dumb question about dimensions

[1eo]

I'm using AutoCAD 2006.

 

Let say I have this situation:

 

is there a way to force the 4'-2" dimension so it would not cross the dimension underneath.

 

In other words, there would be a "break" on the 4'-2" line so it's less confusing....

 

I could stop the dimension and simply add an extra line... but I'm afraid if the window changes position I could end up with the wrond dimension.

 

Hopefully the question is clear , I had a hard time wording it

 

Thanks!

[vizwhiz]

hi There

 

Leo

 

it is best To leave The dimensions intact, especially since They should be associative and update when necessary

 

Try adding a 'wipeout' mask where you want The crossing dimension To be 'suppressed'

 

well, This aint The best idea either, it may not work

 

you would almost have To have 2 separate layers

with one Layer of dimensions in 'front' and with another

 

layer 'behind' for the 'wipeout' To work

 

**

 

as you said if you 'break' The dimension Then it wont be associative

 

you should put This idea of yours on The AUGI wishlist, There is a link somewhere at The AUGI website for Autocad wishlist ideas

 

**

 

ok, This isnt very helpful but you bring up a d@mn good point

 

randy

[1eo]

I was not aware there was a comand called wipeout.... real nice find!!

 

 

leo

[bigroo]

You could always hide the extension lines in the item properties and still keep the association.

[1eo]

You could always hide the extension lines in the item properties and still keep the association.

 

could you elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean...

[BobM]

In that situation I would put a temp construction line from the item to the first dimension line and then dimension from that then erase the line.

 

Then you would have a short dimenson line above

[bigroo]

could you elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean...

 

By selecting the dim line extension 1 (or 2) 'off' you hide it and avoid the crossing effect that you have.

[Brian Smith]

Leo,

I'm pretty sure i understand what you're asking...and if so there's no way to do what you're asking...at least not automatically. I'm wondering, however, why your smaller dimensions would be above (on the outside) of larger dimensions. That's not good drawings practice and would confuse and lead to a number of problems. If you're dimensioning a window and the wall that the window lies, you would place the smaller window dimension close to the wall and the larger wall dimension away from the wall. Sorry if I'm stating the obvious but I just can't understand why you would want to do what you're trying to do.

[1eo]

Leo,

I'm pretty sure i understand what you're asking...and if so there's no way to do what you're asking...at least not automatically. I'm wondering, however, why your smaller dimensions would be above (on the outside) of larger dimensions. That's not good drawings practice and would confuse and lead to a number of problems. If you're dimensioning a window and the wall that the window lies, you would place the smaller window dimension close to the wall and the larger wall dimension away from the wall. Sorry if I'm stating the obvious but I just can't understand why you would want to do what you're trying to do.

 

thanks Brian,

 

I was asked to do it in that way, because the windows are more important than the a/c metal pad (overhang).

[Brian Smith]

I understand...if you're told to do it that way then I guess you gotta do it that way...but it's still bad practice. One of the big problems that this can create, besides creating expensive confusion during the building process and the lack of respect the contractor will have for whoever but the drawings together, contractors will often see this as a sign that they need to bid high on a project...because if this is example of how drawings are put together, then what else is wrong with the drawings. I've dealt with numerous contractors that have this kind of mentality.

[Guest IG Oliver]

I totally agree with you brian. I work for a japanese firm and they are totally strict in their drawings. Dimensions are most important during the actual construction and that's the reason why they implement a standard even in dimensioning drawings.

[neko]

yup - brian is absolutely correct.

 

dimensioning standards are very important for clarity, and if they are not practiced it leads to the impression that other aspects of the drawings might be wrong as well.

[1eo]

I understand...if you're told to do it that way then I guess you gotta do it that way...but it's still bad practice. One of the big problems that this can create, besides creating expensive confusion during the building process and the lack of respect the contractor will have for whoever but the drawings together, contractors will often see this as a sign that they need to bid high on a project...because if this is example of how drawings are put together, then what else is wrong with the drawings. I've dealt with numerous contractors that have this kind of mentality.

 

I was told the opposite... contracts bid lower and later made their money on change order due to bad drawings.

 

In this particular case... we are also the contractor so no problem there. We have never had any big issue with any contractor.... ( yet, this is the first time where the dim got me confused as I would have done it differently too. )