# Thread: Dimscalelinear is Squaring itself?

1. Registered forum members do not see this ad.

I'm sorry, Dana you are absolutely wrong on this and I am sorry that I cannot convince you otherwise. I asked that you keep AutoCAD out of the discussion because how it works in AutoCAD confuses the real world definition of a ratio. They have been around in since before AutoCAD. A scale of 1:20 in the title block does not need units because it doesn't matter which ones you use to measure the paper. The measurement you are trying to get is going to be 20 times more than what you measure. If you make the assumption that the 1 is inches and the 20 is feet, you are wrong. It does not mean the same thing as 1"=20'. If you remove the units from 1"=20', that ratio becomes 1:240 and again, it doesn't matter what you measure the paper with, the result will be 240 times the measurement.

There is no argument that can prove otherwise. This is simple stuff and AutoCAD has confused you.

2. BTW, any time you can get a table that pays out the same as the chances of winning, the casino is not making anything on that table. Maybe I didn't explain the scenario clearly enough. The payout is usually less than the odds.

3. Originally Posted by RobDraw
I'm sorry, Dana you are absolutely wrong on this and I am sorry that I cannot convince you otherwise. I asked that you keep AutoCAD out of the discussion because how it works in AutoCAD confuses the real world definition of a ratio. They have been around in since before AutoCAD. A scale of 1:20 in the title block does not need units because it doesn't matter which ones you use to measure the paper. The measurement you are trying to get is going to be 20 times more than what you measure. If you make the assumption that the 1 is inches and the 20 is feet, you are wrong. It does not mean the same thing as 1"=20'. If you remove the units from 1"=20', that ratio becomes 1:240 and again, it doesn't matter what you measure the paper with, the result will be 240 times the measurement.

There is no argument that can prove otherwise. This is simple stuff and AutoCAD has confused you.
I don't do casino games and I only gamble on a lottery ticket once in a while, so I don't understand gambler phraseology, nor odds except that I know the lottery odds are somewhere north of 1:A snowball's chance. I think we are saying exactly the same thing, in fact. But, you may be misunderstanding the way I am putting it. I started my point with AutoCad, and I'm staying there. Somewhere you got the impression I am steadfastly stating that 1:20 is the same thing as 1"=20'. I know it's not, because you can stick any old values behind the 1:20. It is just that when one uses the 1:20 scale ratio applied to inches and feet, it is exactly the same as 1"=20'.

Anyway, I'll take another wild guess and say that maybe the OP's issue might stem from a metric template, and disassociating dimensions, at least the latter. Then again we may have already eliminated those. I lost track.

4. Hello, All
This stills seem like a current thread I've been following and I don't see an answer to the OP.
Out of curiosity I opened up the file and moved a few dimensions and as the OP said, the dimension changes by a factor of 75, SOMETIMES.
I had this happen a while back and messed around with some settings, deleted the offending VP, fixed but not exactly sure what the real problem was. I use a lot of other peoples drawings to create shop drawings (mostly architects that know way waay way more about ACAD then I) so I am always running up against strange and wonderful ways to skin the cat and assumed it was some special setting the original drafter had left behind just for me.
So, back to the OP, did anyone figure out what causes this behavior?
Thanks--
Al

5. You might be on to something seeing that replacing the viewport fixed it for you. I'm just not sure what. I was trying to find something different about the dimensions that were changing or something amiss with the OSNAPs.

6. Registered forum members do not see this ad.

I don't have an idea why replacing the viewport might have fixed the issue, unless it just cleared out the proper areas in the .dwg file and re-did the data from scratch.

How the OP got there may have something to do with the fact that Non-associative paper space dimensions DO NOT WORK without a manually applied dim scale linear factor that negates the viewport scale.

AutoCad does this automatically for associative dimensions. Also, the dimensions in the drawing are not in a clearly defined dimension style, but highly manipulated, through overrides, versions of the default Standard style.

It seems that the negative sign on the dim scale factor is getting lost somehow while AutoCad tries to keep up with the manipulation and re-positioning of the text or dimension/extension lines. The result is a distance that is getting scaled up twice by the same factor.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts