Measuring problems in Teamwork

[Bruce]

I've inherited a file from someone (externally) who has turned all the elevations & sections into drawings. Problem is they're inaccurate and I need to update them with correct window sizes etc.

However, I'm in a teamwork file and someone else is working on the plans and I'm on the elevations. How do I measure the size and location of a window if I can't use the line tool to measure with (i.e. I'm locked out of the plan space)? A measure tool would really be useful right about now.

[Djordje]

TomWaltz wrote:

Djordje wrote:
Or, click on the line that represents the window width and open Object info. It will tell you the lenght.

What Window width? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

His elevation is unlinked

[__archiben]

Rakela wrote:
in version 5 or 6 when i first looked at ac that was my first question to the reseller, dont u have a measuring tool??...now, i dont care about that tool anymore,,, i would rather much better have a footing tool instead. . .

i tend to agree... maybe not a footing tool, but that time would be better spent developing the virtual building components rather than a measuring tool.

my question would be why are you actually measuring? with good use of the various origins, special snap points and the fact that you can do basic maths in the co-ordinate box there should be very few times that you actually need to measure something out . . . other than placing dimensions on the documentation of course. for me that time usually arises when i need to divide distance x by value y on the fly, but the special snaps are set to value z.

my 'measuring' related wish would be this: that the co-ordinate box could perform multiplication and division and not just addition and subtraction. then i could place my cursor anywhere without necessarily having to know all of the geometric values that get me there . . .

it also seems that people expect measuring to be performed by an actual 'tool' - if you stopped to think about it, would you really want to stop what you're doing, choose another tool, take the measurement, write it down, return to original tool and carry on with what you are doing? don't you think that something like this should be as much a part of the primary user feedback as the cursor is when describing your position in cartesian space and your relationship to those objects around you?

~/archiben

[__archiben]

just another 'tip' as well:

i always found that giving each teammate a dedicated 'messing around' layer that they, and only they, signed into solved a whole host of niggling issues and squabbling. (you can have that for your book, tom, if you want it . . . )

that principle would also help you, in some situations, to continue using your measure-with-the-line-tool-method (if you really must!). it's not a 100% solution because marquee sign-in's would scupper any chance of measuring outside of your area . . .

~/archiben

[__archiben]

Bruce wrote:
What's wrong with a measuring tool? We wouldn't be having this discussion if there was a measuring tool

we wouldn't be having this discussion if you were modelling instead of drafting either mate!

[Bruce]

Did you read my first post? I stated there that I inherited this file i.e. the sections and elevations were turned into drawings by the previous owner. I always model.

[__archiben]

Bruce wrote:
Did you read my first post? I stated there that I inherited this file i.e. the sections and elevations were turned into drawings by the previous owner. I always model.

just re-read my post and i can see it came across a little harsh. think i've been guilty of that quite a lot recently. however . . . i did notice that you had inherited the file, but my remark wasn't quite as flippant as you might have thought: if you always model, why not re-model the thing? may save time in the long run. you'll probably be able to re-use the annotation if there is any . . .

~/archiben

[Anonymous]

I have definately found that it's typically faster to remodel inherited files that were drafted, rather than try to work around bad drafting. The office I came to work for about 4 months ago has approximately 80 plans that we work off of constantly, as we build production homes in fairly large residential developments. Every plan was drafted, completely... and whenever I have spare time I go back and remodel plans. I've found the fastest way to do it, is set up your storeys, then add a "dummy" storey between each one, then copy the floor plan from the old file into the dummy storey, then ghost the storey, and trace it with the correct tools, then delete the dummy storeys... that process is probably fairly obvious, but I posted it just to give you some ideas.

HTH,
Dan

[TomWaltz]

~/archiben wrote:
[just re-read my post and i can see it came across a little harsh. think i've been guilty of that quite a lot recently. however . . . i did notice that you had inherited the file, but my remark wasn't quite as flippant as you might have thought: if you always model, why not re-model the thing? may save time in the long run. you'll probably be able to re-use the annotation if there is any . . .

Ben, harsh or flippant?? No way! 😉

[Bruce]

Ben,

Your response was absolutely fine.

As far as remodelling - out of the question in this particular scenario.