, the excel problem is the storage of all variables with a single data format, 64-bit mobile comma (the "double" of programming languages). in order to avoid that in the accounting calculations (traget of the spreadsheets), the representation in mobile comma created "not full" numbers, each cell contains a distinct rounded representation system, which satisfies the accountant's eye.

it goes without saying that this system of calculation and visualization very little adapts to the scientific calculation, but the more seem to ignore it. all programming languages, and purely scientific calculation programs (see matlab above), allow instead the choice of the type of variable according to its use. choice that remains in charge of the programmer who, of course, must know what he is doing.

excel hides these "questions" by simplifying the approach to numerical calculation, a little like arduino hides all the problems of "embedded" design, making it easy for anyone to amaze friends and relatives with some special effects.

microsoft does not hide the limits of excel, indeed, writes articles with titles completely unequivocal

"floating-point arithmetic may give inaccurate results in excel".

articles in which it also admits that their mobile storage system follows the ieee 754 specifications "almost entirely". in his documents also describes how certain numbers are "adapted" at the moment to reduce (in their opinion...) the most obvious errors.

It should be said that the basic problem (not the "adaptations" above) is not excel's fault, but it is a predictable behavior of the encoding system in mobile comma. a calculation executed with excel or with a different program that stores data on variables with identical coding, will give the same results. the "colpa" is in not having any other codifiches (integer, decimal, etc.) and in hiding this need to the user who believes are useless (see previous comments).

Let us make an example: if we evaluate the expression

(a + b + c )

with

= 1.2
b = 1.1.1
= -0.1

it is easy to make the calculation "in mind" and assert that the result is zero. Let's try with excel
The error is obvious. we try the same thing in vb.net
using the same type of variables (double), the result is the same.
It is enough, however, to use a different type of variable (decimal) for numbers... incriminated, and the result becomes what you should expect.
a penultimate comment for those who will say that of a mistake of 10^-16 they care because it is small: error must be evaluated compared to true value, not in absolute terms. If from an operation I expect a value of 2x10^-16 and I find myself an error of 1x10^-16, the error is 50%.

a last comment for those who will say that they work with meters and kilograms and that of small values do not interest: if the result of one of those operations should be multiplied by the number of avogadro (6.022x10^22) or divided by the charge of the electron (1.602x10^-19), the error would no longer be so insignificant. . .

I conclude by pointing out that everything above does not mean that excel should not be used, but that its limitations should be known before entrusting ourselves as if it were the nirvana of automatic calculation, because it is not. wonder and wonder why in the cells appear "magically" of the unexpected numbers is an indication of not having clear the limits of use of this tool. This is what I think is wrong, not its use.

 

[Cristallo]

for those who are really interested in the matter, let us give some information of some value.

I had no doubt that you were going to the chair. Are you going with the toga or the white dress and the fury bag?

Let us make an example: if we evaluate the expression

(a + b + c )

with

= 1.2
b = 1.1.1
= -0.1

it is easy to make the calculation "in mind" and assert that the result is zero. Let's try with excel

It's obvious... compare the value 1.2 with in -1.38 ^-16, I find it highly significant, as I told you and you voluntarily and beautifully glamored.tu non capisci!! the error of 1/18 billionth billionaire. or holy lady.
if that error you indicated was reported to the meters, the error would be of the size of a single proton, which we remember for the non-attached, is about 1/1000 of the nucleus of the atom, which in turn is 1/10000 of the atom itself.

in these conditions if we shoot a bullet from here, we risk not to hit the march. then that we care that a batitto of wings of a swallow in the neighboring village sends to putt... all calculation at the sixteenth decimal. the swallow is not in the calculation (the sin is in life).

But... ... why didn't you give the same example to excel, decuplicating all values? the nature of the calculation does not change. Please bring it back, let's see if you have the "substance". You have the "substance" right?
Then he talks about arduino and special effects... The special effects you want to do, you want to introduce yourself as the leonardo of the 2000s. You want to make the splendid your interese is just this, fury.
but you're just ringing a series of slim figures of social nature.


wants to multiply the approximation of the calculation of excel with the avogadro constant. In fact, the ingenuity changes the life badly if a beam contains 1000 more or less iron atoms.
in all cases it is enough to insert the function "=arrotonda (num;15)" to bring everything back to normal assuming an uncertainty in the order of one millionth of billionth.

Unfortunately (for you), those 64 bits are used for storing variables in a much more complex way than a simple binary coding.

is not a simple binary encoding, it is simply a long word, used in vbnet, in c, in php.

Hello furious.

 

[exxon]

sin there are no preconditions for an information exchange of some value. . .

made only this question: if a simple tool like excel using rounded "double" was more than enough for all calculations with the precisions you say, why should you ever use more complex tools (see matlab) with a much steeper learning curve? only for those who use it? mhhh... it seems strange to me, but certainly not to you.

 

[Cristallo]

furious.. .
because the use of the application is based on the result you need.
but you will never understand it, from above yours Philosopher.
It is highly useless (not recommended, useless indeed) to think of repairing a car with the screwdriver from orology. So how useless it is to repair a watch with the mechanical screwdriver.

the balls (this time I tell you for extended) to bring back your own example on excel with the enlarged numbers of an order, don't you?
♪
b=
♪
is excel's resultd???? up makes an effort


It's that you like to explore the endless and infinitesimal corners to propulse your "stove is a beard." Will it be a psychological form of compensation? investigate.

 

[exxon]

the balls (this time I tell you for extended) to bring back your own example on excel with the enlarged numbers of an order, don't you?
♪
b=
♪
is excel's resultd???? up makes an effort

see, I had already answered you before, writing that unfortunately there is no possibility of a constructive discussion.

If you had understood how mobile comma numbers are stored, you would understand that the example you bring is meaningless: are just some of the numbers that are stored with approximation, and only some operations make these approximations dangerous for final results.

Don't you brag, it's complicated. keeps posting videos that are always fun.

 

[Cristallo]

You're right. (but it is as I say). :

 

[+forte]

If you don't know how to use excel I believe you
to me your sum comes zero, don't miss the secret:I didn't touch him.

 

[+forte]

I did so too:

 

[exxon]

just confirming what I wrote above.. .

 

[+forte]

to you came -1,3877.........................................................