TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => CAD Standards => Topic started by: ELOQUINTET on June 25, 2004, 11:54:45 AM
-
do not edit dimensions:
this means editing the text <>
or changing precision of dimension
-
do not edit dimensions:
this means editing the text <>
or changing precision of dimension
Hi eloquintet, I fully agree.
Can I suggest you edit your post's title to read "Dimensions shall be kept fully associative"? Thanks. :)
Edit: You did, thanks! :)
-
do not edit dimensions:
this means editing the text <>
or changing precision of dimension
I believe that when editing existing dimensions, angle brackets ( <> ) display indicating that the default dimension text is used. This is done so that you can still have associative dimensions with additional text.
-
I don't think Dan meant that one should not ADD a prefix or suffix, just DON'T edit the <>......we dim to the nearest 1/16 here. Exception would be drill&taps ... instead of editing the DIM to read 7/32, we pick the dim and, in the properties dialog, edit the number of decimal places from 4 to 5....16ths to 32nds.
Simple! And it is still an accurate, associative dim.
-
You can right click on those dims and set it to the precision.
If your company has a standard dimstyle w/ precision defined it should ALWAYS be used, do not explode dimensions, OR override dimension text that indicates the dimension length.
-
Our company standards dictate that over-riding a dimension value with a different value WILL result in disciplinary action. It just isn't done here.
There are case where the <> are entirly replaced with a note of some kind like "FOR THIS AREA SEE ENLARGED PLAN BELOW" or something.
-
Our company standards dictate that over-riding a dimension value with a different value WILL result in disciplinary action. It just isn't done here.
There are case where the <> are entirly replaced with a note of some kind like "FOR THIS AREA SEE ENLARGED PLAN BELOW" or something.
We will do the same type thing .... similarly we will use a dimension length with a prefix and/or suffix to denote the placement and/or identification of a beam.
i.e.
W10x30 STEEL BEAM 50Ksi MIN (<>;)
Essentially this defines the item, gives it's length and shows the tolerance for diversion from the stated size.
-
On the RARE occassion that a dimension must be fudged (i.e. the drawing just won't fit in allocated space) our office standard requires the addtion of a "N.T.S." (Not To Scale) annotation.
-
On the RARE occassion that a dimension must be fudged (i.e. the drawing just won't fit in allocated space) our office standard requires the addtion of a "N.T.S." (Not To Scale) annotation.
Fudging dims around here for any reason will draw the ire of the CAD Manager (me). If it won't fit in the allocated space, get more space, paper is cheap, errors are not.
-
You've never had to draw a detail which had to be at a scale large enough to read the detail in the drawing (1" or 1-1/2":1'-0") and some part of it was too long to get into the sheet size used for the set of drawings?
-
Like what OU-CAD says, when you have to dimension across a break line in an object.
-
You've never had to draw a detail which had to be at a scale large enough to read the detail in the drawing (1" or 1-1/2":1'-0") and some part of it was too long to get into the sheet size used for the set of drawings?
Nope. I'll break up the detail before fudging a dim. Heck I'll make a whole nuther drawing first. Usually, I just change the scale of the detail. Around here, fudging a dim is unacceptable.
-
Like what OU-CAD says, when you have to dimension across a break line in an object.
We don't.
-
Another case of different worlds. Some of us are dealing with a 24"x36" real world sized object while some of us are dealing with an object that covers MANY square miles. There's no way I can draw a map with associative dimemsions. Unless you want a REALLY big piece of paper. The mind boggles at trying to envision the size of the plotter. i would hate to be the one to load the roll of paper.PAPER CUT !!!! OOOOOWIE!!
-
With a long object like a shaft we cannot show it all in a dwg because it is too long and too small to see. We then have to blow it up and show a break line in the middle. The dimension line of the overall shaft, by dim rules, has to contain a break symbol. That dimension has to be exploded or non-asso in order to add break symbol on the dim line.
-
Not if you were using PS & vports.... try this:
[begin tutorial] Create a vport and scale your shaft to a workable scale....stretching the vport to fit. Now dim your shaft or whatever and move the dim text close to the left end, then copy the vport on top of its self. Now hilight one vport and drag the RIGHT side to the left (near that dim we moved). Clear your grips and drag the LEFT side of the other vport way off to the right and, while it's still hot, move it left, close to the first vport. Finally, place your break lines in PS, perp to the edges of the relevant vports! Sounds complicated but it's really not. With a bit of practice you can create multiple vports to dim a series of holes or ??? in your shaft. [/end tutorial]
We use this method all the time and it works "a treat" as my down-under friends would say.
If you're interested, I could be persuaded to do a series of screen-shots showing the steps.......?
-
Thanks for your tips T-bear. That part was a gear shaft for M60A tanks that we worked on 12 yrs ago. Now I am doing MEP. Sometimes I use your Vports trick to show colunm bubble or to clear bkgd to make space for design notes.
Back to the topic, using your trick would fall into 2 debated issues:
The break symbol is part of dim stay in PS. (Topic: Dim in PS?)
Part of dim laying separately. Non-associated dim?
-
Another case of different worlds. Some of us are dealing with a 24"x36" real world sized object while some of us are dealing with an object that covers MANY square miles. There's no way I can draw a map with associative dimemsions. Unless you want a REALLY big piece of paper.
ummm... your plotter won't plot to scale?? We do civil work that will cover many acres and use associative dims quite easily.
... or did I miss a joke somewhere?
-
With a long object like a shaft we cannot show it all in a dwg because it is too long and too small to see. We then have to blow it up and show a break line in the middle. The dimension line of the overall shaft, by dim rules, has to contain a break symbol. That dimension has to be exploded or non-asso in order to add break symbol on the dim line.
Now, we normally dim in PS, but if you dim in MS this can be done very easily with two viewports without fudging the dim.
-
So, if your commencing point is 10,450 feet due west of the POB you draw the entire line and use associative dimensions? Doesn't leave much room for the topo does it? My clients prefer a scale of 1"=20' or 1"=30'. They don't really like 1"=1000'.
-
YYOU...
The dim IS associative. You are just looking at two ends through the vports.
If i get the time tomorrow, I'll do the screen-shots......
-
Cadaver, I agree that it is easy to do with 2 vps. But we need to add the break symbol on the dimension line, because we do not show the entire object. That brings up the tip T-bear offers.
T-bear, The dim is associative and counted as one entity. Break symbol is another entity. It requires both entities do 1 dimension. I consider that a non-associated type. :lol: I am picky, am I not?
-
So, if your commencing point is 10,450 feet due west of the POB you draw the entire line and use associative dimensions? Doesn't leave much room for the topo does it? My clients prefer a scale of 1"=20' or 1"=30'. They don't really like 1"=1000'.
Gee, never heard of ordinates??
-
Cadaver, I agree that it is easy to do with 2 vps. But we need to add the break symbol on the dimension line, because we do not show the entire object. That brings up the tip T-bear offers.
T-bear, The dim is associative and counted as one entity. Break symbol is another entity. It requires both entities do 1 dimension. I consider that a non-associated type. :lol: I am picky, am I not?
I think you're reaching.
-
no. we use "coordinates".
-
Yyou said:
The dimension line of the overall shaft, by dim rules, has to contain a break symbol.
Hmmmmm.... I just went through my "drafting for Industry" and a couple of other books. In all of them it requires a break symbol on the OBJECT but none of them require a break symbol on the DIMENSION. Soooo I assume that this is an in-house rule...... That dimension has to be exploded or non-asso in order to add break symbol on the dim line.
That's the beauty of this method. You just place those break lines in PS. My way the dim is still associative and if the part has to be lengthened/shortened, the dim changes with it. Your way, you gotta start all over again. That's counter-productive and a waste of a good drafters resources. (Thats just my opinion....didn't mean to "preach"....) It requires both entities do 1 dimension. I consider that a non-associated type.
Yhat's just a matter of syntax. ADIMENSION is either associative or it isn't. My way it is, your it is not. for the sake of this discussion, which comes more in line with "proper drafting standards"?
-
T-Bear, my drafting book says ANY item broken and not drawn to full length must be so noted with the break symbol.
-
I'm very lucky with dimensions, so fat I've only had to dimension a few drawings, approx less than 1.5% of out total output.
Most of the dimensions I use are leader lines. With the text attached I hasten to add.
-
no. we use "coordinates".
So do we, we just use ordinate dims to place them.
-
T-bear
Hmmmmm.... I just went through my "drafting for Industry" and a couple of other books. In all of them it requires a break symbol on the OBJECT but none of them require a break symbol on the DIMENSION. Soooo I assume that this is an in-house rule......
That in-house rule was also called DOD-STD-1000. Those military guys have their own standards... and guns too. I had to do what they said.
T-bear
That's the beauty of this method. You just place those break lines in PS. My way the dim is still associative and if the part has to be lengthened/shortened, the dim changes with it.
I did not say your way is bad. In fact, like I said, Ive been using it now to show colunm buble....It is a matter of choices. I do it my way because if you break the rule of associated dim why not just explode it and put in the symbol without violate another rule, dim in PS.
T-bear
Yhat's just a matter of syntax. ADIMENSION is either associative or it isn't. My way it is, your it is not. for the sake of this discussion, which comes more in line with "proper drafting standards"?
I'm not sure how the definition of associated dim state. But my understanding is if a dimension has one piece in MS and another in PS then it is a non-associative.
T-bear
Your way, you gotta start all over again. That's counter-productive and a waste of a good drafters resources. (Thats just my opinion....didn't mean to "preach"....)
Why start all over again? Can I stretch the object along with the dim? Then simply change the text.
-
T-It is a matter of choices. I do it my way because if you break the rule of associated dim why not just explode it and put in the symbol without violate another rule, dim in PS.
A dim in MS or PS will not promote an error, and exploded dimension <shiver> will.
I'm not sure how the definition of associated dim state. But my understanding is if a dimension has one piece in MS and another in PS then it is a non-associative.
The dimensions remains associative, you've merely added and additional annotation object. You're reaching again. The addition, or deletion of the additional annotation object will not lead to a construction error, non-associative, or editted dims can.
-
Yyou... This could go on forever (it HAS in other forums) but I can not. You are welcome to do as you please with your dims. Just keep in mind that associative dims are a VERY good way to check your model. associative doms will quickly show you if you have improperly constructed your model. They don't lie. Of course if you are working on a single piece, I guess you COULD just draw any old thing that has the general shape of the piece you are defining (called "Cartooning") and edit the dimensions to match what that object SHOULD be. HOWEVER.... if you are ever required to place that object in conjunction with other parts, it's gonna reach out and bite your a**. A board drafter could get away with that kind of drafting ... with the power of todays CADD programs there is (again, in my opinion, take it as you may) no earthly excuse for slip-shod, inacurate drafting. Draft it right or don't draft at all........ My employer is a small "hill-billy" company in the Ozark hills of Missouri and that kind of work will quickly find you the door.
Crap! I just re-read this and .... I'm starting to sound like CADaver! [shudder!]
-
Crap! I just re-read this and .... I'm starting to sound like CADaver! [shudder!]
As I read it I thought, gee that's sounds familiar. Don't worry, Bear, you have a ways to go yet.
-
I totally agree that dim should be associated. I don't think there is anyone would have non-associated dim as the standard. However, there are exceptions to all standards. You can dim in Ms or Ps, I have no problem with it. I do concern of having dim in both PS & MS in a same dwg.
I have seen quite a few doors during my career. Because to me, the best way to go up is out.
-
I totally agree that dim should be associated. I don't think there is anyone would have non-associated dim as the standard. However, there are exceptions to all standards.
Not here, not about dims anyway.
You can dim in Ms or Ps, I have no problem with it. I do concern of having dim in both PS & MS in a same dwg.
We don't, but I'd do that long before fudging or exploding a dim. Fudging and exploding can and do cause errors.
-
Cadaver, No exception? Really?
There are case where the <> are entirly replaced with a note of some kind like "FOR THIS AREA SEE ENLARGED PLAN BELOW" or something.
Remember that? I believe those were your words.
I do not see any issue about "whether we straight a line should be made up of many segments or 1 single line" Why? Because it is obvious, nobody is going to argue about it. In this case, if there is no exception, then it is an obvious routine, then this topic would not be here to debate.
I can see dim in both MS & PS can cause error but the non-assoc way. Because there a many cases (include one of your own, see above) that dims were done non-assoc but I have not seen dim in both Ms & PS in a same dwg.
-
Cadaver, No exception? Really?
There are case where the <> are entirly replaced with a note of some kind like "FOR THIS AREA SEE ENLARGED PLAN BELOW" or something.
Remember that? I believe those were your words.
I remember it quite well, that dim is associative and is neither fudged nor exploded, what's your point?
Because there a many cases (include one of your own, see above) that dims were done non-assoc but I have not seen dim in both Ms & PS in a same dwg.
Again, the example above was an associative dim that was neither fudged nor exploded. Fudging or exploding dims is not done, no exceptions. Fudging or exploding dims cause errors.
-
Cadaver
I remember it quite well, that dim is associative and is neither fudged nor exploded, what's your point?
"FOR THIS AREA SEE ENLARGED PLAN BELOW" What units are you using? I do not believe dim automatically give you that measurement.
I used that method in a government project. I'd never heard any complaint or error for it. But discipline would had been enforced if dims were not done in a same place.
-
Cadaver
I remember it quite well, that dim is associative and is neither fudged nor exploded, what's your point?
"FOR THIS AREA SEE ENLARGED PLAN BELOW" What units are you using? I do not believe dim automatically give you that measurement.
Again, the dim is not fudged nor exploded. Is English your native language?
But discipline would had been enforced if dims were not done in a same place.
Which government? Neither the DOD, NTA nor COE have regulations regarding the "space" of dims.
-
Cadaver
Again, the dim is not fudged nor exploded
So the text came in automatically you did not type yourself.
Not only in miltary specs, but also in any oganization, you can dim either in MS or PS but not in both in a same dwg.
BTW, how is your definition of assoc dim? If I'm not wrong it is un-exploded. What is an un-exploded object, block or dim? It remains as 1 piece. Not 2, 1 in ms and another in ps.
-
So the text came in automatically you did not type yourself.
No, what CADaver means by "fudged" is typing 5'-6" when the dimension really reads 5'-5". REPLACING the text with WORDS (not other numbers) does NOT count as fudging. We do it all the time with "V.I.F." (verify in field) or "SEE ARCH".
As for the PS/MS question, in 2004 and beyond, PS dimensions can be associative, i.e. if you stretch the line in modelspace the dimension will stretch with it. In earlier versions, this was much harder (if not impossible) to accomplish.
-
Cadaver
Again, the dim is not fudged nor exploded
So the text came in automatically you did not type yourself.
The content of the dimension remains accurate when stretched, it is neither fudged nor expolded.
Not only in miltary specs, but also in any oganization, you can dim either in MS or PS but not in both in a same dwg.
Whose military, I'm looking at the DOD specs right now and there is no such restriction.
how is your definition of assoc dim?
DIMASSOC greater than 0
If I'm not wrong it is un-exploded.
I guess you're wrong then.
What is an un-exploded object, block or dim? It remains as 1 piece. Not 2, 1 in ms and another in ps.
"ANOTHER"?? another what? the break squiggle? The dim remains associative, the break is an additional annotation element.
-
Cadaver
The content of the dimension remains accurate when stretched, it is neither fudged nor expolded
The dimension is at 15'-8". Your text read "FOR THIS AREA....." Yeah, Very accurate.
Cadaver
I'm looking at the DOD specs right now and there is no such restriction.
So am I
Cadaver
DIMASSOC greater than 0
and has more than 1 pieces. Some pieces can be in MS and some can be in PS
Cadaverthe break is an additional annotation element.
You create 2 vps then strech and and place the symbol in between. What are all that work for? Because you are trying to show the contractor, the client..and everybody that the break symbol and the dim line are 1 piece. You are fudging so it looks like 1 assoc dim. Annotation? Geo tolerances are not dimensions, are they?
-
Cadaver
The content of the dimension remains accurate when stretched, it is neither fudged nor expolded
The dimension is at 15'-8". Your text read "FOR THIS AREA....." Yeah, Very accurate.
Yes it is, extremely accurate.
Cadaver
I'm looking at the DOD specs right now and there is no such restriction.
So am I
Cool then you may quote the section and paragraph that poses the restriction.
Cadaver
DIMASSOC greater than 0
and has more than 1 pieces.
No, and associative dim is a dimension element with a DIMASSOC value of 1 or 2, it is a single element.
Cadaverthe break is an additional annotation element.
You create 2 vps then strech and and place the symbol in between. What are all that work for? Because you are trying to show the contractor, the client..and everybody that the break symbol and the dim line are 1 piece.
It is an additional piece of annotational information just like the break line in the piece that is being dimensioned. That break is not part of the piece, it is an indication of a break.
You are fudging so it looks like 1 assoc dim.
No, the break symbol provides additional information. Fudging would be stretching the piece to 12'-0", then changing the dimtext to read 15'-8"
Geo tolerances are not dimensions, are they?
Yes, they are.
You can't really be this dim, can you?
-
Yyou, you must learn. You are "dim" if you disagree with Cadaver on ANYTHING. Learn to say "Yes Master" and truck on. Even if his methods do not work in your shop.
Cadaver, lighten up. Your way works in your shop. it would not be allowed in my shop. I work a system that is integrated with several GPS programs, Intergraph and several other packages. That integration drives the way I do many things. I could , in no way, do my work in Vanilla AutoCad. They don't give me that much time and we do not have an in-house lisp wizard. :lol: 8)
-
Yyou, you must learn. You are "dim" if you disagree with Cadaver on ANYTHING. Learn to say "Yes Master" and truck on.
Gee, Dent, that insult was uncalled for, don't you think?
Even if his methods do not work in your shop.
Cadaver, lighten up. Your way works in your shop. it would not be allowed in my shop.
We're not talking about procedures, but the definition of Associative dims. "YYOU" wishes to claim that adding the break makes the dim non-associative, that's being dim, any way you want to cut it.
I could , in no way, do my work in Vanilla AutoCad.
Neither could I, but that's the only AutoDESK product we use. Our vertical applications are home-grown.
They don't give me that much time and we do not have an in-house lisp wizard.
Come on, you can't fool me, you're more of a wizard than most of us average hacks posting here.
-
Don't I wish.
See, you had people to do the "home grown" vertical apps. We don't. The last time they "helped" me I ended up with the Carlson software and a horror called "Tsunami". Both packages are horrid creations. I figured that if I didn't do something quick , they would buy me Eagle Point. I headed that off by getting Land Development Desktop. I don't want or need anything else.
I didn't mean to be insulting, but even you have admitted what I said in some of your more lucid moments. Associative dimensions are not used here because a lot of our clients have 3rd party apps that cannot handle them. We prepare the base drawing for their work. We do no design. We either show what's on the ground or we put it on the ground. I rarely see a final design.My work world is much simpler than an engineering office. I do cartographic, I don't do engineering. I topo, I find boundaries and every now and then I do a subdivision. That's all.
-
Cadaver:
Yes it is, extremely accurate.
Then so are all other dims. Assoc or not.
What section? maybe in layer section? uh, or may be in bom section? Where else do you think?
Cadaver:
No, and associative dim is a dimension element with a DIMASSOC value of 1 or 2, it is a single element.
Then your way is not assoc. It has 2 parts.
Cadaver:
It is an additional piece of annotational information
It is a part of dim. Same as Geo tolerances. Datum symbols, tolerance box and the dim itself combined to make 1 dim which represents 1 measurement. Now I can put the Datum symbol in PS, the other 2 parts stay in MS. because "there is no such restriction"
Cadaver:Fudging would be stretching the piece to 12'-0", then changing the dimtext to read 15'-8"
15'-8", 20'-0" or "FOR THIS AREA..." same deal here. The content of dim is altered.
-
Fudging would be stretching the piece to 12'-0", then changing the dimtext to read 15'-8"
15'-8", 20'-0" or "FOR THIS AREA..." same deal here. The content of dim is altered.
No, it is not the same. "FOR THIS AREA SEE ENLARGED PLAN" (or whatever text is there instead) has not told you a different number, it has told you where to find the right number! You can't make a mistake in the distance if you're not given an number.
I think if this thread goes much farther it might be time to take a break.
-
Cadaver:
Yes it is, extremely accurate.
Then so are all other dims. Assoc or not.
"SEE ENLARGED PLAN" remains accurate when the distance is modified. NON-associative dims do not.
Cadaver:
No, and associative dim is a dimension element with a DIMASSOC value of 1 or 2, it is a single element.
Then your way is not assoc. It has 2 parts.
No, the dim remains a single element, and will reflect the accurate information as the element is manipulted. The break symbol is an additional piece of annotation.
Cadaver:
It is an additional piece of annotational information
It is a part of dim.
No, it's not.
Same as Geo tolerances. Datum symbols, tolerance box and the dim itself combined to make 1 dim
Yes one element that contains that data, not 2, one.
1 dim which represents 1 measurement.
Okay, we may be getting somewhere. Correct, one dim represents one measurement. Keep thinking about that, repeat it over and over and over, one dim represents one measurement. The single dim element represents the measurement, the break symbol is an additional annotational element that represents additional information.
"there is no such restriction"
I'm still waiting for the DoD quote.
Cadaver:Fudging would be stretching the piece to 12'-0", then changing the dimtext to read 15'-8"
15'-8", 20'-0" or "FOR THIS AREA..." same deal here. The content of dim is altered.
Surely you are joking, you can't be that dim. "SEE ENLARGED PLAN" remains accurate no matter how the piece is stretched. Stretching the former results in inaccurate data in the drawing. This is a simple concept, it shouldn't excape anyone, save the most "neo" neophyte.
-
Cadaver
"SEE ENLARGED PLAN" remains accurate when the distance is modified. NON-associative dims do not.
It is non-associative because its content is altered.
CadaverNo, the dim remains a single element,
and the break symbol. 1+1=2 check your math.
Cadaver:Okay, we may be getting somewhere. Correct, one dim represents one measurement. Keep thinking about that, repeat it over and over and over, one dim represents one measurement. The single dim element represents the measurement, the break symbol is an additional annotational element that represents additional information.
So the Datum and tolerance box are not part of dim. Now we have 3 not 1 not 2 but (1+1+1 try to add this) parts combine to make 1 dim.
Cadaver I'm still waiting for the DoD quote
You stll could't find it. Read my last post again.
cadaver
"SEE ENLARGED PLAN" remains accurate no matter how the piece is stretched
15'-0" is equal to "SEE ENLARGED PLAN". Maybe in Mars but here.