In the old days, the only way to tell if a dimension could be trusted was to actually check the math. Arguing that arrows help you identify sloppy drafting and checking is a point taken, but they also take up more room in a tight string.
I agree about the tight strings. But if a string is that tight I will switch to dots since on those strings even ticks are too big. Also the problem is not really happening that often on tight strings but more often is the result of the draftsperson zooming out and they have a dimension already on the page to which the location of the new string snaps. I have also seen it when a previous dimension string is selected to continue and the start end orientation is not the same as what the continue is doing. Usually pretty obvious, but when one of the dimensions is relatively small and the other is relatively large, it can easily be missed during checking, but if you routinely check arrowheads, the problem almost is never missed.
If you use an open arrow head, the arrows look like dual ticks crossing each other.
-----------X----------
Michael Bulatovich wrote:
the wife, the boss, still insists on adding up every dimension string. I hope that this is a good way for her to check the drawing for other stuff, because it's been a LONG time since she caught me with an OOPS. time = money......
anybody have a suggestion - I can't get her to let me use stacked fractions, and on a tight string is would sure help sometimes.....
[ can use all the help I can get ]
tis easier on the eyes...
In fact, I've had to replaced those marks with my own block, as the only way I could figure to not plot variable length extention lines and still keep the dims origins on their objects, is to make the extention lines a non-printing colour [ 'white' pen,] which then renders the standard marks 'invisable' too...
-- R'zenboom
what standards are PE's & SE's supporting these days, Bob? :}
-- R'zenboom
I don't use any nationally recognized standard. I looked at the AIA standard, but find it almost incomprehensible. The other thing is some clients have their own standard, so you set stuck using that one.
In my opinion any layering standard that names the layers clearly with a name that defines the layer's relationship to the building, site or other matter at hand will work just fine.
For a building you might have a group of layer that start with "G-" to define layers that cover an entire building, then start go with "F-" layers to convey foundation information, then "1-" layers and on up the building until you get to "R-" layers for the roof.
My $0.02 worth anyway.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.