Using @ with dimensions

[SuperCAD]

I've been using AutoCAD for nearly 20 years now, I have never used the "commercial at" or @ in my dimensions. My boss, however, swears by it and is still using it today. I find it to be rather archaic. That said, are there any of you other users who enter your dimensions this way? If so, what is the benefit?

[ReMark]

If I am inputting distances via the keyboard with a specific angle other than the four normal quadrants I'll use the @ symbol without even thinking about it because it is ingrained in me. If the distance is on one of the four quadrants then it's drag the mouse with the right hand and input the distance directly (no angle) with the left as fast as I can do it.

[rkent]

I am not sure what you are referring to, could you give an example or explain further?

[BIGAL]

Sorry to steal post Remark working on L100 U100 R100 C sq appears.

[SuperCAD]

When he types in his dimensions he'll type @0,21 or something like that. To me, it's completely unnecessary because I've gotten by without it for nearly 20 years. I have no idea where he learned to do it that way, or why he thinks he needs to do it that way. He tried to explain it to me, but I still can't figure it out.

[rkent]

When he types in his dimensions he'll type @0,21 or something like that. To me, it's completely unnecessary because I've gotten by without it for nearly 20 years. I have no idea where he learned to do it that way, or why he thinks he needs to do it that way. He tried to explain it to me, but I still can't figure it out.

 

Yeah, that is really bad dimensioning. If he isn't osnapping to the object or selecting the object then associative dims are not valid and any errors will not be found since he is over writing the actual length. Plus it is inefficient having to type that in which takes time, and you have to already know the dim in order to get that to look right. I haven't run across anyone else doing that in all the time I have been doing this ('88).

[SuperCAD]

The other drafter here said she uses it only when drawing rectangles because that's how she was taught. Apparently it tells AutoCAD to start drawing your object at the last point where you clicked. Maybe it was useful before a computer mouse was invented...

[SuperCAD]

And I don't mean dimensions as in annotations. I meant the dimensions for his geometry (i.e. drawing lines and rectangles).

[rkent]

Oh, nothing wrong with using Relative 2D Polar Coordinates input, why would that bug you?

[Dana W]

any errors will not be found since he is over writing the actual length.

Now that tells me something. Maybe he knows the drawing isn't accurate in the first place.

[RobDraw]

To me, it's completely unnecessary... I have no idea where he learned to do it that way, or why he thinks he needs to do it that way. He tried to explain it to me, but I still can't figure it out.

 

Let's make a comparison. Give us an example of how you accomplish something where he would use that method? That rectangle you mentioned before would be a good one.

 

How do you draw a rectangle to a given size?

[steven-g]

This is confussing, you are talking about dimensions but it sounds more like coordinate entry for drawing, and the different methods used, relative or absolute values

[RobDraw]

And I don't mean dimensions as in annotations. I meant the dimensions for his geometry (i.e. drawing lines and rectangles).

 

This clears it up, Steven.

[tombu]

It can be modified, but I believe @ is default with Dynamic Input On and # when it's Off. At least that's how I'm set up.

I have "$(if,$(>, $(getvar,dynmode), 0),$(if,$(=,$(getvar,dynpicoords),0),@,#),#)" as part of my modemacro so it displays the current default setting.

 

Easy as using the curser with ortho for the direction and entering three distances and close I'd probably use the Rectang command for drawing a rectangle anyway.

[rkent]

I've been using AutoCAD for nearly 20 years now, I have never used the "commercial at" or @ in my dimensions. My boss, however, swears by it and is still using it today. I find it to be rather archaic. That said, are there any of you other users who enter your dimensions this way? If so, what is the benefit?

 

With the introduction of direct distance entry that did render the Polar Coordinates input as antiquated and inefficient in most cases. I think it was introduced in R2002 but not sure.

[eldon]

Direct distance entry was certainly in Release 13 (I have the printed manuals), but Polar tracking was not introduced at that time.

 

So if you were not working in the orthogonal directions, the only way to get exactitude was to enter the relative coordinates with the @ (either x,y or polar).

 

If something works for you, stick with it.

[tombu]

Direct distance entry was certainly in Release 13 (I have the printed manuals), but Polar tracking was not introduced at that time.

 

So if you were not working in the orthogonal directions, the only way to get exactitude was to enter the relative coordinates with the @ (either x,y or polar).

 

If something works for you, stick with it.

That would require calculating the relative coordinates or entering a direction and distance for each point. Temporarily setting the snapang or UCS to the direction of one of the sides would allow you to use direct distance entry. You can also specify rotation with the rectang command. Sorry, I just cringe every time someone suggests there's only one way to do something in AutoCAD. We're just offering alternatives here, everyone should do it which ever way is easiest for them.

[RobDraw]

When I discovered polar tracking and object snap tracking, I turned off ortho and never looked back. They are my mainstays. However, there are still times when relative coordinate entry is the only tool for getting the task done efficiently, without any calculations necessary.

[eldon]

.... Sorry, I just cringe every time someone suggests there's only one way to do something in AutoCAD. .....

 

I was never suggesting that there is only one way of doing things. I was merely responding to the initial post that at some stage of AutoCAD's development, using the @ was a viable, and for some a logical, way of doing things, and old habits die hard.

[RobDraw]

It still is an efficient, simple, and viable solution.

 

I was actually surprised that the OP wasn't aware of it. It's a tried and true technique that made it from the board to CAD.