Lets start a discusion what is the best

Hey

I offen't have head the discussion about where to put the dimensions model or paper space?

I always say the best place to put the dimension is the model space especially when you now have the annotation scale to control it.

What is you experience?

I think the addition of annotative objects undermine most of the arguments in favor of Paperspace dimensions, but I wouldn't go so far as to say one or the other is "best". Apparently the jury is still out in Autodesk's mind as well, as their newest 3D annotation tool, ViewBase, only supports Paperspace annotation.

For what I do the best approach is putting all dimensions in paper space but users should test all options then decide for themselves what works best for them. I could see myself using annotative scaling if the majority of my work was architectural in nature.

IMHO...the 'Best' is to put dimensions (and almost any other textual elements) in paper space! Too many times, I need a portion of the model space for a detail or a page break and Murphy's Law says the dimensional text placed for another sheet will be broken up or confusing when used in the second application. I like my Modelspace to be just for the Model and the Paperspace to be the notes and important text and detail information.

But, that's just me!

Man this has been covered close to a billion times, give or take a few million. Not trying to sound rude at all, I'm just saying.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=dimension+modelspace+or+paperspace+site:cadtutor.net%2Fforum%2F&pbx=1&oq=dimension+modelspace+or+paperspace+site:cadtutor.net%2Fforum%2F&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=621l17865l0l18520l61l60l1l0l0l13l310l6865l24.34.1.1l61l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=e497b0ef37f63d8f&biw=1228&bih=791

Party pooper.

Party pooper.

I am with Bill & ReMark on this one, for the work I do.

Interesting observation by nestly regarding viewbase visibility and generated image placement, have used and noticed it, without considering that.

Stykface may be right, but then he has a well-documented youtube history of doing serious stunts on motorcycles without a brain bucket. Even a stopped clock is still gonna be right twice a day, so we obviously need to consider the source. :wink:

Depends on the work you do. I mostly use Paper Space, for several reasons. If it is something that needs to be in every layout, I place it in Model Space, but even then, I can quickly copy and paste from one Layout to the next.

I also have to Save my drawings down, which is another set of problems in itself.

Using Paper Space cuts down on layers in most situations for me.

Some of my drawings have many viewports at different scales.

For what I do, Model space all the way baby!

Stykface may be right, but then he has a well-documented youtube history of doing serious stunts on motorcycles without a brain bucket.

Escape it? You already did dude, you're still alive. No offense intended brother, you posted the link, as I recall. Nice driving, what didn't kill you made you smarter I suspect/hope. Just one good nose-wheelie faceplant is all it takes to learn that lesson. Even with a helmet. Glad you're still on the team.

I wonder why there is no emoticom for a nose-wheelie?

Escape it? You already did dude, you're still alive. No offense intended brother, you posted the link, as I recall. Nice driving, what didn't kill you made you smarter I suspect/hope. Just one good nose-wheelie faceplant is all it takes to learn that lesson. Even with a helmet. Glad you're still on the team.

I wonder why there is no emoticom for a nose-wheelie?

I place all text (call-outs, con notes, leaders, dimensions, etc.) in Model Space. I don't see a whole lot of benefit to placing text in PS (it is kind of cool that your text height is truly 0.1 but how hard is it to multiply your plotted text height by the drawing scale?). In my opinion, PS is just for plotting. All work should be done in one location (MS). I don't believe in toggling back and forth between PS and MS all day long nor do I think floating MS should be used extensively. Just my opinion. Are there significant ben's to placing text in PS that I am missing?

(it is kind of cool that your text height is truly 0.1 but how hard is it to multiply your plotted text height by the drawing scale?).

If you work in a viewport, you're still working in Modelspace, but AutoCAD will automatically scales text, dimension, mleaders etc to the Layout just as though they were placed in Paperspace... You get the "coolness" of having dimensions and text that's "truly" the correct plotted size, while still placing them in MS without any manual calculation.

All work should be done in one location (MS). I don't believe in toggling back and forth between PS and MS all day long nor do I think floating MS should be used extensively.

Working in a viewport is no different than cutting a large hole in a piece of paper and taping it to the frame around your monitor, You're still look at, and working within Modelspace. As I said before, if you don't look at the tabs, you won't know you're not on the MS tab (except for all the extra tools that are only available in Layouts) My drawings are far too complex and have far too many layers not to have multiple views set up with different layer settings. There's no way the layer manager or layer states are more efficient than simply clicking to another layout tab that's already configured.

Are there significant ben's to placing text in PS that I am missing?

Fewer layers, for one.

Both work well. We found paperspace to fiddly to use. We simplified things this way;

Modelspace 1:1, Titleblocks 1:10 and all annotation set to default sizes.

Used to do it in Paperspace, but not any more. Detailing in our departments have less errors in Modelspace and eliminated the need for multiple dimension styles. All text is set to 3.0mm for A3 and 3.5mm for A0, A1 and A2 formats. All models and dimensioning is 1:1, no other dimension styles required.

I think this all depends on what kind of work the individual is doing. I use annotative scales with viewports, and label inside the viewports. It is the same number of styles as anyone that labels in paperspace. The only difference is checking the annotative box and assigning a text height. I do mostly structural details, wherein multiple projects will use similar details with some adjustments. It is easier for me to grab the whole detail (with labels attached) from modelspace and copy it to the next project. Even if I need to change the scale of the detail due to different paper sizes across projects, using the annotative scales with the labels in modelspace is much faster than trying to adjust the labels in paperspace when the viewport scale is changed. I just highlight the whole thing, rt click, add/delete annotative scales, done. So for me it makes sense to label in modelspace (of course general notes and the like go in paperspace).....but I'm sure others have plenty of reasons to label in paperspace....just depends on what is most efficient for the task at hand.

Used to be we'd have conversion charts to change from one scale to another...but with annotative scales there's really no hassle....and no extra styles.

paperspace, if its a situation where its needs to be attached to the entities for some reason then everything needs to be in paperspace, not model.