Notes in PS or MS

  Quoted Text Here  

There is no question that exploding dimension is a bad idea. But if the only other choice is paperspace dimensions that later change their values WITHOUT user intervention, exploding is a better choice.
I think the problem is uncommon. But, if only 1% of companies have this problem, and they catch the AutoCAD error 90% of the time, that would still mean 1 out of 1,000 drawings might have a dimension that spontaniously forgets its scale factor. Is that an acceptable risk?
Joe

On 19 Feb 2004 08:59:11 -0800, in alt.cad.autocad, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (J.) wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Yes .... OK, no.
Look, if you (or your manager) insist on dimensioning (yes, I understand that sometimes it is the "only" way to do it) and somehow (magic?) the dimension "spontaniously forgets its scale factor", don't explode the dimension! Simply redimension it, then delete the old dimension.
If ya can't use CAD, then go (as they used to say) back to the drawing board.
-- "Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on whom we love." -- "A General Theory Of Love" Thanks, Mom ______________________________________________________________ Glen Appleby snipped-for-privacy@armory.com <HTTP://www.armory.com/~glena/

On 13 Feb 2004 05:32:25 -0800, in comp.cad.autocad, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Smiley) wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
In keeping with the discussion (the solid model is the Final Word), simply don't dimension and the problem is solved, bug or bugless.
-- "Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on whom we love." -- "A General Theory Of Love" Thanks, Mom ______________________________________________________________ Glen Appleby snipped-for-privacy@armory.com <HTTP://www.armory.com/~glena/

  Quoted Text Here  
How about trying it this way.... Draw the model in it's own drawing, with no text, dims, etc. Then x-ref that into another drawing, where you can put dims, notes and stuff in MS if you want. Then, with your title block stuff set up in PS, your all set. Thats pretty much how I do construction drawings involving several disciplines. Since I don't want the mechanical engineers notes in the same model as the electrical, or the civil, or the structural guys, I draw a floor plan on it's own. Then xref the base floor plan into various later drawings (plumbing plan, lighting plan, foundation plan, etc). It also assures everyone is working off of the same, most current version of the floor plan. HTH Steve

That's not a bad idea Steve
RD
  Quoted Text Here  
that
you
plan.

Except for the lack of associativity....

when I have to share drawings with someone outside my network the xref paths seem to get confused. we have learned over the years to insert them as blocks & send the files as one drawing. even the pack & go option doesn't see, to have the bugs worked out. JMO
Rob

I take exactly the same approach. But, I really find that modelspace dimensions start to get very cumbersome when you have 20 layers of dimensions. Every release of AutoCAD since the introduction of paperspace has had a "New and Improved" version of paperspace dimensioning. But, every version has problems. In the past, I had problems with paperspace dimensions occasionally forgetting their linear scale factors... resulting in inaccurate dimension values. Then version 2002 introduced the new "Truely Associative" paperspace dimensions... but they also give inaccurate values for some objects. They didn't like most 3d objects either.
So, the modivation to stay in modelspace for dimensions is because of chronic bugs in the paperspace version that cause inaccurate information to be generated.
Joe

Thanks all for the discussion. I will compile and take to CAD people for discussion.
RD
  Quoted Text Here  

This is normal, different needs, final destination etc.- , different use,
I don't think there is one "proper way" for all. Definitely good topic. Rom
  Quoted Text Here