Discussion Groups

Their way doesn't seem to be conventional. Looks like a disaster waiting to
happen.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with your dimensioning.

Rick

wrote in message
news:6066640@discussion.autodesk.com...
We are having debates on dimenion styles and how the look of our prints. We
have a couple of opposing views on the situation. The first is a way of
dimensioning that I as an instructor for some time taught to students. Which
is labeled "Our Dimensions". The other is a way that was created and thought
up by someone else. The question is...Has anyone seen or heard of this
dimension style? Secondly, is there anywhere that teaches drafters this type
of dimensioning? And lastly, in a professional opinion...which dimension
style would you use? This is a thorn in my shoe and I am attempting to
gather ammunition as to pull the people, not wanting to dimension our way
but their way, in the right direction. Having professional opinions sure
would help. Thank you, Joshua

On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 22:22:49 +0000, Rick wrote:



Agreed - the second method is awful.

It's confusing because on first glance you think the length of the box is 8,
then you must look a second time to note that there is no second arrowhead, in
order for you to correctly interpret the dimension to be from the same zero
point.

But that's couter to the whole idea of dimensions - that locations are
UNambiguous, as in the left example.

Perhaps if you put the text next to the arrowhead point instead of centered it
would make more graphical sense.

Matt
mstachoni@verizon.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com

Just so that I can clarify and make sure that their dimensioning style is properly convayed as I just quick threw that PDF together. They begin their dimension string with an architectural tick. Another thing that is done is that the dimensions are exploded. Please refer to the two new PDF's that I have attached as a better reference to the question.

Example A is a depiction of how we are thinking the dimensions could be done.

Example B is a depiction of how they are proposing the dimensions could be done

Thank you for the responses.

No, surveyors do not explode dimensions when they do roadwork. Lack of training and supervision cause exploded dimensions.



Nancy

Ire-read my message. I meant to say that surveyors use something like
that format, not the exploding, but my phrasing incorrectly implied the
reverse. I apologize to all surveyors. I had some surveyor training back
in college (before computers were available to common people like you
and me) and know the level of care that surveyors put into accuracy in
their work.

neaton wrote:

The 'new' baseline dimension style you're showing there is similar to what you'd see on a machinery part detail. But not in the U.S. It's similar to DIN dimensioning standard to baseline, and is usually shown with the dimension over the arrow, and the dimension line truncated. That one long continuous line you show is confusing.

The standard dimension style for any architectural drawings I have seen is more similar to your current dimension style. As such, most people in the field building these things aren't used to the baseline dimension, and will be confused. Sure, it saves you space from offsetting for each new dimension, but it's cheaper for that extra paper than it is for a screwup from your zany new-age dimension style.

If I were so see this I would have to ask what standard this ADT (annotation dimensioning and tolerancing) this is a part of? .... then I would tell them what the company standard is. It's not ANSI, ASME, AIA or anything I recognise.