CAD Standards: Annotative text/dimension scaling vs. multiple styles

[Dan Johnson]

Hey guys.

 

I have the privilege (or burden) to develope CAD standards for my new company I started working for. I was mostly curious to hear what are your opinions in terms of using Annotative scaling for this?

 

Some background: we are using Civil 3D 2012 and although I don't have personal experience using Annotative scaling I don't think it'll be too hard to pick up on. My other option is to create multiple text/dim styles, which I've used before with complete success. My company just moved to C3D 2012 from 2005 and I wondering if this will all be too much change. But then again going from 2005 to 2012 was a HUGE change so maybe this won't even matter.

 

Thoughts?

[rickh]

I love annotative styles for everything...text, multileaders, dimensions, blocks...if it can be annotative, I make it so. It makes the templates and drawings much easier. Of course, like most things, this is just my opinion. I also think the name of the style needs to include the size for it to make sense.

An example of a text style we use: RS-0.1-15 For me this means RomanS / height 0.1 / oblique 15. The multileaders and dimensions follow similar methods (at least the height should be in there so you know what you're placing).

A lot of the civil 3d styles will be annotative already, so it makes sense to me to follow that with the regular autocad styles. It is very easy to understand, like you mentioned.

[Dadgad]

Welcome to the team.

While I aspire to civility, I DO NOT work in the CIVIL sector.

 

Another (not so appropriate) option is to use ASSOCIATIVE dimensioning, and do your dimensions in paperspace.

In that way you always use the same DIMSTYLE (1, set at 1:1), and it displays as shown in your layout.

This is very simple, as you only need a single DIMSTYLE.

 

Based on RenderMan's post I would defer to his judgement, expertise

and very diplomatically stated opinion.

Sometimes there is more to simplicity than just being a bit simple.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Dadgad

[BlackBox]

I'd respectfully disagree with my friend, Dadgad, on dimensioning in Paper Space.

 

When you model a site, alignment, surface, pipe network, profile, profile view, etc., you do so in Model Space. The dimensions are indicative of the model entities, and thus could, would, should(?) be placed in Model Space as well. Whereas your title block, and any sheet specific annotation to be placed in Paper Space.

 

One example of where this method (Model Space labels) proves to be superior, is to unlock your Paper Space Viewport(s) and PAN any distance in any direction.

 

@ OP -

 

Congrats on the position of responsibility; Civil 3D can be a beast to configure, deploy and maintain. I am in a similar situation; let us know if you need further assistance.