Dim variables as shown in HELP

While going through the HELP menu Dimension System Variables section I
notice the following are not shown and must be set from the command line:
DIMASSOC
DIMBLK
DIMLIM
DIMSAH
DIMTSZ
DIMTVP

Is this correct?

Also, double notations on the illustrations:
Text tab and Tolerances tab both have DIMTFAC.
Text tab has DIMGAP in two locations as check box for draw frame and also as
off set from dim line.
Alternate Units tab as DIMAPOST in two locations opposite each other.

 

At the command prompt as opposed to the Dimension Style Manager dialogue, do
you mean?

DIMASSOC is not part of a dimension style, but you can set it to 1 or 2 by
unchecking or checking "Associative Dimensions" on the User Preferences tab
of the Options dialogue. If you want exploded dimensions (DIMASSOC 0), you
have to do that from the command prompt. These settings are saved in the
drawing.

The others can all be set in the Dimension Style Manager:

 

Thank you but I understand the three options for setting DIMASSOC, as I use
the "0" option personally, plus the individual settings and saving a new
settings with the -DIMSTYLE method. I was only asking if my observations
were correct that the mentioned settings are not part of DDIM and that there
were some variables listed in more than one place.

 

I guess I don't understand the question then, since I thought I answered it.
DIMASSOC is not saved in a dimension style, and the other variables you list
are. It also seems likely that there are many things, not just dimension
variables, that are listed in more than one place.

And you really prefer exploded dimensions in your drawings?

 

My question was also for the other variables listed below that do not show
up in the help section graphics display of the DDIM tabs from the help menu
under Command Reference>Dimension Variables in Di9mension Style Dialog
Boxes: These do not show up as being set in the DDIM command. I only asked
if this was correct. I know what they are and what they do and how to save
a revised style from the command line.
DIMBLK
DIMLIM
DIMSAH
DIMTSZ
DIMTVP

I also had other questions about the double notation of variables, for
apparently different settings, as noted in the help file for the tabs.

 

These do not show up as being set in the DDIM command. I only asked if this was correct. <<

AFAICT, that is correct.

Why DIMASSOC=0?

 

Can't break lines, if dimtext is moved line breaks, among many other issues.
I have developed tools to update dimension text, mtext and assoc. dimensions
by adding them up by windowing them to see if they total the overall length.
This even works with the old simpfrac font. Just because dimensions are
associated doesn't mean they are correct if someone doesn't know how to
place them to start with. In that case, just relying on it can still cause
inaccuracies. Too many times I get drawings from Architect's offices where
the assoc. dimensions are not actually tied to a point so garbage in,
garbage out. Also, just because AutoCad places them doesn't mean they are
correct. For example if you place dimensions for a length of 13'-1" that is
in three equal lengths, the dimensions will NOT add up if in the Arch.
fraction mode. I know many use and like these, but having started in 2.6 I
don't trust any placed dimensions and verify all strings.

 

Gosh, I'd personally find it a nightmare to work on drawings with exploded
dimensions. I first learned on 1.4 (1984!) and have been using AutoCAD
almost daily since 2.18 and I've found few reasons to explode dimensions --
and none at all since named dimension styles in Release 11 and especially
2004-style DIMASSOC 2 associated dimensions. I've also been teaching AutoCAD
at local colleges since 1994, and do my best to drum into my students that
they should NEVER NEVER NEVER explode dimensions.

The case of 3 equal dimensions not adding up to 13'-1" in an architectural
drawing strikes me as bogus for a number of reasons.

First of all, when I started on the drafting board, I was taught to never
close dimensions, so you would not have 3 dimensions that had to add up to
an overall dim--you'd show just two of the sub-dimensions with the overall
dimension.

An alternative would be to have a continuous string of 3 dimensions with the
text suppressed on the outside ones and the middle one reading 3 EQUAL
SPACES = 13'-1". Obviously that's not a true distance either, but at least
it's not exploded & anyone could put it back to a true dimension if
necessary.

Second, you wouldn't have 3 equal dimensions adding up to 13'-1" on a
manually drafted drawing either.

The other reason this example is bogus is that the difference between 1/3 of
an inch and the next reasonable fraction (3/8") is .042". Going back to
fractions, this is not much more than 1/32", a degree of precision that I
would find pretty unlikely in any architectural plan.

 

Can't break lines<<

Grip drag


Proper dim setting eliminate.


Unecessary if Assoc dims used.


DIMASSOC=0 won't solve sloppy drafting.

garbage out<<

DIMASSOC=0 won't solve sloppy drafting.


Has nothing to do with DIMASSOC. There is no Arch mode for 1/3 of an inch, calling for such is just lame drafting.

don't trust any placed dimensions and verify all strings.<<

Having started in V1.4 I trust all dims I place. If the drafter can't be trusted to place dims accurately, he can't be trusted to place the geometry accurately, which means he can't be trusted with a drawing. Poor training and/or poor work habits are not the fault of associated dims.

Now if you just prefer it that way, carry on. Just be aware that there are more efficient methods.

 

Comments are appreciated whether we agree or not as it is the only way to
share experiences.

I agree about sloppy practices; however, I don't trust dimensions from
others whether associated or not as I have seen too many instances of where
they were not placed to a point but to a place in space.

Grip drag doesn't break out the middle of a line does it? Also lines at
times need to be shown as center lines, not continuous. As I remember from
about 1994, Microstation had a way to break a leader in the middle to pass
by a line and still be one entity. Couldn't this be done with assoc.
dimensions in AutoCad? I've seen routines that will simulate this but if
updated they go away.

Lame or not, dimensions that do not add up can not be trusted either. If
your boss wants to see all dimensions show up in a string then they must add
up. If not then one can only guess which one is not correct. Not everyone
has a boss/engineer who cares what AutoCad does, he wants it to come out
the way he wants it period.

someone doesn't know how to place them to start with<<

three equal lengths, the dimensions will NOT add up if in the Arch. fraction
mode.<<

inch, calling for such is just lame drafting.

trusted to place dims accurately, he can't be trusted to place the geometry
accurately, which means he can't be trusted with a drawing. Poor training
and/or poor work habits are not the fault of associated dims.

are more efficient methods.

 

The case of 3 equal dimensions not adding up to 13'-1" in an architectural

I was taught to place a full string that did have to add up. In manual
drafting they would add up because you made sure they did, else they were no
good.

True, this is certainly one way to get around it unless a standards enforcer
runs a routine to "fix" all fudged dimensions.

You are correct in that one of them would have to be different, my point.

True it is only 1/32 but the point is it still doesn't add up and is
therefore not correct. I've seen Architectural drawings come in that were
dimensioned to 32s, not very practical in the real world of construction. I
hate to see less than 1/4" though will use 1/8s. You know that is one mark
on the tape.

 

I used to, a few versions ago, hate associated dimensions also. Couldn't
break lines or reposition the dimension text as needed. Then I learned how
to control the dimenions (possibly after the needed features were added) and
I love associated dimensions. When I have to edit an old drawing, I prefer
to redimension rather than updating the dimension text manually.

Using the grips to shorten the extension lines works great. Sometimes I need
to add a line on the other side of what I am "breaking" the line for. For
text crossing the extension lines, try text mask (express tool or I think
standard with 2005. Also, 2005 version works with dimension text so
relocating dimension text may not be needed as much.)

The dimenion text edit button on the dimension tool bar allows repositioning
the text.You may need to check / adjust the text placement rules on the Fit
tab of the modify dim style window. You can also right click on an
associated dimension and access lots of modifying tools, as well as on the
property palette.

If I get to an area where the fractions in the dimension string don't add
up, I manually assess what they should be, click on the dimension(s) I want
to change, go to the property palette and under the primary unit section,
change the precision. This effects just the dimension selected. As noted on
another response, if you are doing "closed" dimension, you will have to
settle for one section possibly being off a slight fraction, just as you
would in manually drafting, such as 3/8, 3/8, 1/4 (2/8) or using a smaller
fraction as desired.

You can still manually add each dimension string to double check, just as
you do now. One thing I have discovered, don't have osnaps on - click on the
intersection, endpoint, etc. toolbar button when needed. This helps
eliminate snapping to the wrong point.

Hope this gives some insight from someone who use to think like you.

 

Warren
I have 2005 and all of those are shown in the help files.
Kent

 

I agree about sloppy practices; however, I don't trust dimensions from others whether associated or not<<

That's fine, but don't use sloppy drafting as an excuse to avoid associative dims.


No, we have a routine that move the defpoint then places a line on the DIMM layer beyond the text as a separate entity. Now that we annotate in PS, we use TEXTMASK to cover the lines.

That can be handled a number of ways. Separate lines on a layer with a center linetype, or a dimstyle with an extension line color that plots with a center linetype.


But associative or not you wouldn't dimension something 4'-4 1/3". You'd show 2 dims at 4'-4 5/16" and one at 4'-4 3/8" or leave the last one off all together. At least that's how every drafter I know would do it. Thirds don't show up on tape measures in the field.

 

Forgot to say I was in R2002. I'm not talking about individual entries in
the System Variables section, but in the section that graphically shows the
tabs in the DDIM dialog box.

 

associative dims.

Nobody said there was sloppy drafting.

DIMM layer beyond the text as a separate entity. Now that we annotate in
PS, we use TEXTMASK to cover the lines.

and if you move the assoc point these lines automatically move with it??

My printer for check plots does not support TEXTMASK so this is not an
option.

center linetype, or a dimstyle with an extension line color that plots with
a center linetype.

Again, more work and separate lines don't move with changes to the drawing.
If associative shouldn't have to add lines, etc.

show 2 dims at 4'-4 5/16" and one at 4'-4 3/8" or leave the last one off all
together. At least that's how every drafter I know would do it. Thirds
don't show up on tape measures in the field.

I did not say I would add 1/3" to a dimension. I too would place the
numbers as you stated.

 

That's fine, but don't use sloppy drafting as an excuse to avoid associative dims.<<<

Ummm... you did, in your first post, I quote
""because dimensions are associated doesn't mean they are correct if someone doesn't know how to place them to start with""
If the dimensions aren't properly placed, that's sloppy drafting and the fault of the drafter, not DIMASSOC.


Stretch gets it all. It'd be odd to move the defpoint without all the related geometry surrounding that point wouldn't it?


It's considerably less work than DIMASSOC=0, If all the dims have to be editted for each change.


Then DIMASSOC=0 is of no help there. If you're placing the objects accurately (not sloppily) why would setting DIMASSOC=0 be of any use?

 

And the associative point is still at the originally place location? Can't
say anything about 2005 as I am in 2002.

I don't know about buttons as I don't use them. When there is something in
the AutoCad menu I need switch to it. Menuload and partial menus would not
be the best for me as use my own menu which from 1992 has grown to 348k and
14 pulldowns with nothing from the Autocad menu included. My short command
file is 109k and 7 pages of defined shortcuts.

How would you know they did not add up if you trust AutoCad to accurately
place them? Again if the standards enforcer runs routines to "fix" fudged
dimensions these would be blown away wouldn't they?

I don't manually add anything, that is done with a routine of mine.

I have nothing against those who love associative dimensions. I just wish
they would work like I need them to in my drawings to give the presentation
and workability I need. Some like to dimension in MS, some in PS. Good and
bad to both. In PS, once dimensions have been placed, if the building is
rotated in the viewport (ucs) the dimensions don't rotate with it from what
I found. I know this should be set before this stage but not everyone can
work in an environment where everything is set in stone before you get this
far. Small firms have to work with their clients and their dictates and
last minute changes.

 

That's fine, but don't use sloppy drafting as an excuse to avoid
associative dims.<<<

someone doesn't know how to place them to start with""

fault of the drafter, not DIMASSOC.

I totally agree it is sloppy; however, if I am to use an Architect's drawing
as a background xref, I can't go in and change his whole drawing to be
correct so I have to work with what I get unfortunately.

related geometry surrounding that point wouldn't it?

Stretch works even if the end of the extension line end has been moved to
get it out of the way?
drawing. If associative shouldn't have to add lines, etc<<

editted for each change.

That's what AutoLisp is for.

 

I totally agree it is sloppy; however, if I am to use an Architect's drawing as a background xref, I can't go in and change his whole drawing to be correct so I have to work with what I get unfortunately. <<

Why use the file if it can't be trusted? And if the source file is inaccurate how does DIMASSSOC=0 help, it still can't be trusted?

Stretch works on whatever it gets.


Let me get this straight now. You have customized lisp functions to edit non-associative dimension text to... ? What? Where does the number come from? You can't trust the drawing because it came from outside and is not accurate. Do you key-in the new text or what? And all this is easier than stretching one more line at the same time you stretch everything else?

...okay.