Comparing dimensioning in MS vs PS

[khoshravan]

I have read some posts which encourage to draw the drawing in MS without dimensioning and do it in PS. This will solve the scaling of dimension properties like text height and arrow size. One dimension style could be used for all VPs in PS with different scales to maintain the uniformity.

 

While drawing in MS, I need to know the dimension and that is why I am forced to put dimension in MS to ease the drawing process and avoid shifting back and force between MS & PS. Those members who still support dimensioning in PS, how solves this issue? I would like to hear members experiences and comments.

[Dadgad]

If you need to have your dimensions in modelspace and don't want to be bothered with ANNOTATIVE dimensions and scales, you can create ASSOCIATIVE dimensions there, which when displayed through a viewport in paperspace will AUTOMATICALLY scale to the viewport in which they are used. :wink:

This option also requires a single DIMSTYLE 1 (@1:1) which can be used universally, when set up as shown in the attachment.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Dadgad

[rickh]

One dimension style could be used for all VPs in PS with different scales to maintain the uniformity.

Have you ever looked into Annotative styles? You could still use only one style, and place it in model space on the actual objects being measured.

 

Let's assume you're going to label in paperspace....so you have already set your drawing in the viewports...Now test an annotative style. Just make a quick text style, check annotative in the style dialog, and assign a text height (the height you want it to plot in paper units). Using this style double-click in a viewport and place some text...it comes out at the desired height. Now just double-click in another viewport and place some text...it comes out at the desired height. Heck, place one in paperspace....it still comes out at the right height. One style - any scale. The same applies to any other annotative objects, like dimensions, multileaders, blocks, etc...all work the same.

 

Disadvantage to placing the labels in paperspace (on top of the viewport) is when you move the viewport, or the view within it, or when you change the scale of the drawing in the viewport. You would have to manage the two sets of objects in different 'spaces', but I digress. It's a never ending debate...with valid arguments for both.

[tzframpton]

Always dimension in MS. 'nuff said.

[Dadgad]

Always dimension in MS. 'nuff said.

 

Either there, or in PS.

[rkent]

Tell us what type of drawings you work on, it can make a difference. I place dims in PS or in MS depending on what I am drawing.

[rickh]

Either there, or in PS.

[tzframpton]

I place dims in PS,,,,

:shock:

 

Say it isn't so Reeyichad!!

[Dadgad]

 

There is no 'one way fits all', depends on what you are doing and how you like to do it.

I believe that in CIVIL dimensions are generally in modelspace.

Maybe Styk just forgot to put the word 'I' at the beginning of his post.

I usually do all my dims and annotation in paperspace, although I recognize

this is not for everybody and that there are certain advantages to be gained

from doing them in modelspace.

Associative dimensions done in paperspace work very well.

The OP early on expressed a need to see some dimensions in modelspace

while drawing, if that is the case, then do them in modelspace, right?

Edited July 18, 2012 by Dadgad

[tzframpton]

With Annotative Scaling why dimension in PS at all? I just don't see any benefit. Sure you can do it, for small/simple stuff but even the simplest CAD designers should have some things Template-ized. Then, no matter what happens to your drawing/view you'll never have to use CHSPACE or re-dimension things.

 

It is needed sometimes but only as a last resort override IMHO. "What do you do... in the bath?" (

[Dadgad]

With Annotative Scaling why dimension in PS at all? I just don't see any benefit. Sure you can do it, for small/simple stuff but even the simplest CAD designers should have some things Template-ized. Then, no matter what happens to your drawing/view you'll never have to use CHSPACE or re-dimension things.

 

It is needed sometimes but only as a last resort override IMHO. "What do you do... in the bath?" (

 

Personally, I'd rather not be bothered with all the annotative scale variables and potential issues.

If you use associative dimensions in paperspace, you put them where you need them, they print as you want them to.

If you modify your modelspace drawing they remain associative, that works fine for me. We all have our own ways of doing things.

I don't understand the template allusion, I have lots of those, and they are quite comprehensive, as well as custom tool palettes.

 

Different strokes .....

[rickh]

Dadgad, for the record, I wasn't disagree-ing (sp.) with you. I just thought your first response to StykFacE's post was funny....maybe wrong emoticon choice...I think at the time I read it I literally put my head down in my hand laughing.

 

To make this post worthwhile for the discussion though...I guess one situation I might try ps labelling in would be for labelling several different sides - like top, right, front - of a 3d object... maybe. Of course, I would still be using my Annotative style. One size fits all (spaces)

[Dadgad]

Dadgad, for the record, I wasn't disagree-ing (sp.) with you. I just thought your first response to StykFacE's post was funny....maybe wrong emoticon choice...I think at the time I read it I literally put my head down in my hand laughing.

 

To make this post worthwhile for the discussion though...I guess one situation I might try ps labelling in would be for labelling several different sides - like top, right, front - of a 3d object... maybe. Of course, I would still be using my Annotative style. One size fits all (spaces)

 

It was meant to be funny, and no offense meant to Styk (typically I agree with him, and have learned lots from him), nor you, nor offense taken.

I routinely do fabrication drawings which require dimensions in a number of perspectives, viewport scales, etc.,

as you describe in your last post, and I don't doubt for a second that these too could be done as suggested by Styk,

and that it may in fact (for some) be the technique of choice, and the path of least resistance.

 

So much to learn, so many ways to get where we all want to go ..... the bathroom?

Edited July 18, 2012 by Dadgad

[ReMark]

I do all my dimensioning and text in my layout. One dim style to deal with and no system variables to worry about re: annotative scaling.

 

However, there are disciplines where annotative scaling would definitely be a plus. Try each and pick the one that works best for you. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages.

[minion]

When I'm still using v2007, i used to have may template for the dimensions on scales I often used and layer them also by its scale e.g. dim_1:10 so that you just can freeze the dims that are not on the same scale on viewport. if your drawing get crowded you can use the layer state manager. the problem with the annotative is that when you open it on ACAD2007 and lower release, all the dimension on each scale will be drawn on model space.

[khoshravan]

Thanks for replies.

I am drawing floor plans of buildings. I am not using 3D, only 2D plans.

I have to admit that despite reading many articles about annotative scaling and associative ones, I haven't grasped them completely. Let me study them again and return back.

So far I have understand that both one has its own pros and cons and there is no single solution for it. depending on the situation, each one could be used.

 

BTW could you please again show me the basic and easy to understand threads here on annotative scaling and associate one?

 

Thanks

[SLW210]

With Annotative Scaling why dimension in PS at all? I just don't see any benefit. Sure you can do it, for small/simple stuff but even the simplest CAD designers should have some things Template-ized. Then, no matter what happens to your drawing/view you'll never have to use CHSPACE or re-dimension things.

 

It is needed sometimes but only as a last resort override IMHO. "What do you do... in the bath?" (

 

You have got to be kidding, right. Let one client ask you to save some drawings to

 

I tried using these "IMPROVED" features already and saving down just doesn't work.

 

IF, as so many here say, the title block belongs in paper space, then also, dimensions and notations should be in paper space, time to move out of the last century and forget putting anything in MODEL space except the model.

[Dadgad]

You have got to be kidding, right. Let one client ask you to save some drawings to

 

I tried using these "IMPROVED" features already and saving down just doesn't work.

 

IF, as so many here say, the title block belongs in paper space, then also, dimensions and notations should be in paper space, time to move out of the last century and forget putting anything in MODEL space except the model.

 

Don't beat around the bush there big guy, just come right out with it and let us all know how you feel about it.

[rkent]

:shock:

 

Say it isn't so Reeyichad!!

 

Yep it is so. One example among many, I use existing backgrounds of our building to make a construction project, so I am always needing to show a small quadrant of the building so I can have a plotted scale of 1/4" or 1/2". I like to show the construction work in MS (of course) and in layout I have a viewport for that area. When I dimension I pull those out off the viewport and into the blank space beyond the viewport. I do the same with mleaders, etc. It makes for a nice clean looking drawing.

 

There are ways around this and keep things in MS but it seems to me to be more work to get to the same place. But lots of others will see it different so to each their own.

 

As mentioned already, I think dims for 3D objects are easier in PS except for the iso view where the dims will not show correct lengths without futzing with the dim style, etc. I do use the base view more now so that requires that dims go in PS.