Dimensioning in paper space - why?

[nocturne00]

Thanks again for reply nocturne00. One of my points is that now with annotation scaling you don't have to create a separate dimstyle or layer for each scale - so it has acquired one of the main advantages of PS dimensioning.

 

On your second point could you explain a little more? I understand what you are saying - place the dimension in MS while working in the paperspace viewport - but I don't understand what the advantage of this is?

 

Coz its the same thing annotative dimensioning is trying to achieve. Annotative maintains appropriate Text ht, arrowhead size etc in MS according to what scale it will be set to so when a VP will be created in PS to view dimensioned object.

Normal Dimensioning from PS to MS thru the Viewport can accomplish the same only it must be placed thru the Viewport, this is without support of Annotative and Preset scales.

Kind of hard to grasp, Im not in the office now but will try to post a cad file showing this method.

Im not against Annotative scaling, We even used it once, only ive found a disadvantage from always setting scales and also Dimensioning in MS means you cant use the same object for 2 or more different viewports, you have to copy the object w/c is to be set on a different scale.

[soleary]

The best part about putting dimensions and notes in paperspace is that I don't have to turn off the layer(s) that the dimensions are on each time I want to move something in modelspace.

 

Not sure about this one SuperCAD. Normally if I move something in model space that is dimensioned, I want the dimensions to move also?

 

Also, if I have an image that I need to use in two different places with two different sets of information, I don't have to add another layer and mess with maintaining multiple layers of dimensions and notes..

Normally, I don't work with images but I guess that's not the real issue. Again, though, if the image is in 2 different places on the drawing, you don't need to create a new layer to add the different information to the second image? I can see the situation where you might want to take 2 different views of the SAME image and then apply different information to different views - then paper space would definitely be the place to add the information. Another would be if you want to take a rotated view in a viewport using mvsetup, then I would dimension or add text/notes in paperspace.

 

Getting back to your question though, I personally feel that dimensioning and notating in PS makes for a cleaner MS, and everything can be kept on one layer, rather than cluttering up the MS and needing multiple layers if you need to reuse an image in another viewport.

 

Yea I understand the clutter issue but it's fairly simple to make it look uncluttered if that is what is required. And a fully dimensioned drawing in paper space will look just as cluttered as it would in model space.

 

But thanks for your reply. In those situations that you described, it obviously makes sense for you to put the dimensions in paper space. And it's good to try to understand these reasons. There are a lot of intelligent people using this software and there are obvioulsy logical reasons for their decisions.

 

I guess, for me, depending on the output required, I will use a combination of both methods. The fact though that you can now have one dimstyle with one layer in model space has certainly moved the goal posts.

[soleary]

Coz its the same thing annotative dimensioning is trying to achieve. Annotative maintains appropriate Text ht, arrowhead size etc in MS according to what scale it will be set to so when a VP will be created in PS to view dimensioned object.

Normal Dimensioning from PS to MS thru the Viewport can accomplish the same only it must be placed thru the Viewport, this is without support of Annotative and Preset scales.

Kind of hard to grasp, Im not in the office now but will try to post a cad file showing this method.

Im not against Annotative scaling, We even used it once, only ive found a disadvantage from always setting scales and also Dimensioning in MS means you cant use the same object for 2 or more different viewports, you have to copy the object w/c is to be set on a different scale.

Thanks noturne00. I would be really interested to see that. It sounds like an excellent way to do it, but I haven't seen it before.

[SuperCAD]

Normally if I move something in model space that is dimensioned, I want the dimensions to move also?

 

Not always. I like to keep my dimensions in line with each other and slightly off of the object being dimensioned. If I have to move an object to a different location, then I have to adjust my dimensions to be in line with the rest and if I'm going to do that I might as well just delete the dimension and add a new one.

 

 

Normally, I don't work with images but I guess that's not the real issue.

Maybe I've mislead you on this one. By "image" I meant objects, or anything that you draw in modelspace.

 

Again, though, if the image is in 2 different places on the drawing, you don't need to create a new layer to add the different information to the second image?

True, but then you run the risk of not making a required change to that object in both places, as I've stated earlier. Even if you make a block out of the object(s) that you want to put in another place in MS, there's no guarantee that your dimensions will update when you make a change to the block.

 

I can see the situation where you might want to take 2 different views of the SAME image and then apply different information to "the same" views - then paper space would definitely be the place to add the information.

This happens quite often where I work, and that is why I encourage the other CAD users to put all dims and notes in PS.

 

Another would be if you want to take a rotated view in a viewport using mvsetup, then I would dimension or add text/notes in paperspace.

Exactly.

 

...a fully dimensioned drawing in paper space will look just as cluttered as it would in model space.

That's not the point. I look at it like this: MS is there for me to draw my parts and pieces and put it all together, and PS is there for me to set up my plots and see exactly how it will look when plotted. By keeping all of my notes and dims in PS, I'm able to bounce back and forth between MS and PS and focus only on what I need to. If all of my dims and notes were in MS, I'd have to turn the layer(s) on or off depending on what I needed to move/change/delete/rotate/etc. I also would have to worry constantly about the dims and notes fitting in the VPs in PS while keeping everything to a scale.

 

In all honesty, the annotative scaling was the main reason why I pushed for us to get 2008. The other users were determined to keep putting dims and notes in MS and this was an easier way to make all of our drawings look the same when plotted. Truth be told, as soon as they got used to using annotative scaling, they found out that putting it all in PS made it easier to complete their work faster, and now they're all doing it.

[ReMark]

Associative dimensioning and the ability to dimreassociate solves all of my problems. MS for objects and PS for everything else. Works like a charm.

[nocturne00]

Hi, I meant to send this thru email but IT has blocked all emailing websites again. Ok, better late than never. here's a sample of how I dimension, I do dimension in both PS and MS but mostly in PS. its just a case to case scenario that I dimension in MS.

Notes are on the file, I hope this sheds some light on my previuos post

Cheers

SAMPLE.dwg

[soleary]

Hi, I meant to send this thru email but IT has blocked all emailing websites again. Ok, better late than never. here's a sample of how I dimension, I do dimension in both PS and MS but mostly in PS. its just a case to case scenario that I dimension in MS.

Notes are on the file, I hope this sheds some light on my previuos post

Cheers

Thanks nocturne00. I won't be able to get around to this until tomorrow at the earliest. But I promise to go through it and let you know how I get on. Cheers

[soleary]

Hi nocturne00

 

I got a chance to look and study your drawing. I hadn't seen this way of dimensioning before (and I thought dimensions was one of my strong points ). It's good to know of these ways, so I'm delighted that you posted it - thanks for sharing the information. I know you mentioned that you dimension like this as an exception rather than the rule but, anyway, here are my observations.

1. This method of dimensioning is like dimensioning in 'reverse' to the 'normal' way of dimensioning in model space with dimscale set to 0. If you have your views set in your viewports (even a random scale) and dimension in model space through the viewport, your dimensions will just insert automatically with the appropriate DIMSCALE factor. (I like it). This also saves having to use DIMUPDATE to update the style.
   
2. As you mentioned, if your view isn't set to a standard scale, this method is a good method to use. However, I would suggest that normally you would have a 'standard' scale applied to the viewport. I (personally) wouldn't go to the trouble of dimensioning a random scaled view.
   
3. Using this method, we still have the same problem of having to create a separate layer and separate dimension style, if we are viewing the SAME object at different scales in different viewports. So from that point of view using annotative scaling is a better solution.

Im not against Annotative scaling, We even used it once, only ive found a disadvantage from always setting scales.

 

On your post above, I agree that setting scales can take a little time but once you get used to it, it's quite easy and it doesn't really have to be done that often - if you leave the scaling until the end when you know what scale factors you want to print at (you can also automate adding those scales by the way).

 

and also Dimensioning in MS means you cant use the same object for 2 or more different viewports, you have to copy the object w/c is to be set on a different scale.

 

With annotation scaling this is no longer the case.

 

In the end, these are just my observations. I'm not attempting to convert anyone from paper space to model space dimensioning or vice versa. In my OPINION, with annotation scaling, dimensioning in model space for the majority of dimensions, while dimensioning in paper space for the occasional time when it's needed, is now the most productive way to dimension.