Comparing dimensioning in MS vs PS

[Dadgad]

With Annotative Scaling why dimension in PS at all? I just don't see any benefit. Sure you can do it, for small/simple stuff but even the simplest CAD designers should have some things Template-ized. Then, no matter what happens to your drawing/view you'll never have to use CHSPACE or re-dimension things.

It is needed sometimes but only as a last resort override IMHO. "What do you do... in the bath?" (<---- Google)

Personally, I'd rather not be bothered with all the annotative scale variables and potential issues.
If you use associative dimensions in paperspace, you put them where you need them, they print as you want them to.
If you modify your modelspace drawing they remain associative, that works fine for me. We all have our own ways of doing things.
I don't understand the template allusion, I have lots of those, and they are quite comprehensive, as well as custom tool palettes.

Different strokes .....

[rickh]

Dadgad, for the record, I wasn't disagree-ing (sp.) with you. I just thought your first response to StykFacE's post was funny....maybe wrong emoticon choice...I think at the time I read it I literally put my head down in my hand laughing.

To make this post worthwhile for the discussion though...I guess one situation I might try ps labelling in would be for labelling several different sides - like top, right, front - of a 3d object... maybe. Of course, I would still be using my Annotative style. One size fits all (spaces)

[Dadgad]

Dadgad, for the record, I wasn't disagree-ing (sp.) with you. I just thought your first response to StykFacE's post was funny....maybe wrong emoticon choice...I think at the time I read it I literally put my head down in my hand laughing.

To make this post worthwhile for the discussion though...I guess one situation I might try ps labelling in would be for labelling several different sides - like top, right, front - of a 3d object... maybe. Of course, I would still be using my Annotative style. One size fits all (spaces)

It was meant to be funny, and no offense meant to Styk (typically I agree with him, and have learned lots from him), nor you, nor offense taken.
I routinely do fabrication drawings which require dimensions in a number of perspectives, viewport scales, etc.,
as you describe in your last post, and I don't doubt for a second that these too could be done as suggested by Styk,
and that it may in fact (for some) be the technique of choice, and the path of least resistance.

So much to learn, so many ways to get where we all want to go ..... the bathroom?

[ReMark]

I do all my dimensioning and text in my layout. One dim style to deal with and no system variables to worry about re: annotative scaling.

However, there are disciplines where annotative scaling would definitely be a plus. Try each and pick the one that works best for you. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages.

[minion]

When I'm still using v2007, i used to have may template for the dimensions on scales I often used and layer them also by its scale e.g. dim_1:10 so that you just can freeze the dims that are not on the same scale on viewport. if your drawing get crowded you can use the layer state manager. the problem with the annotative is that when you open it on ACAD2007 and lower release, all the dimension on each scale will be drawn on model space.

[khoshravan]

Thanks for replies.
I am drawing floor plans of buildings. I am not using 3D, only 2D plans.
I have to admit that despite reading many articles about annotative scaling and associative ones, I haven't grasped them completely. Let me study them again and return back.
So far I have understand that both one has its own pros and cons and there is no single solution for it. depending on the situation, each one could be used.

BTW could you please again show me the basic and easy to understand threads here on annotative scaling and associate one?

Thanks

[SLW210]

With Annotative Scaling why dimension in PS at all? I just don't see any benefit. Sure you can do it, for small/simple stuff but even the simplest CAD designers should have some things Template-ized. Then, no matter what happens to your drawing/view you'll never have to use CHSPACE or re-dimension things.

It is needed sometimes but only as a last resort override IMHO. "What do you do... in the bath?" (<---- Google)

You have got to be kidding, right. Let one client ask you to save some drawings to <2004 and send them some drawings with annotations, Mleaders etc. and you will lose your job quick.

I tried using these "IMPROVED" features already and saving down just doesn't work.

IF, as so many here say, the title block belongs in paper space, then also, dimensions and notations should be in paper space, time to move out of the last century and forget putting anything in MODEL space except the model.

[Dadgad]

You have got to be kidding, right. Let one client ask you to save some drawings to <2004 and send them some drawings with annotations, Mleaders etc. and you will lose your job quick.

I tried using these "IMPROVED" features already and saving down just doesn't work.

IF, as so many here say, the title block belongs in paper space, then also, dimensions and notations should be in paper space, time to move out of the last century and forget putting anything in MODEL space except the model.

Don't beat around the bush there big guy, just come right out with it and let us all know how you feel about it.

[rkent]

Say it isn't so Reeyichad!!

Yep it is so. One example among many, I use existing backgrounds of our building to make a construction project, so I am always needing to show a small quadrant of the building so I can have a plotted scale of 1/4" or 1/2". I like to show the construction work in MS (of course) and in layout I have a viewport for that area. When I dimension I pull those out off the viewport and into the blank space beyond the viewport. I do the same with mleaders, etc. It makes for a nice clean looking drawing.

There are ways around this and keep things in MS but it seems to me to be more work to get to the same place. But lots of others will see it different so to each their own.

As mentioned already, I think dims for 3D objects are easier in PS except for the iso view where the dims will not show correct lengths without futzing with the dim style, etc. I do use the base view more now so that requires that dims go in PS.