Jump to content
  • 0

Associative dimensioning that is useable


mike m oz

Question

I long for associative dimensioning that actually works and is useful:

? It needs to recognise objects such as walls, doors and windows

? It needs to recognise corners so that you don't have to choose an object to associate the dimension to

? You should be able to move a dimension line to a new location as a whole rather than having to move each one laboriously

? You should be able to add or delete points to a dimension string by clicking on the appropriate point

? Making dimension style changes should be simpler

Link to comment
  • Answers 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Ray, the problem that Kurt and I are describing is as follows. I had a building with two dimension strings. The first was for the overall building length.

The second string was for interior walls and was comprised of about 10 individual strings that subdivided the overall length into 10 segments.

If I added up the 10 individual strings they should add up to the single overall string. But what I found was that they did not.

Here is an example. Overall building = 100 feet. Two separate strings of 50'- 1 and 50'-0". They should both be 50 feet and add up to 100 feet but due to rounding they do not add up. I am using exaggerated numbers for simplicity, but hopefully it conveys the idea.

If I understand your suggestion, I suppose I should set a grid snap equal to the rounding that I intend to use. That way there would be no rounding. Use grid snap of 1/2" and set dimension tolerance to 1/2".

Link to comment
  • 0

Sorry to barge in on your string Mike, but it was the only one about dimensioning. The good thing is anybody at NNA monitoring these things probably looks at the strings with the most activity and you got 32 responses so far and are at the top of the wish list for awhile at least.

weirdness example: (4'-1/4")+ (4'-1/4")+ (4'-1/4")+(4'-1/4")= 16"-1" but if you set the tolerance to none or a 1/2 your string will show 4'-0"+4'-0"+4'-0"+4'-0" but your overall will still be 16'-1". It don't add up. So I guess the program has to be smart enough to do some thing like 4'-0"+4'-0"+4'-0"+4'-1" to make it add up to the overall dimenion of 16' 1". But how will it know where to add the 1" ? And is this accurate or should the program even try to make these types of adjustments on it's own? Or should a alert dialog box open up saying "dimension error" ?

It's just that framers love to trip up architects. You give them dimension strings with 1/32" in them and they think your crazy, too precise for the materials. You give them strings that don't add up and they think you can't add, duh. You give them 1/2" increments like they want and you got to check every overall to make sure it adds up correctly and you allways have to make a judgement call on where to add that 1" or a 1/2" to make it all add up correctly with the overall.

Before CAD in the good old days, my first boss used to tell me to always dimension framing in no smaller than 3" increments. That way you will always add up to a full foot or 3", 6", or 9" of a foot (1/4 increments of a foot ?). Any critical area can be dimension separately with the added notation clear or such. But a 2 x 4 is really 1 5/8" x 3 5/8" depending on the moisture content which framers call out as 1 1/2" x 3 1/2". or was it 100 x 50mm or is it 92.075 x41.27 mm? It's a crazy world out there or at least in America it is.

Link to comment
  • 0

The only problem is that it has developed into a debate about imperial dimensioning difficulties rather than the need for useable associative dimensioning.

When you have experienced the architectural dimensioning capability in programs like ArchiCad and BOA the dimensioning in VectorWorks seems archaic.

What I am trying to do is draw attention to the need for it to be improved so that it is truly associative and becomes useable. Also that it becomes a pleasure to use rather than the chore it is right now.

PS

- England's building industry went metric 30+ years ago so it is only the USA which persists with the cumbersome feet and inches measurement system. Why is totally beyond me!

- Kurt I am surprised that you don't use actual lumber sizes rather than nominal. If a 2 x 4 is actually 1 5/8" x 3 5/8" the chippies must be constantly having to make dimension adjustments on site. It must result in errors on site, and make accurate dimensioning seem somewhat pointless.

[ 03-07-2005, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: mike m oz ]

Link to comment
  • 0

quote:

Originally posted by mike m oz:

I long for associative dimensioning that actually works and is useful:

? It needs to recognise objects such as walls, doors and windows

? It needs to recognise corners so that you don't have to choose an object to associate the dimension to

? You should be able to move a dimension line to a new location as a whole rather than having to move each one laboriously

? You should be able to add or delete points to a dimension string by clicking on the appropriate point

? Making dimension style changes should be simpler

I agree!

Link to comment
  • 0

Our bricks here in the UK are 102.5 wide...and that's millimetres! Even with metric, you still need to work to one or two decimal places.

I work to four decimal places, (but set dimensions only to display 1 decimal place)...not because that's how they'll build it....but just to avoid dimension chains not adding up at the end....or if they don't add up, I can see where the round-up happened.

Link to comment
  • 0

Please oh please do something about this.

I have just spent hours laboriously repositioning dimensions one by one to accommodate some changes - not exactly a productive or stimulating exercise!

Other issues are:

- The stupid 'red square' handles which remain visible even when the dimension class is made invisible, and which annoyingly remain visible when you go into a 3D view.

- Deletion of an element not being reflected in the associated dimensions. The now 'non-associated' dimension remains after the deletion, meaning that if you want the affected dimensions to be associative again you have to delete them and then redo them.

- Addition of elements not being reflected in the associated dimensions, meaning you have to delete the affected dimensions and redo them if you want them to continue to be associative.

- The propensity of dimensions to lose their associativity when changes are made.

The crux of the issue is that the dimensioning is not in fact fully associative - it is a fudge that provides very little useable functionality.

Link to comment
  • 0

Another gripe about the current associative dimensioning - the dimensions should not be changing location when an item is resized or moved.

I gave the associative dimensioning a go on a project which I knew was going to change. Unfortunately as I changed locations and sizes of the elements the dimensions also changed locations. Thus the nicely aligned strings of dimensions i had created became a nonsense. Each time I made a change I also had to reposition the dimension.

The associative dimensioning is an absolute farce!

VW 11.5 on a Mac

[ 05-18-2005, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: mike m oz ]

Link to comment
  • 0

Associative dimensions - what exactly does this mean in the real world? Vectorworks does associate the dimension to the dimensioned entities pretty well I think for a non constrained system. What do I mean?

Well, in the MCAD sector most 3D systems generate 2D shapes using what is called constraints systems. Here you can draw, say a rectangle, add a couple of dimensions then edit the dimensions directly and the rectangle will update. VectorWorks kind of does this but not particularly well.

I think Mike, what you need is a true 2D cosntrained diemnsioning system as I describe. Only by going this way will you get true associativity. But going this route opens many other cans of worms!

Before VectorWorks can go down this route though I think it needs ageneral spring clean of tools, commands and some interface elements.

Personally I find a lot of the naming conventions and tool repitition within VectorWorks to be very confusing for the user. For example the constraints pallete should be the snaps pallette should it not? (As I'm sure it once was in Minicad days). And the last row on the 2D tools pallette should be the Constraints tools!

BTW you can turn off the red squares - go Edit - Display or Hide Constraints.

Link to comment
  • 0

KQ

What I am chasing is the sophisticated dimensioning associativity that exists in programs like ArchiCAD and BOA.

VW's dimensioning is crude by comparison and is one program feature that definately needs upgrading.

Thanks for the tip on the Hide Constraints. I hadn't picked that one up.

Link to comment
  • 0

Mike, I'm not familiar with ArchiCAD but I'll try and check it out to see what its like.

As for VectorWorks, it seems that the following holds true:

The length of the witness line (from point to dimension text line) is fixed at the length you set when you create it. So, ina chain scenario if you reshape a set of points the dims will move as well. What you should be able to do is lock the chain to other elements in the chain so they stay in line. Maybe a simple preference like "lock to first dimension line"?

I also suspect that the dims are linked to points on entities in the first case. When those entities change the points move, so the dims update. When the entities format changes (eg it is deleted or converted to another type) the point reference changes so the dimension reference switches to an absolute reference point in space.

I think in both cases a simple preference setting would be to "retain associated dimension points" for changes, or "delete associated dimensions" for deletions.

I can't see how these issues would be that hard to resolve. The app already has the functionality built in in different places (like the 2D constraints).

Link to comment
  • 0

Two more issues with the existing associative dimensioning implementation:

The slowness of dimensioning due to having to select twice for almost every dimension you place.

As I have said before the dimensioning should be 'imtelligent' enough to recognise walls, doors, windows etc.

Its inability to recognise size changes in door and window symbols.

I have just had a job where 80% of the window sizes had to change to suit a different brick unit module - none of the dimensions associated with these window symbols changed meaning I had to go through and redo them all.

After this recent experience I don't think I will bother with the associative dimensioning again because its minuses definately outweigh its plusses! It really is a nonsense.

Link to comment
  • 0

The other thing that could make associative dimensions more meaningful as well, is that if you edit the lenght of the dimension it should effect the object it is linked to.

So if we dimension say a window in a wall editing the dimension will tweak the window position in the wall, instead of the current behaviour of just loosing association.

Link to comment
  • 0

quote:

Originally posted by Chris D:

Our bricks here in the UK are 102.5 wide...

I'd like to see bricks with that kind of tolerances? My guess is that they are 100 - 105 wide! Perhaps on average 102.5.

As a young boy, I spent a week sorting bricks by size on a building site: the foundations were not quite accurate (what a surprise!) so for each wall the bricklayers wanted bricks of specific length.

Anyway, I've tried associative dimensioning a couple of times, but for the reasons Mike describes, gave it up. It's just a waste of time and effort and a likely cause of errors.

The situation is not an isolated event: too many features in VW are 'features', ie. they do not actually work in real life. I guess that is the price we pay for the cheap price, so to speak.

Link to comment
  • 0

quote:

Originally posted by mike m oz:

I long for associative dimensioning that actually works and is useful:

? It needs to recognise objects such as walls, doors and windows

? It needs to recognise corners so that you don't have to choose an object to associate the dimension to

? You should be able to move a dimension line to a new location as a whole rather than having to move each one laboriously

? You should be able to add or delete points to a dimension string by clicking on the appropriate point

? Making dimension style changes should be simpler

I agree!

Regarding Metric vs Imperial dimensioning; I have used metric for many years, but Imperial has the great advantage of being modulor.

12 divides many ways ( 2, 3, 4, 6, 8) while 10 divides by 5 & 2.

Metrication is not a panacea.

Maybe associative dimensioning will be? C'mon NNA !!

Link to comment
  • 0

quote:

Originally posted by mike m oz:

I long for associative dimensioning that actually works and is useful:

? It needs to recognise objects such as walls, doors and windows

? It needs to recognise corners so that you don't have to choose an object to associate the dimension to

? You should be able to move a dimension line to a new location as a whole rather than having to move each one laboriously

? You should be able to add or delete points to a dimension string by clicking on the appropriate point

? Making dimension style changes should be simpler

I agree!

Regarding Metric vs Imperial dimensioning; I have used metric for many years, but Imperial has the great advantage of being modulor.

12 divides many ways ( 2, 3, 4, 6, 8) while 10 divides by 5 & 2.

Metrication is not a panacea.

Maybe associative dimensioning will be? C'mon NNA !!

Link to comment
  • 0

The $64 question. Will it or will it not be improved for VW 13?

I really hope so. For me it is the most frustrating aspect of the program.

PS

For now I could even live with dimensions being a single string object rather than lots of individual dimension objects. The associative improvements could come later.

Edited by mike m oz
Link to comment
  • 0

I came across this article on Allplan 2005: It has the dimensioning capability that Vectorworks should have: http://www.aecmag.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=60

Now dimension lines are always created as an associative dimension, and a new ?direct dimensioning? tool will automatically dimension an entire feature. For example, users need only select two points on a wall and then place a dimension line which takes in all the elements of that wall. Should additional elements, such as a window, be added or existing elements removed, then with a few clicks the dimensioning line is amended and automatically recalculated. N.B. This new feature has not been implemented at the expense of the automatic wall dimensioning tool with its associative dimensioning. The associative dimensioning has the additional benefit that should any part of the wall move or its size change, then the dimensions will automatically update.

Allplan obviously understand what associative dimensioning is and how it should work. NNA need to look at how Allplan does it.

Link to comment
  • 0

As well as recognising architectural elements such as doors, windows, openings and walls there is also a need to be able to dimension to the structural core of a wall.

At the moment a wall can be defined to show its components including the external and internal linings so that it appears correctly on plan and in elevation views. The result is though that it then can not be dimensioned correctly.

The accepted architectural convention worldwide is that the structural core of the wall is what is dimensioned. This is because the structural core of the wall is what the builder actually builds, and therefore needs to locate correctly. The linings are applied afterwards as a secondary process.

At the moment we have to choose between drawing the wall incorrectly (ie. minus the linings) or dimensioning incorrectly. Neither option is satisfactory - this needs to be addressed.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...