Text Override Dimensions

[cheboludo]

It's not the best practice in most cases, but there are situations where it's necesary. For example, when dimensioning a detail, I will often refer dimensions to the framing plans or even architectural plans (i.e. "Per Plan" or "Per Arch'l") for such things as foundation widths, architectural steps (to decks), etc. The current work around of creating a dimension with a text of 1/256" and placing a text over the line seems archaic.
-che

[Fred Blome]

If this function gets added, it needs to have a visual clue to make it very obvious that it is an override dimension, not a real automatic one. Maybe a color on screen, printing black, or something like that. With this visual clue, I think it would then be a better option than tiny text or a faux dimension.

[Chad Smith]

I agree with Fred. It's a Yes, but with the graphical caveat.

[aaronrumple]

...it takes the I right out of BIM.

[bowlingbrad]

I understand Aaron's point, but it still needs to be there.

[asaastad]

Maybe a way to make "text only" dimension types or to have a yes/no parameter in dimension element properties to switch between whether the true dimension or a text field is displayed, and definatly an obvious visual queu that the dimension is false or overridden, like the text displaying as red on screen or somehting.

I think it is very important for having to place text for the "Per Arch", "Per Plan", etc over the dimension to go away. Even with programs like Revit people will always find a way to cheat around it instead of just doing things right. I've actually seen idiots placing "EQ" or fake dimension length over the orignal dimension just because they were too lazy/incompetant to figure out why the object they were dimensioning to were constrained and wouldn;t change automatically.

[BillyGrey]

#2 ...takes the I right out of BIM.

Old, sloppy technique (archaic) that has the potential to create havoc on all kinds of levels.

My cross-checking and accuracy in the field improved dramatically because of this one feature. Contractors and subs love my field sets because there are no hidden traps.

Lets not slowly turn this prog. into ADT.

[david_peterson]

#2 ...takes the I right out of BIM.

Old, sloppy technique (archaic) that has the potential to create havoc on all kinds of levels.

My cross-checking and accuracy in the field improved dramatically because of this one feature. Contractors and subs love my field sets because there are no hidden traps.

Lets not slowly turn this prog. into ADT.
I wish it ACA would get closer to Revit. I can't tell you how many times I have to do stacked beams. Am I supposed to create a seperate level and plan for ever stacked beam I have? That seems pointless. I know I could create more family with the line representation offset in one direction, but I can't dimension to the graphic line. So I have have to draw a line (That takes the I & M out of BIM) and the put in a dim then I have to place a piece of text over the top of the dim (which takes the I out of BIM anyway) so I can convey that info to the fabricator and Contractor.
So you tell me what makes more sence. Being able to cheat a dimension and have the model be correct or drawing lines? Just my 2 cents.

[kate.morrical61357]

On my drawings, there are plenty of times when I want to replace the dimension text with "V.I.F." or "SEE PLAN", etc., or add "TYP." etc. to the string.

Obviously replacing numbers with other numbers is bad, but text can have its place in a dimension.

[aaronrumple]

On my drawings, there are plenty of times when I want to replace the dimension text with "V.I.F." or "SEE PLAN", etc., or add "TYP." etc. to the string.

Obviously replacing numbers with other numbers is bad, but text can have its place in a dimension.

These sorts of indications are overused in our profession and we should start being more explicit. We've had this discussion in our office and I think that avoiding these references forces our drawings to be clearer and less cluttered.

V.I.F. - All that says is I don't know. Well maybe we should. Not to the accuracy the contractor needs for final fabrication, but we should know about what we want. I think 12'-6" V.I.F. is ok (and Revit does that just fine.) But if you just put V.I.F. - then don't put anything at all. Verifying field conditions is always spelled out in the specifications.

SEE PLAN - was the dimension on the plan? Then you don't even need the dimension. The contractor should have seen the plan before they got to the detail. Is there a range of options? 2'-8 to 4'-5" See Plan. That works fine in Revit. I've see lots of instances where there was a SEE PLAN and then nothing on the plan.

SEE (CONSULTANT) - says nothing. Unless you call out a specific detail number in the consultants work, the contractor still has to hunt for the information. This is all too often used to sluff off responibility on one of our consultants. It doesn't work. We're still responsible.

Typ. - typical to what? 12'-6" Typ. That makes sense and Revit does that just fine.

SHALL BE - I hate this one.WOOD SHALL BE PAINTED. How about PAINT WOOD?

[Richard Lopez]

Try this . I think I came up with a solution for this. taket a look at the example file . You will have to load the the attached font. I need to do some more work with the font file but it may do for now

[patricks]

I think the current workaround should stay as-is. It makes it difficult enough that I don't use it unless absolutely necessary. I think the ONLY time I ever place a text dimension over the actual dimension text is when I have a drafting view with a break line. You can't break a drafting view like you can a section or detail view, so if you have something broken in a drafting view, and you need to dimension across the break line, you have to replace the actual dimension text with your own text object.

[BillyGrey]

[QUOTE=david_peterson;797425]So you tell me what makes more sence. /QUOTE]

Sorry, no can do. It didn't make sense to me in the first place <| 8 p (Billy doffs his dunce cap and tries to look impressive)