Dimension in paper space or model?

[mday]

Should you always dimension in model space or paper space? It appears to me that users do both, more often model. This seems to make more sense to me. When dealing with multiple vports at different scale it's time consuming to set up several different dim styles per each differing vport, so that txt ht and dims a re all at 1/8" on final plot. Does anyone have any suggestions on how normally this is done? I'm using autocad 2004.

Thanks

[Wanderer]

I've seen it done mostly in model space. Although I did get a few drawings (r2000) which were dimensioned in paper space. The viewport wasn't locked, so it got messed up pretty quickly.

When I got 2005, I opened up the file from the original disk and did a change space on it to put the dims back in paper space. They aren't associative, but, it's better than losing them if I accidently pan and don't realize it until after I've saved. :oops:

[arcadia_x27]

YOU'LL DEFINETLY RUN INTO A LOT LESS PROBLEMS IF YOU DIMENSION IN MODELSPACE RATHER THAN PAPERSPACE, I PUT THE OCCOSIONAL SINGLE DIMENSION ON A DRAWING IN PAPERSPACE BUT ONLY USUALLY IF I NEED IT FAST OR I FORGOT SOMETHING. OTHERWISE ALL DIMENSIONING IS IN MODELSPACE

[Mike.Perry]

Hi

Below snippets are form old ACAD Guild posts that I've made -

<snip>

Text and Dimension placement is a personal choice, go with whatever works for you; personally ModelSpace until AutoDesk get all the current issue's/problems resolved, if they do I will take a look again but until they do I'll stick with placement in ModelSpace.

But in the end go with whatever works for "you" and the kind of work that "you" do. No one can tell you if it's right or wrong as long as it works. As with all things AutoCAD there is always more than one method and you will always get For's & Against with whatever method you choose.

</snip>

<snip>

Just for your info, below are a few links to CADalyst Bug Watch that highlight a few problems/issues with Dimensioning in PaperSpace (If memory serves there are a few more if you want to look for them there). Please note I'm not trying to say the way you Dimension is wrong am just pointing out a few of the known problems that exist -

http://www.cadalyst.com/exclusive/bugs/1201bugwatch.htm Dec 2001 (Page no longer Found)

http://www.cadalyst.com/exclusive/bugs/0202bugwatch.htm Feb 2002 (Page no longer Found)

http://www.cadalyst.com/exclusive/bugs/0302bugwatch.htm Mar 2002 (Page no longer Found)

http://www.cadalyst.com/exclusive/bugs/1002bugwatch.htm Oct 2002 (Page no longer Found)

http://aec.cadalyst.com/aec/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=101610 (http://www.cadalyst.com/cadalyst/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=80470) Feb 2003

http://manufacturing.cadalyst.com/manufacturing/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=101471 (http://www.cadalyst.com/cadalyst/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=80463) July 2003

Might also what to check out the Knowledge Base on the AutoDesk web site, Search for -

"Trans-Spatial" should get 5 returns

"Dimassoc" should get 6 returns

</snip>

Note - since the above AutoCAD 2004 & 2005 may have resolved all or some of the issues/problems that I was referring to.

Have a good one, Mike

ps (Page no longer Found) I've added, is probably due to CADalyst re-launching their web site when they merged with CADence last year.

[Glenn Pope]

I have gotten where I put all text and dimensions in paper space. Then only draw back I have really ran into is if I need to change the scale of viewport. It can be a pain to move all the dimension into the correct place if there are a lot of them. I try to wait to the last minute before I start adding the dimensions. By then I shouldn't have to worry about needing to change the views.

[chadwickt]

Are you all aware that if your Dimensions are associative, typing in DIMREGEN cleans up the mess that results from panning or zooming in paper space?

I use Paper Space for dimensioning. Admittedly, I am an educator so I am sure I do not dimension as frequently as many of you.

-Tracy

[glen353712]

I think this has been an issue with many AutoCAD users over the years. AutoCAD would like to have everyone drawing just the model in model space and all annotations in paper space. In a perfect world this works great. I think AutoCAD has been moving in the right direction by trying to improve AutoCAD. The true associative dimensions work about 80% of the time as far as I can tell. Some of the problems mention is solved with this issue. I would love to hear about any problems people have had with this feature.

One problem I have encountered and hope AutoCAD will resolve is when dimensioning an xreternal reference file. If I have a true associative dimension to an object within an external reference and I change that object within the xref file and open the main file with the dimension, the association is broken and does not fix correctly. If I make the change using the in-place xref editor, it works fine.

For those who may not have tried true associative dimensioning here is my basic description. AutoCAD's old associative dimension was based on points being placed on the defpoints layer. When these points where changed the dimension changed. The true associated dimensions are associated to real points on objects. This mean if I dimension a line, end_point-to-end_point I can extend the line and the dimension will automatically change when the line changes. This was especially great when you are dimensioning in paper space.

They’re us to be two problems when dimensioning in AutoCAD prior to AutoCAD 2002, when true associative dimensioning was introduced. One was the fact that you still needed to have separate dimension styles when you had view ports of different scale. This was because you needed to scale the paperspace distance biased on the scale of the picture. Please note that this is when really placing dimension in paper space, not just placing them in model space through the paper space view port.

The second problem was when changes where made. When you changed the model you had to then go and change the dimensions in paper space. This just seemed like more work then if you just dimensioned in model space.

True associative dimensioning solved both these problems. Because the dimension is based on the actual object you are dimension it will read the correct distance without the need to multiple. This means just one dimension style is need for all dimensions. The second problem is also solved because when you make changes the dimensions will automatically adjust. This is even true if you pan the view, which I never suggest, but that is a whole other topic.

The only difficult thing about this type of dimensioning is that you really need to be careful about what you select as your origin point. A common mistake I see people make is picking the node point of another dimension. Remember that you always want to use osnaps when picking your points. Also, learn the dimreassociate command for broken dimensions.

I think that everyone should make the decision for himself or herself, but make sure you really investigate all your options. Also, those of you that may have used these when they first came out and found them unpredictable may want to try them again because AutoCAD has fixed some of the issues.

[sinc]

I usually want the same dimensions to appear in multiple layouts, or even other drawings that XREF the drawing containing the dimensions. How do you do this without dimensioning each object in each layout/drawing if all your dimensions are in paper space?

[glen353712]

This is ussually something we try not to do. Though it may be different in other disiplines and some may have a different phylosphy, but having redunt information is not productive. I have always been told say it once, say it correctly and do not say it again. But at any rate if you need to have the same dimension appear in several places then you would have to be in model space. Just be careful of scale differences.

[sinc]

I can see why you might want to make a general rule of not doing it if you are producing drawings that have creating a printed set of plans be the sole end result, but AutoCAD can also be used as a calculation tool.

When I do office calculations to support field survey crews, I frequently need several different views of the same site. For example, I might produce one plot containing boundary and control information and associated points, one plot containing waterlines and associated points, one plot containing sanitary sewer lines and associated points, etc. On each of these plots, I have a lot of information that is different, but I also have a lot of information that remains the same. I'm also frequently changing and reprinting a given plot as work on the site progresses; I generally don't have a set end target like producing a final printed set of plans. Each plot I make is designed to support the task at hand that day, and may change over time. In other words, each plot represents a "slice" of the project at a certain point in time, and may be printed again with updated information before the project is over. Each plot has selected information from the other plots, which also must be current. (This is so the person in the field only needs to carry around a single piece of paper while doing stakeout, instead of a full set of plans, as would be required by your "say something once, don't say it again" philosophy.) In this usage, labelling in paper space would take a lot more time, and would probably involve a lot of headache making sure everything remained synchronized, but yield no apparant advantage.

In a related vein, since I spend a lot of time working in model space - drawing and editing lines, setting points, identifying lengths, bearings, and angles, etc. - I frequently want label information also right there. If I have to switch to paper space every time I want to see or add a piece of text, I'd slow WAY down. I also sometimes need to block out portions of drawings into new drawings, and need associated text to go along with the linework. Therefore, if the engineers at the other companies I work with put all their labels in paper space, I'd probably go buggy. Of course, that's because, in this usage, I'm using AutoCAD as a calculation tool, not as a drafting aid.

The upshot is that maybe, when someone asks if they should label in paper or model space, the answer should be "It depends on what you're doing."

[sinc]

In the "Paper space vs. Model space" debate, part of your original question seems to have gone unnoticed:

Instead of creating multiple styles for each scale, try using the "Use Overall Scale Of:" option on the "Fit" tab of the dimension style. Set it to the scale of your viewport (i.e., if your viewport is zoomed to 1/50XP, set it to 50) by overriding your current style. It's still annoying, especially since you have to reset your override every time you switch dim styles, but it's better than creating a mess of styles, one for each zoom scale.

[2dogs]

I recently posed this same question in the New Users forum area. That post referred me to this post. Now I'm more confused than ever.

As a new user I went straight to pspace as my drawing board. I have found I can do some things there easier than in model space. Of course I have not yet done more advanced ops such as using xrefs.

I have ran into some, as yet, unresolved problems with associated dims so have been avoiding them for the time being. Much of this may be due to my personal drawing style.

A recurring theme I have noticed in other posts on this subject is " If I want the dims on different layouts I have to draw them over again". I have yet to find this to be a problem. You can copy layouts and then mod them quicker that creating new ones. If layers are used creatively for dims and models this to alleviates this problem.

Richards.64879 said:

"When I do office calculations to support field survey crews, I frequently need several different views of the same site. For example, I might produce one plot containing boundary and control information and associated points, one plot containing waterlines and associated points, one plot containing sanitary sewer lines and associated points, etc. On each of these plots, I have a lot of information that is different, but I also have a lot of information that remains the same".

This sure sounds like the ideal environment for using duplicate layouts and creative use of layers to me!

Perhaps I just don't have the experience yet to realize the problems, and I'm not referring to software bugs, or perhaps some of you older hands are not "thinking out of the box". In any case consider how we used to work on drawing boards, though I suppose many of you have never seen one. Maybe we are spoiled and expect to much. Drawing has an infinite number of creative possibilities. Thus far software does not.
























Perhaps I just don't have the experience yet to see the problems

[Mike.Perry]

Hi

Please note I've *deleted* your "Dimension in paper space or model?" post from the New Users (http://forums.augi.com/forumdisplay.php?f=47) Forum.

Below snippet is taken from the small print found on the Forum General (http://forums.augi.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44) page ( Click HERE (http://forums.augi.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=28398) to see a screen capture )...

<snip>
New users: Please experiment here with forum features and commands.
</snip>

Thanks, Mike

(Forum Moderator)

[revacservice]

Personaly I use both options, 90% of my work when plotted will not fit on one sheet, so I dimension in model space so I'm not continually flipping between model and paperspace.

For the other 10% are 3d models and to dimension and note this type of drawing is more convienent in paperspace.

[kathy71046]

I do 90% of my dimensioning in paperspace, as I am usually detailing large steel structures, and my model is drawn in true 3D, and having dimensions in model space usually creates headaches and mess when drawing the model up.

The only time I use model space for dimensioning is when I create detail blocks for design plans, as it saves having to put in dimensions and leaders for every detail.

The true associative dimensions are great, although sometimes they break when you edit a block that has been used for the snap points.

It really depends on the application as to where it is best to dimension.

Kathy

[deacon]

I only wanted to comment on the part about having to take the time to create a different dimstyle for each scale (assuming you are dimensioning in model space and haven't mastered true associative dimensioning). Wouldn't a wise drafter (or CAD Manager) already have developed a series of dimension styles and layers for each scale typically used by that drafter/office? It is not something that needs to be done over and over on each new drawing; just once for each scale in, say, a prototype drawing. Now with Tool Pallettes you can create your own dimstyles tab and forget inserting styles form another drawing...

[thomas.stright]

We Dim/Anno in PS Only. We have no 2D objects in out MS. All backgrounds are X-ref'ed In.

We use a set-up lisp that sets all layers, colors, linetypes, text heights ect.... All set by the user when they enter the scale factor for the plots.

[jaberwok]

My work is mechanical, not civil or architectural. I model everything in 3d (95 percent in solids) and ALL dimensions and notes are in pspace. You no longer need different dimstyles for differently scaled vports but, even in earlier versions they were easy enough to create by making a copy of the basic style, using the dim/lfac/view sequence and using "save to current style" from the context menu.

So, again, it's whatever works for you - but do try all the alternatives before making a choice.

[sinc]

I only wanted to comment on the part about having to take the time to create a different dimstyle for each scale (assuming you are dimensioning in model space and haven't mastered true associative dimensioning). Wouldn't a wise drafter (or CAD Manager) already have developed a series of dimension styles and layers for each scale typically used by that drafter/office? It is not something that needs to be done over and over on each new drawing; just once for each scale in, say, a prototype drawing. Now with Tool Pallettes you can create your own dimstyles tab and forget inserting styles form another drawing...
You are making the assumption that your goals and reasons for using Autocad are the same as mine. That is an unwise assumption.

I work for a land surveying firm. A large portion of my work involves performing calculations that support field work. Since this involves translating plans into stakeout data they can use with computerized survey equipment, Autocad is an ideal tool.

Note that I have a completely different goal than the one I assume you have. It sounds like you're working at some sort of engineering or architectural firm, and using Autocad to produce a set of plans. For such a task, what you say makes sense.

On the other hand, in my work, I generally work with a single drawing (with maybe an XREF or two). This drawing might have many layouts, often of different parts of the job, and often at different scales. These layouts are designed to give a specific subset of information to the guys in the field. Again, I'm not trying to produce a set of plans, so there's no need for title blocks or seperate "printable" drawings or any of that. Also, since I'm not going into this saying "I need to create a drawing at 50-scale", I don't start from a template. Therefore, there is no opportunity to pick a 50-scale template, or whatever.

For this type of work, much of my labeling must appear on some or all of the layouts. Therefore, labeling in paper space would be redundant. and since I'm not producing a set of plans that I'm going to want to be able to recreate over and over, it would also be a waste of time.

Also, I frequently discover the need to block out portions of drawings, and want the labeleing to go along. Having objects and labels split between paper space and model space is annoying in cases like this.

So here I am violating several "rules of style", if you will. It's not because I'm not aware of the advantages of having seperate "model" and "print" drawings, or the advantages to labeling in paper space vs. model space, or because I haven't "mastered true associative dimensioning". It is because model space dimensioning works best for my task, and I make a concious CHOICE to use the most applicable method, not blindly follow some draftsman's rule without thought to why the rule exists.

You might as well tell me I should always draw to scale in model space, and then plot from paper space. I would tell you that if I drew a circuit board to scale, you wouldn't be able to figure out what it does. A schematic works much better, and since I'm drawing it at 1:1 scale, why use paperspace?

Remember, just because YOU use Autocad in a certain way, that doesn't mean that EVERYONE uses it the way you do. That's one of the great things about it: it's a very versatile tool.

And yes, it is possible to define a slew of dimstyles, one set for each likely scale, then use tool pallettes to insert them. I STILL view this as less-than-desireable solution, since it still involves creating a lot of dimstyles (even if you only create them once), it also involves manually finding them (even if it's only in a tool pallette), and as near as I can tell, it is also completely unnecessary, since you can get the same effect by using a text style with 0 height and set the text height in your dimstyle, then override the dimension fit as necessary.

I just wish Autocad didn't throw out the override every time I switch dimstyles. A number of Land Desktop commands put it back on automatically (I still haven't figured out if this is a bug, or if it's done on purpose because the Land Desktop designers basically label things the same way I do). That's why, every time I switch dimstyles, I hit my button that starts up "Label Settings...", and then immediately cancel. It reapplies the fit override on my dimstyles using the current drawing scale, so I don't have to do it explicitly. Maybe someday I'll set it up so this happens automatically; I guess I know how to do that.

[Gigliano70]

Should you always dimension in model space or paper space? It appears to me that users do both, more often model. This seems to make more sense to me. When dealing with multiple vports at different scale it's time consuming to set up several different dim styles per each differing vport, so that txt ht and dims a re all at 1/8" on final plot. Does anyone have any suggestions on how normally this is done? I'm using autocad 2004.

Thanks

Alright, here is my two cents on this, though it may not be worth a penny.

I am a convert. I used to do all of my annotations in MS.

Doing your annotations in MS on large drawings that require consultants or where the drawing could need revisions or could be used for change orders or future work is just plain unproductive. Here is why.

To keep accurate records of your constructed work you need to have your drawings remain as they are. So now you need to use said drawings to create a different set of construction documents relating to the same job. You have to get rid of the old dimensions and annotations to create new ones. This requires you to create new layers to put the next round of anno/dims on and shut off the layers that you don't want. Which in turn affects the rest of the drawings? This may not create confusion for you if you are the only one working on the drawings. However what happens when that drawing is being looked at by an architect or consultant or god forbid another drafter when you are not present to answer questions. The confusion that can result does not make for a good day. Here is the quote "I thought I asked you to remove that dimension or text" and as a drafter your response is "I did duh... ahhh.... I blah blah blah" that’s all an architect hears. And he looks down on the print and Sais "but its right here"

Now when you dimension in PS. all annotations are out of the drawing and not interfering with future work to be performed nor does it interfere with multiple layouts at different scales. Using the same model and best yet, all dimensions and annotations are on the same layers thru-out the drawing. My opinion is that I would rather click back and forth between model and paper space than deal with the resulting backlashes of forgetting to shut off a layer that shouldn't have been there in the first place. This is especially difficult if you use color dependant plot styles. All annotations are the same color and all dims are the same color. How at a quick glance do you tell the difference between old and new?

Now there is the issue of anno scaling lets say all your annotations should plot out at about 3/32" so how many different anno scales are there? As many as you have viewport scales... so why hassle with annotative scaling? One style set at 3/32 in PS is all you need.

Sure I have multiple dimension styles set up. But hey! Considering the hassles’ that could result I think the hassle of selecting the appropriate dim style from a pull down is nothing.

[Leoricol]

Using annotative dimension on any viewport in paper space tab on Autocad 2008, the dimension is not shown as a real dimension.

Which of the setvar I have to change in order to fix it, in order to show the real dimension?

[irneb]

Welcome to AUGI & congrats on your 1st post.

If you say "real" dimension, are you referring to the value displayed? In which case you have 2 options, and it's not just concerning Annotative Dims (even normal dims won't do this):

Set up a dimstyle with a DIMLFAC to change per scale, then use the relevan dimstyle over the VP.
Have DIMASSOC=2 so it "automatically" figures out the MS dim size.Both have serious problems however:

You need a dimstyle for each scale on the drawing ... basically this negates the most usefull idea of putting dims on PS.
If you use XRefs DIMASSOC can cause huge problems with dims jumping all over the place every time you open the drawing.For me, I'm still placing them in MS. Especially now with Anno Dims, there's no more reason for PS dims. At least in my scenario.

If you are forced into PS (for whatever reason), then be aware of the problems listed. If you can live with them ... it's your choice :shock:

Edit: Oh and BTW, if you are going to dim in PS, why do you want to use Anno?

[Glenn Pope]

For me, I'm still placing them in MS. Especially now with Anno Dims, there's no more reason for PS dims. At least in my scenario.

I had posted before in this thread that I placed everything in PS. Now with annotative dimensions I have gone back to placing them back into MS. Wish Autodesk would make up their mind where they want us to put these. LOL

[jaberwok]

I had posted before in this thread that I placed everything in PS. Now with annotative dimensions I have gone back to placing them back into MS. Wish Autodesk would make up their mind where they want us to put these. LOL

I've said several it times and still believe it - annotative dimensions are the result of adesk accepting that many/most users will never switch to ps dimensioning. It's a change of direction forced by users' unwillingness to go along with the plan.

[irneb]

That's possibly true ... but for me at least, I can't use PS dims due to the problem stated in my previous post. Even before Anno, I used to do MS dims through a VP. So I only had the one DimStyle, set to "Scale dimensions to layout" (or set DIMSCALE=0). Then the dims were scaled according to the zoom factor of the viewport. Works slightly like Anno Dims, but you could have problems with different VP's scaled differently & showing the same portion of MS - since the Dim would only be scaled according to one of the VP's. So then you had to play with layers :cry:

That's why Anno Dims works much better for me 8)

If DIMASSOC=2 would not give the jumping dim hassle, I'd also say PS dims rule! :mrgreen: There's still one feature which only PS dims can give you: if you have (say) a detail with a break in the middle, you can have 2 VP's sowing the ends, then simply place a DIMASSOC=2 dim on PS between linework over the 2 VP's. It measures the MS length even though the distance measured on PS has no bearing on a scale factor between the 2 points.

I simply cannot see how ADesk can get that working on MS dims. I'd have advised them to "rather than" put all their programming time into Anno, fix the DIMASSOC=2 with xrefs problem ... which is still a bummer :banghead:

[Capt. Computer Crasher]

I'd have advised them to "rather than" put all their programming time into Anno, fix the DIMASSOC=2 with xrefs problem ... which is still a bummer :banghead:

Are you referring to the fact that DIMASSOC=2 only works if the dimension and the dimensioned object are in the same file? I didn't know if was supposed to work on x-refs or is this a kind of wishlist item for you?

[irneb]

That's the whole point! With my type of projects (10+ story hotels & resort complexes) I can't NOT use xrefs ... it would be stupid!

With DIMASSOC=2 it links the DIM to the object it uses when snapping to a point. Now (usually on my plans) this could easily be linework coming from an xref. While in the same session of having that drawing open it works perfectly. But because the link used between the dim & (say) line is the ObjectID, this ID number can change at the next open.

E.g. Say you dim between 2 lines (one drawn inside this DWG, the other part of an xref). The dim is linked to ObjectID# 1000 in the current DWG database & ObjectID# 2000 (also in the current DWG database but being read from the xref). So when you open the drawing again, the ObjectID 1000 still points to the same line. But, due to the way xrefs are "recreated" in the current DWG, the ObjectID 2000 may now point to something else. Therefore the DIM seems to "jump" to a different place every time you open the drawing.

[irneb]

Hang on, maybe they have changed this. This problem we had in 2005 & 6, so since then we just didn't use it anymore. Just did an inspection of a dimassoc=2 dim in 2008. See the attached screen capture.

A DIMASSOC=2 dim seems to have a DIM_ASSOC dictionary attached which has a point ref linked to the object used to create the DIM. As can be seen after the (1 . "AcDbOsnapPointRef") there's 2 331 codes, the 1st points to the VIEWPORT object through which I've dimmed. The 2nd points to the INSERT (block reference) of the xref. Then there's 2x 301 codes following, from the developer help these refer to the Handles of the objects inside the xref.

So sorry ADesk, you have repaired this crazy behaviour. :Oops: I just didn't know about it. Will definately look changing our standards to this instead! :mrgreen:

While testing I came accross a strange thing happening though. As you can see in the attachment, some of the dims are only showing the paperspace lengths. They were all done with DIMASSOC=2. I made sure that each used a different point on the grid lines (so I didn't inadvertently pick one of the previous PS dims' depoints). What I've found is it depends on how I've zoomed while drawing the dim ... :shock: ... strange!