Jump to content

Dimensioning


Kizza

Recommended Posts

This is where I usually Dim. However be prepared when you use a VP to show a scale radically different than what you originally designed in as your witness arrow will be either really big or really small. I would Dim on separate layer or class then if necessary you could use annotation viewport to achieve proper sizing of text or whatever the dim or note.

Link to comment

I think it's best to dimension for general purposes in the design layer. Remember, if you accidentally delete a VP (I've done it) there goes all your dimensions if they are annotations.

That said, there may be instances where it does make sense to put some dimensions in the VP annotations. For example, when you are doing a blow up say of a washroom where there will be some special and perhaps not too many special or particular dimensions/notes.

Link to comment

Not coming from an architectural background, I'd be curious to know a little more about your architectural workflow. Are all of you primarily working in 2D or 3D? Are you dimensioning in 3D?

Over the last year I've moved to a full 3D workflow. My dimensioning almost exclusively is done in sheet layer viewports. I think I would find dimensions in the design layers in the way.

Cheers,

Kevin

Link to comment

Prior to VP's a lot of us used a separate design layer for dimensions and other annotations. "Sheets" were accomplished via Saved Views using an interwoven matrix of Layers and Classes. This workflow is still completely viable and is in some respects better than placing all annotations in the VP annotation space. One example: I am dimensioning a Floor Plan and find that a window (or whatever) is not exactly where it should be. In the current (VP) workflow I need to exit the annotations, navigate to the design layer, make the change, then navigate back to the VP and back the annotations... Rather time consuming. In the older workflow all you I need to do is change the active layer make the change and then back to the dimension/notes layer. Much faster. That said, I generally use the newer workflow. But there are many times when I seriously wonder why...

Link to comment

Interesting topic

I had been annotating and dimensioning in VPs but wondered why also

I generally use the newer workflow. But there are many times when I seriously wonder why...

Therefore best practice it seems it to dimension on Design Layer except perhaps if what is showing on a Sheet Layer VP is at a different scale to the Design Layer it came from

So where are most placing text?

Link to comment

Thanks to everyone for the insights into their drawing practices.

Peter, what you describe is how I worked for years. Over the last two years, my process has migrated towards building a 3D model and then detailing it using Sheet Layer Viewports. Almost nothing is drawn in 2D. Other than the odd 3D dimension, I can't really imagine why I would be dimensioning in the model itself. There are one or two exceptions, but putting all of the notes and dimensions into the annotations of a viewport is a really clean, efficient workflow for my type of work.

Kevin

Link to comment

I'm new to VW and was just confronted with the really large witness arrows when I changed scale on the view port. Why does this happen and is it possible the have the witness arrows stay in scale with the drawing? I can see producing a drawing for sheet size output as well as needing to print an 8.5x11 of the same drawing. I would hate to have the witness arrows continuing to change size on me. Or am I missing something basic here?

(I admit I'm just stating to understand viewports)

Thanks

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

I stumbled upon this thread while seeking an answer to another dimensioning related question. First of all, thanks for the great opionions on this one. I've also had ginormous witness arrows that have caused some frustration.

My separate question is how to override text for one dimension? For example, if I'm showing a series of lines that are all 2' offset from each other, I would prefer to indicate 2'(typ) so I don't have to dim each one and so that I'm obvious in my intention. Editing the properties won't allow normal text, only numerals. Any thoughts? Something obvious I'm missing (probably)?

Thanks in advance. You all are great resources and make my transition from AC much smoother.

Best,

Brian

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...

A few more dimensioning questions for everyone:

1) How do you override the text of the dimension? Meaning, even though it says 418', I want it to read 453' without moving the witness lines from the endpoints of the object.

2) How can the units for only the dimensions be changed to decimal? I normally work in feet/fractional on my projects, but sometimes for permitting purposes, the municipalities like to see feet/decimal dimensions.

Thanks in advance.

***EDIT***

Found the answer to #2, but wish it could be done on a per-item basis in the Object Properties box..

Edited by Steelbreeze10
Link to comment
A few more dimensioning questions for everyone:

1) How do you override the text of the dimension? Meaning, even though it says 418', I want it to read 453' without moving the witness lines from the endpoints of the object.

Similar to Pat's answer above - enter the 453' in either the Leader or Trailer fields. Then deselect the "Show Dim Value", so it's the only thing that displays.

Monadnoc

Link to comment

Thanks for the solutions, they are both creative work-arounds for a function that seems overlooked.

GWS, I must've missed that possibility. When I right-clicked on the dim, I only saw the option to 'unlock'. I thought by selecting this I would be accomplishing the 'ungroup' you mentioned. Thanks, though, I'll look harder next time.

Monadnoc, thanks for this also. One of my biggest problems w/ VW is that I've had some very simple problems that I've had to 'trick' the program to get right.

I'm really holding my patience with this program, but it seems there's a lot to be desired, and a lot of the issues are ones that ACAD has addressed for years.

This program could be WAY better than ACAD with a little more intuitiveness. And maybe it is past the '08 version I'm using now, but from what I've seen so far, I can't justify spending money to take that chance. I'll just have to keep clunking through and resist going back to the dark side with all my might.

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
Reply to this topic...

×   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.

×
×
  • Create New...