Dimscalelinear is Squaring itself?

What template file did you use? Was it the default acad.dwt or was it one of the metric template files like acadiso.dwt?

 

It is not a good idea to dimension in one set of units (like imperial) then put a metric scale on the drawing. It would make as much sense as dimensioning in meters and putting an imperial scale on the drawing. Bad, bad practice.

 

Since you are dimensioning in architectural units your scale would be expressed differently. Floor plans are typically either 1/8"=1'-0" or 1/4"=1'-0". You would never see a scale of 1:75. I suspect that since you said 1:100 metric was too big, and that's almost equivalent to 1/8"=1'-0" imperial, your true scale should be 3/32"=1'-0" imperial (this scale, by the way, is found on an architect's scale).

 

Please attach a copy of the drawing to your next post so we can have an up-close and personal look at it. Perhaps we can get you on the right path.

Edited September 24, 2014 by ReMark

What template file did you use? Was it the default acad.dwt or was it one of the metric template files like acadiso.dwt?

 

It is not a good idea to dimension in one set of units (like imperial) then put a metric scale on the drawing. It would make as much sense as dimensioning in meters and putting an imperial scale on the drawing. Bad, bad practice.

 

Since you are dimensioning in architectural units your scale would be expressed differently. Floor plans are typically either 1/8"=1'-0" or 1/4"=1'-0". You would never see a scale of 1:75. I suspect that since you said 1:100 metric was too big, and that's almost equivalent to 1/8"=1'-0" imperial, your true scale should be 3/32"=1'-0" imperial (this scale, by the way, is found on an architect's scale).

 

Please attach a copy of the drawing to your next post so we can have an up-close and personal look at it. Perhaps we can get you on the right path.

 

I used the default autocad template.

 

I don't understand why the scale makes any difference on this; it's not related to the issue that I posted about, and I've been doing whatever I wanted with my scale on these drawings since 2012 with no complaints, so the information is clearly still getting across. I've never looked at architectural scales before. Again, for a one-time use drawing, I really don't think it matters. No one is going to be referring to these down the road.

 

Like I said, it will take a long time to clean out all the information I can't share to be able to post a drawing.

The default template, called acad.dwt, is set to use imperal units which just so happens to be decimal inches which you then, probably via the units command set to architectural. That would explain why your dimensions are expressed in feet and inches. However, you erroneously used a metric scale factor for your viewport. You don't seem to care. Fine. What does matter is that this bad habit can get you into some trouble down the road when scale is important. Do you want to learn how to do it correctly or not? If the answer is "no" then we are all just wasting our time here.

You can lead a horse to water but that doesn't make it a draft horse.

The default template, called acad.dwt, is set to use imperal units which just so happens to be decimal inches which you then, probably via the units command set to architectural. That would explain why your dimensions are expressed in feet and inches. However, you erroneously used a metric scale factor for your viewport. You don't seem to care. Fine. What does matter is that this bad habit can get you into some trouble down the road when scale is important. Do you want to learn how to do it correctly or not? If the answer is "no" then we are all just wasting our time here.

 

This is not related to my original question, correct?

It's possible there is some correlation but without a copy of the drawing I can't say that with 100% certainty.

Absolutley, an improperly set up .dwg can yield unexpected results especially when it is possible that you used the wrong template.

 

I would suggest posting the part of the drawing that exhibits the behavior with a detailed explanation of what you are doing to make this happen. There is no need to post all of it, just enough to show what is going on.

On the layout that the drawing will open on, for example, select the 34' 11-7/8" dimension, and move it anywhere in the drawing with the blue square... it immediately multiplies the dimscalelinear attribute by 75, and becomes 75 times larger than it should be.

drawing.dwg

ReMark, we've already bombarded this guy with criticisms about his drafting practices. He's not seem interested in changing his ways at this time. He made that clear already and asked us to address the OP. Your comments do not address the original question at all. But I do not understand why the OP is not willing to learn how to draft with standards and good practices just because his drawings won't be used for anything else.

 

I took a look at the drawings and not all of the dimensions are displaying this behavior. There seems to be no rhyme or reason for the change in DIMSCALELINEAR.

You have proven my point. A ratio that does not have units has to be understood to mean that they are the same on each side of the ":". If one could insert different units on each side without specifying then, the ratio becomes meaningless.

Part of my point is that all ratios are completely meaningless unless the user has prior knowledge of what is being compared, and inches to feet is not meaningless at all when scaling a drawing of a few acres to fit on 6 sq. feet of paper.

 

Again, forget about AutoCAD. Let's go to the casino. There is a table that has 4:1 odds and the payout is the same. Place a dollar on the table and the guy next to you puts down a penny. You both win but your payout is four pennies and his is four dollars. Not only would you be upset but you would say that it doesn't make sense.

No,I'd be fine as I walked away without placing a bet, because the "payout is the same" part would stop me from risking any more than a penny in the first place. I'd go get a free drink instead.

 

You stated that the ratio for 1"=20' is 1:240. How can that be the same as 1:20? The only way is to say that you are comparing inches to feet.

And that is exactly what I closed the sentence with, paper inches and model feet. Perhaps I should have detailed it out a bit more though, because what I meant was that 1" = 20' gives the same result on paper as 1 inch to 240 inches. Away from plot scales and units, it would mean since 20 feet is equal to 240 inches, that both ratios mean the same thing.

 

Traditionally survey drawings are done in decimal feet. I suppose there is a movement afoot, pun intended, to go metric in that industry but I have not run across any in the last 10 years or so, and I have plotted all mine with ps inches and ms feet.

 

The so called metric ratio expressions in AutoCad, 1:20 for instance, do not mean that 1 is 20 times smaller than 20, it means that 20 MS units have been shrunk to fit into 1 PS unit, whatever they are. In the case of inches and feet, one could say that, away from plot scales again, 1(inch):20 (feet) means that 1 is 240 times smaller than 20.

 

At any rate, I think I have wasted enough of the OP's bandwidth. I have a house to draw that is going to be built in Panama. I wonder what units they use there. I think it is called "bribe". No, wait. "Bribe" is the building code.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.