Discussion in 'Using Alibre Design' started by Lew_Merrick, May 12, 2020.
I'm not sure what you mean here?
I think the confusion is: they do not snap when they are created. You must exit the dimension tool and then drag the dimensions to snap them.
Hi "J" -- In the Properties you create for a Drawing Template are the "types" of "Dimensions" you will wosh to apply. Mine are: "3-XXX," "4-XXX," "2-XX," "BSC_3-XXX." "BSC_4-XXX," "3-XXX_+.XXX/-.YYY," etc. Thus, a "STD_3-XXX" is "±.005" etc. A "P/M_3-000" is "+.010/-.000" etc. It is a rather long list, but it does set things up properly. -- Lew
Since the subject of dimension snapping was mentioned, here's an issue that has been around since dimension alignment was introduced. At the time almost everyone voted for the text to be aligned, just like in a spread sheet.
I imagine that ISO standards may have a similar requirement but ASME14.5M-2009, 220.127.116.11 Alignment states "Dimension lines shall be aligned if practicable and grouped for uniform appearance." So we have this to contend with where if you move the dimension text after they are snapped into alignment you need to realign them manually. That sucks. Can we pleeeeeaase get the dimension line to snap alignment instead of the text so it is easier to follow the standard. Of all the CAD drafting programs I've used at work they all aligned the dimension lines not the text. And they did it WHILE placing the dimensions NOT after exiting the dim command and then need to go back and realign them. That is not a time saver.
You can see the alignment lines in the image that clearly indicate the text is aligned. It should be the dimension lines that remain aligned and the text is relocated to the right or left depending on how the user wants to arrange the text
Thought I'd add an animated gif for illustration:
DimTextAlignment by HaroldL posted May 19, 2020 at 12:08 AM
(Lew - Just to be clear ASME 14.100-2017, 4.12 states that Dimensioning and Tolerancing shall be in accordance with ASME Y14.5.)
Lew, so I had a chance to take a look into that. All greek to me. I am 38 years old and have never seen this in my career. We have a very limited skill set in our shop, so i'm sure if I go putting stuff like that on the drawings, they won't have a clue what it means or where to find it or how to apply it. All I want to do is add a +/- on a critical dimension. It shouldn't be so difficult as changing the entire drawing template.
Try customising a Dimension (add the symbol and THRU as Suffix), and add a tolerance format - then you can get all in one.
A Hole Callout isn't a dimension, and doesn't have as many options to customise.
and yes - this example doesn't make sense, I just quickly modified something to hand...
1) When using ordinate dimensioning, the dimension has to be pulled out a rather long distance before there is a gap between the part outline and the leader. Often that is out of proportion to the part, or leads to a lot of blank space with no purpose.It seems that the gap should just be there without regard to the distance the dimension is from the part.
2) When using ordinate dimensions in a broken view, the problem of #1 is even worse, since the dimension seems to continue to be associated with the original length, so that they have to be pulled out a very long way to get any gap, and also if moved in to a reasonable place, the line passes through the numbers. The only way around that is to put the dimensions on the left, but that is not always possible to do.
3) When dimensioning diameters, the dimension leader is very fussy about positioning, it may "snap" to the opposite orientation, or randomly snap to a pair of lines instead of a leader and arrow. That seems to be related to the hole diameter, vs the distance out that the dimension numbers are from it. The style at least should be selectable. Yes, you can go back and often reposition in a separate operation, but that doubles the work/time when doing a lot of dimensions.
4) The diameter dimension style with double leaders almost requires the user to go back and reposition the number, it often does not accept a once-stop draw and position operation
But what about the Hole Preset System?
I just noticed another issue and turned in a ticket on it. Seems the hole callout has a problem with formatting. The extra space makes it read "3 BY 1/4-20" not "3Times 1/4-20" as it should.
I would argue that the proper thing is not "3x" at all (even though it is common) but "3plc", or 3 plc", as both give the same information without seeming to be a marker between dimensions (like steel bar 1/2" x 1 1/2").
Agree that the misleading space is a problem.
Harold - why would Chamfer dimension 'X' formatting affect hole callouts? [EDIT - OK, I see it could logically follow the same setting, as both ISO & ASME standards use a single case for the x or X and the sue of spacing defines the meaning in both ].
Having more control of the hole callout appearance (without having to manually edit each time) might be handy.
JST - I suspect 'x' is used because it has consistent meaning across languages, 'plc', 'OFF', 'BY' etc. would require more localisation (and still be regarded as 'wrong' by many).
[EDIT - ASME Y14.5M :2018 Clauses 4.6.5 stipulates the use of upper case X , no space between number and X ]
[EDIT - ISO 121-1:2019 Clauses 7.8.2 stipulates the use of lower case x , no space between number and x ]
Here we would do 3 EA 1/4"-20...
There already must be language versions, so the provision of format differences is just part of it. You point out already-built-in differences, with ASME and ISO being different and incompatible, although both DO require the "no space". "Parsing" is important.
Best to use the official standards, but there are other places where they are not followed (someone pointed out one such recently), so this may be another place where consistency is needed. I tend to deal with construction and fab people, and they have their own language in many cases..... which is not always understood elsewhere.
BTW - Hole callouts do follow the 'no space' requirement by default. It isn't clear yet what added the extra space into Harold's callout shown.
Unless they have been manually edited and the space has been added! ...
I see that this generated a little bit of interest.
First, I went back and reopened my drawing and deleted the callout. I then reapplied it from the edit view popup menu and this time it was applied without the extra space. I have no idea why it inserted the extra space the first time I applied the callout.
David, "stipulates" may be a bit strong. The wording does allow something other than the upper case X. Clause 1.4.1 defines the mandatory, recommended and optional words: Shall ( a requirement), Will ( a declaration of purpose), Should ( a recommended practice) and May ( an allowed practice).
Clause 4.6.5 on Repetitive features states that they may be specified by the use of an "X" and a character space is used between the X and the dimension. So, by that wording, if your standards establish using PLC, PLACES, EA or EACH, then go ahead.
Clause 4.6.6 states that an "X" may be used to indicate "by" between dimensions and that there shall be one character space before and after it, like JST's example for bar stock.
So...What if there was an option added to the properties that allowed the user to define their own "multiplier" for dimensions. Then they could define if they wanted to use PLS, PLC, PLACES, EA or what ever their particular standard defines, like the options for Symbols.
It seems like the hole callout is now hard coded to the lower case x. I would just like it to follow a user selected formatting, whether upper case X or lower case x, so I don't have to edit it all the time.
I realize that the Line Weights being simulated is in Beta Mode... But I have noticed that when you create detailed views, they come in even bolder yet, but they do print correctly. Example below.
The topic of scaled line widths in scaled views has been raised since v19 and HOOPS was released (The line width is incorrectly having the drawing/view scale applied. Line widths should remain constant and as per the layer properties and proportional to the drawing sheet). I believe from the last this I read was that is was still waiting on a HOOPS fix. Disclaimer: I may have missed an update post on this!
Does this also apply to this issue with Hatching in an enlarged detail view?? See below
Not seen anything mentioned, but there have been hatching issues posted but not sure if they are related!
Try switching to Legacy mode to see if it looks right. Then log it with Max and the Team if its another HOOPS related issue.
Separate names with a comma.