Modelspace.

We have some in-house macros that set the scale automatically for dims, text, symbols... making it quick and easy.

Simple.................It makes absolutely no sense to put them in aper space.

Paperspace...keeps file size smaller, but you lose interactive dimensioning update. During design we keep more stuff in Model, but when we get to CDs, each sheet is reviewed independently and must support itself independently. Also, control freak designer locks out design file and emails us when a revision is made. Actually, it works most of the time.

But those Macros sound promising... way too many roads to Rome

model space.
Viewports should do the scaling for you. We have CDL - change dimension layer command for viewports with many sizes on a page. (a.k.a.Change Dimension Layer)
Get personalized macros. Aloha!

Smaller file sizes with dims in paperspace? Seems like an apples for apples kind of thing but I guess anything is possable...

As a non-AutoCAD firm we use parametric software (ArchiCAD and VectorWorks) and because of this we always put notes, dimensions, and symbols in model space - because they are directly associated with the objects to which they refer. If we put them in paper space they would not be generated from and updated by their respective objects. Exceptions to this are some drawing title bars, some large blocks of text that are more or less "standard" for certain sheets, etc.

I once came across a fully dimensioned and noted drawing that had no scale! Apparently the dude that drew it zoomed out a little bit from paperspace before he dimensioned it. I stick to model space for this and a bunch more reasons. You can extend and trim dims to walls - turn off hatches that get in the way. It is WAY better to do dims in model space. Your new firm should pay the maximum green paper and forget about that other kind of paper. Tell 'em I said so.

I love how you always end your posts with a directive Dazed...

Model space for all text and notes except titleblock, general notes etc.

Aluminate - Well Said.
The Only Way To Go

for me, paperspace is nice but modelspace is more real.

All I put in paper space are sheet border and drawing titles.
Don't put that info (dims, notes, graphic indications, etc.) in paper space. What you are doing is a weird xref. Someday you will run into big troubles by separating your info over so many locations.
Keep it simple and all your info in as few locations as possible. You don't have to use all the bells and whistles to make ACAD work efficiently.

OK, just read Aluminate (above). There you have it.

MODEL SPACE is my personal preference... if you need different dims for different scales just do separate layers and use layer manager. A CAD whiz at the last office I worked at did a lot of it in paper space, but I think that's because he was old school and had been at it for many years and was stuck in his ways. The only reason I've ever needed top dimension in paper space was occasionally when I've wanted to do ims in clean space to the side of a detail which was part of a lerger drawing, for exaple a stair section, but it's a pain in the butt. The risk with having some stuff in paper space and some in model is if the plan is updated & you forget to do it on the sheet, woops... also, last place I worked some stuff was in model space (like dims), other stiff like notes on site plans was in model space, and trying to figure out who had put what layer where was insane.

Model Space
And don't use Autocrap

Paper.

You have greater control over the final aesthetic of the sheet, especially when you reference two or more X-refs at varying scales. Everyone who tells you that Model is better than Paper are people who have used no other CAD software than Autocad. Those drones...

are you still using autocad primarily meta?

Yep. Am now. While I love the view control of Autocad 2000 and up, we're finding the most stable software in our office is r14. But that's another thread, I guess.

Metaphoracle:
I'm open to learning something new.
If you have your floor plan xrefed into model space and dimension it in model space then scale a view into paper space, what are the advantages of working only in paper space?

most stable? r14? i have been running 2004 on network and have experienced no problems. two xrefs varying scales? what are you xrefing?

if you are really gifted with AutoCAD (which very few of us are - don't even kid yourself) it almost doesn't matter.

We had this "gee-whiz" arch-tech who had all of them in modelspace with special filters and macros that changed for each sheet and each plotter we used - no one could figure it out but him, grrr.

Anyhow for another project he did it the other way, having just the plain drawing in 3d in modelspace. In paperspace you then saw the elevation, sections, and all the other fun stuff - dimensions, notations, et al.

He wanted to convince us that it made things easier when we were chanigng stuff around - but in reality it needed so much tweeking that it was at time easier to adjust things using layer control....

anyhow that's just my two cents - caio

i once worked at a firm that would first make the drawings, lock all the layers, and then put notes and dimensions directly on top of the drawings in model space. much better was the last firm i worked at, that creates a series of masterfiles and print files. the master files contain the basic drawing and the print files contain notes and dimensions. and yeah, they are all in model space. working in paper space would be annoying because of the scaling issue.

Gustav:

I'm arguing for placing all text in true paper space so that text height is actually 3/32" instead of 4 1/2' in its original form. Also, I find that you have greater control over the end result. Things can be repositioned and are negotiable without having to enter into other drawings.

Betadinesutures:

In practice, you may want to reference a stair drawing at 3/8" = 1' and still have room on the sheet for some 1 1/2" = 1' details. I despise coordinating text heights from differently scaled drawings. I just want to make all text 1/8" in its most native natural form.

Metaphoracle

Gustav:

I'm arguing for placing all text in true paper space so that text height is actually 3/32" instead of 4 1/2' in its original form. Also, I find that you have greater control over the end result. Things can be repositioned and are negotiable without having to enter into other drawings.

Betadinesutures:

In practice, you may want to reference a stair drawing at 3/8" = 1' and still have room on the sheet for some 1 1/2" = 1' details. I despise coordinating text heights from differently scaled drawings. I just want to make all text 1/8" in its most native natural form.

Metaphoracle

funny i have stair drawings, stage drawings all with multiple scaled viewports and have plenty of room for all text, dimensions symbols etc...i don't see the problem, and i certainly don't see the need to scale an xref...

with 2004 coordinating differing dim styles is a snap.

When you are in model space, you can set your master dimensioning and leader text height to be the same throughout. Staying in model space, you can change your dimensioning scale and the text will remain the same height. I'm not a cad expert, but that is how I work.
Is it possible to bind your dimensions with your xref drawing if the dimensions are in paper, if the need arises?

i have found it to be problematic to create addendum and bulletin sketches when your text is in paper space.