Except for the lack of associativity....
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 06:20:40 -0500, in comp.cad.autocad,"Michael [Religious acronyms for "gawd"] No, because most of the little boiz swallow.
In keeping with the discussion (the solid model is the Final Word), simply don't dimension and the problem is solved, bug or bugless.
I tend to agree (see, I *have* had to deal with dimensions, back in the auld daze). Finding an exploded dimension made me suddenly question all UPDATEs and STRETCHes that I had done.
Either way, no babies. A guy goes into a bar and tells the bartender "Set me up 4 whiskeys and keep them coming." The bartender, as he is pouring, asks "What is the occasion?" The customer replies "My first blowjob." Bartender says "That's quite something to celebrate." Customer exclaims "CELEBRATE? Hell, I'm just trying to get the taste outta my mouth!" OK, that's enough of that. I stepped *way* over the line in this group. Quick, someone say something about AutoCAD!
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
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
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.
