Problems with dimensioning 3D objects in a viewport

[SuperCAD]

The company I now work for does everything in 3D with vanilla AutoCAN'T, 2012-2014. There are only a few 2D objects in any file. The problem I'm running into is when dimensioning the 3D geometry in paperspace, the dimensions will not always stay anchored to the points that I've snapped to. If I have to go into the block editor the dimensions will fly all over the place when I exit it.

 

VIEWBASE really helps alleviate this problem, but not everyone is on the same version and we're saving back to a 2010 format which creates proxy objects when opened on another machine. I'm not sure if I have the freedom to start using it.

 

Is there something I'm missing here, or is this normal behavior?

[ReMark]

Are we talking about dimensioning the usual orthographic views or are isometric views involved as well?

 

When it comes to dimensioning 3D models would it be better for everyone if it was done in model space not paper space? Do you think the number of problems you are experiencing would decrease, increase or remain about the same?

 

Has any consideration been given for an alternate to View Base such as SolProf?

[SuperCAD]

Typical ortho views. I think dimensioning in model space would be a no go for us. All annotations are done in paper space (my preferred method) and I think that's a company standard.

[ReMark]

OK. I added one other question to my last post if you would care to comment. Please and thank you.

[Dadgad]

Typical ortho views. I think dimensioning in model space would be a no go for us. All annotations are done in paper space (my preferred method) and I think that's a company standard.

 

Despite the associative properties and advantages of VIEW BASE, as soon as you start dimensions, things may get weird.

I still favor using SOLPROF, which is not nearly as fast, but does a good job, once you get used to how to do it.

SOLPROF generated blocks can be EXPLODED, enabling elements of the blocks to assume new layer and line characteristics.

 

This is my routine.

Create and position copies of the 3D model in Modelspace approximating the positions and perspectives you want in your Paperspace layout.

Select them all, and run SOLPROF, I usually use the default options, unless, occasionally, I want to see the Tangential lines.

MOVE one of the Solprof Blocks out a know distance orthogonally.

MOVE the other Solprof block out a know distance in a different direction orthogonally.

MOVE the original 3D Models out of the way, or erase them, if you want.

EXPLODE both of the Solprof blocks with one selection.

Run OVERKILL on them (default values work for me) with a single selection. You may find that lots of duplicated entities and lines will be deleted by OVERKILL.

Select all entities from each one of the original blocks and place them on whatever layers you want them. The elements from the PV block, for me go to STEEL, PH elements go to STEEL HIDDEN.

I also set the DRAWING ORDER on each of those selection sets, after setting their new layer assignments in my Quick Properties.

Move these back into their original positions (by the know distances they were moved away earlier), so that they display properly.

 

At this point what you have in Modelspace can be shared with anybody, and if you want saved back to 2010, or earlier, without PROXY issues.

 

It sounds like an awful lot of work, but once you are used to it, it can be done pretty quickly.

Later when you -PURGE your drawing, the PV and PH prefixed Solprof generated layers will be deleted.

Or, if you use LAYMRG instead of properties to change the layer assignments, those unused layers will be purged automagically.

 

Often I use this with large assemblies, in which case, before running Solprof I will look at each of the ortho positioned

3D Models, and delete any bits which I do not want to display in that particular orthogonal view.

 

Some folks would probably not want to physically move the blocks around, but use LAYISO or a Layer Filter.

 

Your drawing is no longer 3D Model ASSOCIATIVE, as it would have been with VIEWBASE.

 

Having just ready your latest Incredibly Stupid Drawing Habits thread post, maybe I should erase this?

Edited January 3, 2014 by Dadgad

[SLW210]

Are you placing your dimensions using Object Snaps like Endpoint, Midpoint and avoiding Node?

 

 

You can might look into using Dimreassociate for Dims that go awry.

[SuperCAD]

Yes, I'm snapping the dimensions to the end points. I've used dimreassociate before for a few dimensions, but when all of them become unglued it's just easier to start over.

[ReMark]

Just curious and perhaps grasping at straws here but do you lock your viewports? Too bad there wasn't a Lock Layout option.

 

Other CAD techs in your office are experiencing the same problem are they not?

[SuperCAD]

Yes, VP's are locked. I have a button with a macro that takes all of the viewports and moves them to the viewport layer and locks them at the same time.

 

Other drafters experience it too but they just consider it a normal thing that happens with 3D stuff. As a former CAD manager, I can't help but worry about all of the hours that have been or will be lost each time this comes up.

[ReMark]

Your concerns are well founded. Is there any chance you could provide a sample drawing with maybe one 3D object in it (no title block/border) for testing purposes? I'd use my own drawing containing a 3D model but you never know if there is something different about the way other users may create their models that may have some bearing on the problem. If you are prohibited from uploading something due to managerial concerns I would fully understand. At that point I'd use one of my drawings for test purposes. We do not, as a matter of habit, dimension 3D models as we always extract the 2D views then do our dimensioning.

[tzframpton]

What about considering 3DOSNAP instead? Does that help out with the associative dimensions? Or what about alternative workflows, such as the Section tools (which are available in 2010 IIRC), dimensioning the 2D Section Outputs instead? They are dynamically linked to the original 3D objects which might help.

 

That's the only things I can think of to try, but not sure if it benefits you in the end.

[SuperCAD]

For some of the drawings I'm really limited on what I can do. Typically all of the drawings that show the layout of the products need to be done the same way across all six locations and between all 30+ drafters. Very little, if anything, is allowed to be in a 2D format. They want everything to be a 3D model and use the viewports to show the elevations (not really a huge need for a section in these drawings). Creating a flatshot or using SOLANYTHING (funny how those commands start with S.O.L.) isn't allowed until we get to the product specific drawings. The specific drawings are done per location so it's whatever the drafters at that location decide to do.

 

There will probably be a drafting summit this year that I will be able to attend and I'm going to be sure to get the attention of the people in charge of making these decisions. Hopefully I can build a good enough case to use a better program that is more suited for manufacturing.

[tzframpton]

Hopefully I can build a good enough case to use a better program that is more suited for manufacturing.

I think this is best bet right here. I know it's hard to fight through personalities and leave a method so familiar and with so much investment. We still fight certain people here at our company between AutoCRAP and Revit - some old schooler's swear by AutoCAD and think Revit is just a fad, but those few are slowly seeing the light of the parametric world. AutoCAD has been a great platform for many years, and still is, but it's definitely showing it's age.