If you want batch processing you'll probably have to go down the 2D exchange route if you can. Either that or write a batch converter of your own in NX-open. If you're not already using blockfont then try changing your font to test whether that gives you a better result. Sometimes Autocad, if you're not familiar, may present with white text on a white background, you may need to swap views to see the results. Try also other DXF viewers to check your results, (there are many readily available on the internet including several freeware programs). I'm not a frequent Autocad user of late so if you're likr me then help from somebody familiar with it may prove useful.
If you try to export drawing formats views etc using straight DXF into Autocad you generally wind up with a bit of a mess. You can go the CGM route and keep the text as text, or render it to lines and arcs, (there is a switch in teh export cgm dialog for this). Sorry but your dimensions were never going to work worth bothering with in any case.
When you do export text via DXF almost regardless of technique you have a situation where in Autocad the font will default to something closely equivalent to blockfont. The problem that I usually encounter with that is that few of the drawings I have tried to covert actually used blockfont, so the character spacing was a;ways off.
For the main customers who want our UG drawings converted into Autocad I have adopted a strategy that works for me. I created some drawing formats that have been pre-dumbed down. By dumbed down I meant that all the attractive fonts and closely spaced text logos etc have been rendered to lines and arcs and saved as pattern files for use in drawing templates for that customer. Then I elected to use blockfont for the text that I knew would appear on the other areas on the face of the drawing. Now by running the macro and allowing that the cgm file to create text where it can I get a manageable result in Autocad. I've had to compromise to do it but it seemed that the limitations of converting the data represented the lowest common denominator.
I suppose some people would have put more resources into overcoming these limitations to improve their results, but at the end of the day I thought that the likely benefits would be marginal and decided to work around the problem in the simplest way rather than waste too much more time on it. Having tried quite a few things before reaching this point I would offer you the benefit of that experience and advise that you tailor your expectations to what the software is capable of.
Like yours our organization runs Teamcenter and we consider the UG-NX model data to be the the master product definition. Surely Since fully associative drawing views won't form part of what you're able to translate into Autocad any other thoughts of making the design maintainable across what are basically incompatible CAD systems seems untenable. Whether the fonts work or not therefore represented to us a challenge to make the copy in Autocad legible without expecting anything beyond that level of capability.
Hoping that you'll get something from this
Best regards
Hudson.
