Dimension in Paper Space or Model?

[sinc]

Styles help a lot with that, at least for some of the vertical products.

All of the Styles can be pre-created in the company template. These include a huge chunk of what could be called the "company standards". And once all the Styles are created and available in the DWT, it's a lot more work for someone to create a custom Style. So people tend to use the existing ones, rather than create their own. Voila, automatic standards adherence. (Well, for some things, at least...)

[Laurie1]

I suppose if you used paper space to dimension you wouldn't be able to use associative dimensioning? Another thing... and now in current versions there is parametric dimensioning also I believe that form of dimensioning must be done in model space. I think there is a system variable that you can set like this (if you are in paper space you can toggle the vieport between model and paper right) this system variable will automatically select the proper dimstyle scale according to the scale of your viewport... so you are still dimensioning in model space, but in the model space inside the viewport the viewports properties are associated... we also use this alot, if you lock the viewport you can easily zoom and pan without changing the position or scale of your model space objects...

[cadtag]

yea, any customization, whether c3d styles or custom coded tools, should make it easier to follow company standards than to not follow them. 'course i've seen company standards that would cause any rational person to head for the door.

way back ca '96 a 'major unnamed theme park' set up a process that used layer states to manipulate all visible information in the file. and i do mean file -- each project used a single dwg, and one layout (back when, that's all there was...) setting up different layerstates in model space generate the different sheets, from the cover to plan to details. lots of redundant information and duplicated linework and text. w/o their tools, you had a nightmare of layering and conflicting data.

[cdatechguy]

I haven't used AutoCAD since before Annotative Dimensioning was available...so unless you changed the scale of the dimension or the scale of paperspace, dimensioning in paperspace was a no-no....

[jaberwok]

I haven't used AutoCAD since before Annotative Dimensioning was available...so unless you changed the scale of the dimension or the scale of paperspace, dimensioning in paperspace was a no-no....

Errr, no.
You had one style for paperspace and checked a box that said "scale to viewport" or similar and set DIMASSOC to 2. It did work though no-one said it was pretty.

[and I still don't use annotative anything ]

[dgorsman]

I suppose if you used paper space to dimension you wouldn't be able to use associative dimensioning? Another thing... and now in current versions there is parametric dimensioning also I believe that form of dimensioning must be done in model space. I think there is a system variable that you can set like this (if you are in paper space you can toggle the vieport between model and paper right) this system variable will automatically select the proper dimstyle scale according to the scale of your viewport... so you are still dimensioning in model space, but in the model space inside the viewport the viewports properties are associated... we also use this alot, if you lock the viewport you can easily zoom and pan without changing the position or scale of your model space objects...

Associative dimensioning isn't a big deal here. One, by the time dimensions are getting placed on ortho drawings anything that moves is going to result in somebody getting yelled at by the Project Leads; two, the software in use may modify objects using a process that actually deletes the original and rebuilds it with the new settings, which renders any kind of associativity useless. Same thing happens if somebody manually erases objects.

[cdatechguy]

Errr, no.
You had one style for paperspace and checked a box that said "scale to viewport" or similar and set DIMASSOC to 2. It did work though no-one said it was pretty.

[and I still don't use annotative anything ]

I guess I should remove the CAD part from my signature eh? I know nothing about CAD anymore....

[BeKirra]

I guess I should remove the CAD part from my signature eh? I know nothing about CAD anymore....

Back to the drawing board? Lets have some pencils & rubber first.