Jump to content

Proper Way To String Dimensions....


Recommended Posts

Thanks for confirming that your motive for participating in this thread is merely to belittle and disparage Revit and anyone that realizes it's usefulness.

 

I have no such motive. As you will see above I replied to tzframptons comments and even agreed with some of his views, which is a lot more constructive than if I had simply said "no" effectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Organic

    9

  • ReMark

    7

  • tzframpton

    7

  • Dana W

    7

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I have no such motive. As you will see above I replied to tzframptons comments and even agreed with some of his views, which is a lot more constructive than if I had simply said "no" effectively.

 

Really? Because you have me fooled then. As soon as Revit was mentioned (in a string of other software) you jumped right in with your comments of its "conceived uselessness". I will agree that your "discussion" was a bit better than last time though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't get any clearer than Spencer's "Basic Technical Drawing" and the 17 page chapter on dimensioning. Just Fig. 281 on page 122 entitled "Dimensioning Conventions" is worth all the words said here regarding the subject. As Spencer goes on to say, "Remember that the dimensions are at least as important as the views of the object, and correctness is absolutely necessary." Need we say more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the original poster's question, here's why I like the leader attached to a dimension that has been positioned off-center: it gives a reference for the dimension itself. There have been instances when I'm reading specs from manufacturers and it's very difficult to decipher where the dimension is truly point to, especially when dimensions get crammed in. This is why I prefer the leader with the re-positioned text location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might be of value to point out that Revit is not CAD. It is BIM, and CAD is simply a subset of the whole package. As to whether or not it is more suitable for CAD than AutoCAD who knows other than those using it.

 

I don't have that much knowledge about Revit but from what I've read its value comes from utilizing all of its tools, not just the CAD aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...