Drawing/Dim'ing in Decimal Feet

[Dolfan0925]

(AutoCAD 2004)

The stuff I'm drawing at my job is in decimal feet. I can't figure out how if I draw a line 1.33 to get it to draw it 1.33' and not 1.33". And I can't figure out how to dimension it like that as well. I feel like it has to be something simple that I'm not seeing.

Thanks,
Tony

[StykFacE]

under your DIMSTYLE dialog box, go to the Primary Units tab. Unit Format should be decimal, the Precision should be 0.00, and put a ' in the Suffix box.

edit: still doesn't change the 12" to 1' part.... i'll keep playing with it. lol

[StykFacE]

hmm, i'm stumped unless you type it in manually. kinda doesn't make sense to do the annotations you're wanting.... i can see using inches in decimal format, but not feet. 1.33' would be 1'-3 123/128". it's not exact at all..... why are you dimensioning this way?

[WagglyFawn]

Are you trying to draw in decimal feet and then dimension in decimal inches??

Edit: If so then do as StykFace said, but also enter in 12 in the scale factor (located beneath the prefix and suffix boxes) box under the same tab (Primary Units). I'm pretty sure that's your solution right there.

[Alan Cullen]

G'day StyK,


why are you dimensioning this way?

Way back when (before we became metric) surveyors used to measure and document in decimal feet. It was actually pretty common in OZ. :)

[Cadastrophic]

"Please Sir....what are feet and inches?"
"They were some of the divisions of a clumsy old system of measurement not used since about the third quarter of the last century."
"Thank you Sir. I asked Grandpa and even he didn't know what they were."

[eldon]

1.33' would be 1'-3 123/128". it's not exact at all..... why are you dimensioning this way?

I didn't know that inches were that accurate :?

I seem to remember in those pre-metric days, that 1.33' was reckoned to be 1'-4". I know it should be 1.33 recurring but it was near enough to two decimal places. I expect it gave exercise to the mind, all that mental arithmetic transferring 10" to decimal feet.

Now you just have to make sure the decimal point is in the right place. But I still think as 100mm as 4" (near enough)

[StykFacE]

I didn't know that inches were that accurate :?

I seem to remember in those pre-metric days, that 1.33' was reckoned to be 1'-4". I know it should be 1.33 recurring but it was near enough to two decimal places. I expect it gave exercise to the mind, all that mental arithmetic transferring 10" to decimal feet.

Now you just have to make sure the decimal point is in the right place. But I still think as 100mm as 4" (near enough)
well, they're not... decimal is still more accurate (in theory), and surely less complex to understand. lol, but fractions can get up there if you're not careful....