Wishes forum
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Dimension "standards" added to display options

Anonymous
Not applicable
It is essential that dimension "standards" be added to display options.
ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL.
We already have the capability to name different levels of precision, called dimension standards. Why can't they be linked to a display options? I know I'm not the first to wish this.
I don't know how all of you AC experts have details at one level of precision and your plans at another, but me, I have to MANUALLY!!! change my plan dimensions. Take a look at my plan dimensions. When I make a dimension manual I change its color to orange. HALF of the dimensions on my plan are manual!!!! That is completely unacceptable Graphisoft!!! Graphisoft, what method did you have in mind for us when we need a detail at one level of precision and the plan at another? Oh! You didn't think about it? Of course. I should have known that after 20+ years of designing a piece of software you can't figure this out on your own. I'm sorry. I suppose Graphisoft can't be expected to think of everything, especially the most common sense intricacies of Architecture, apparently.
You guys do have on staff Architects, right?

I make no apologies for my rudeness. When Graphisoft starts treating its customers with respect, designing a decent piece of software, I'll start being nice.
31 REPLIES 31

__archiben
Newcomer
alex

i'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here. maybe i misunderstand you, but over here in the UK we dimension in millimetres . . . at whatever scale. if we went to millimetres-to-one-decimal-place i think that our contractors would have a good laugh at us!

as i said . . maybe i've completely misunderstood you . . . ?

~/archiben
b e n f r o s t
b f [a t ] p l a n b a r c h i t e c t u r e [d o t] n z
archicad | sketchup! | coffeecup

Anonymous
Not applicable
We of the new empire have more complexities with our Imperial units.

Sometimes we round to whole inches, other times to halves, quarters or eighths. Millwork details and shop drawings can even get down to 1/32's. Angles of course are in decimal degrees (a small concession we make to you rationalists across the pond - maybe we should switch to nautical bearings for our angle measures).

Site and Civil work is typically dimensioned in decimal feet (to the hundredths - about 1/8" or 3 mm) which is easy enough. The angles though are in surveyors units which can turn your head inside out if you think about them too hard (and can turn the world upside down if you don't know which direction they are taken).

We did give up using roman numerals a few years back, but the Arabic system is now coming under much closer scrutiny since the Patriot Act became law (concern about muslims plotting our demise and all).

I have heard that the President is preparing a return to using knotted strings (much easier for him to understand) but there is much opposition from the tape measure lobby.

It's all part of the plan for total global domination. First we require that all CAD programs adapt to fit Henry VIII's body then we denounce the metric system to the UN as a degenerate French plot. Once we have firmly established a new US monopoly on measuring devices we will also have a dominant competitive advantage in the strategically critical field of ARCHITECTURE (control the world's buildings and control the world).



I suppose this really belongs in the pub, but I did mention CAD a couple of times.

Seriously, after working on some projects in the Netherlands it has been hard to go back to feet and inches.

__archiben
Newcomer
hehehe!

b e n f r o s t
b f [a t ] p l a n b a r c h i t e c t u r e [d o t] n z
archicad | sketchup! | coffeecup

Anonymous
Not applicable
I agree with Alex. (I may not be as passionate.) But yes, we really do dimension to different degrees of accuracy.

I guess you could make sure that we draw 100% accurate drawings, but that is easier said than done. When you have muliple people at multiple skill levels, it's virtually impossible. A good setting would be to have another set of precision for detail windows or better yet by scale, i.e. 1/4" scale rounds off to 1/2" and 1" or bigger goes down to 1/8" or whatever you choose.

(PS if you are in the metric system don't just vote no out of spite. you can argue 'til yourr blue in the face about which is better, but truth of the matter is none of us picked either system)

Anonymous
Not applicable
I always wonder why the hell do you still measure in feet inches but after reading your post i got even more frustated.

We count all our lives with base 10. What is more natural tha meters and all meters / or * 10

Please tell me one good reason beside people got used to.. to keep that crazy system

Anonymous
Not applicable
I'm holding out for the duo-decimal system. Metric is so 20th century. Base 12 is the true wave of the future. The hard part will be growing the extra fingers and toes.

Seriously, I would like to see the US catch up with the rest of the world. Metric is SO much easier and far less error prone. (Remember the Mars orbiter that didn't?) Even so I would miss the old system. The inch, foot and yard are nice human scale sizes (not surprising being based on the anatomy of en English king).

Dave Jochum
Booster
oreopoulos wrote:
I always wonder why the hell do you still measure in feet inches but after reading your post i got even more frustated.

We count all our lives with base 10. What is more natural tha meters and all meters / or * 10

Please tell me one good reason beside people got used to.. to keep that crazy system
Trying to explain that to someone who has used the metric system their whole lives is a loosing proposition, but I'll give it a shot just the same. A foot is a very meaningful unit of measurement. My shoes are exactly one foot long. I pace out heal to toe all the time to measure. Within seconds I can measure to within an inch or two without having to carry a tape measure around 24/7. In metric my shoe measures 30.5 cm. How useful is that?

My index finger from the last nuckle to end of my nail measures exacly an inch--another easy measuring device. In metric it's 2.54 cm. My little finger from the second nuckle to the end of my nail is 5 cm, so I guess that could be used as a measuring stick, but try to easily divide that into fifths to get individual cm's or fiftieths to get mm's.

There's more to it than just what one gets used to. There's no argument that conversions within the base 10 metric system are easier than the base 12 Imperial. But it does quickly become second nature.

I know I haven't conviced you.
Dave Jochum

J o c h u m A R C H I T E C T S http://www.jochumarchitects.com

MBP 15" (2017)+27" 4K•16GB•OS 11.6•AC 24,25 (latest build)

Geoff Briggs
Booster
Back to Alex's wish, it's hard to argue against better dimensioning tools, but is a Display Option setting the best solution. I think not and here's why.

Display Options enable one object to appear differently at different times, either for working v. printing like the hairline setting, or to meet typical requirements like hiding doors on a ceiling plan. We can save DOs with our views so an object's appearance changes with the view.

But if I read Alex dilemma correctly his dimensions are NOT changing once placed. Rather he needs different precision in different circumstances. Floor plan v. detail for example. And many of us would like the freedom to change units as well. Feet and inches for plans, inches for details, decimal feet for site plans, all in one file or even one view. Even you metric fellows would benefit. Surely you don't use millimeters for site plans?

So I would I would argue for the dimension standards to be defined and named in preferences then selected via pull down in the dimension tools themselves.

How do I vote Real Problem, Wrong Solution?
Regards,
Geoff Briggs
DeForest Architects
Seattle, USA

AC24 INT, Mac (home), Win10 (work)
Yes, you read that correctly, we are in the US but use the INT version.

Miquel Garcia
Participant
Perhaps a good solution would be the ability to define different measurement system for each view.
With Dimension Options as Display Options if you have defined manually some dimensions you will obtain different precission in the same drawing and this would cause errors on contractors.

(Alex: My index finger from the last nuckle to end of my nail measures exactly 2.75 cm. I'm not standard. Sorry!)
Miquel
Capella & Garcia Arquitectura
AC18 - AC21, iMac 27" 3.1 Ghz Intel Core i7, 16GB Ram, OSX 10.13.1

James Murray
Expert
Geoff wrote:
So I would I would argue for the dimension standards to be defined and named in preferences then selected via pull down in the dimension tools themselves.
I would probably never change the precision or units of a given dimension element, so the display option doesn't seem right.

I don't think I need by-element control within a window, either. I think I could get by with a window-wide setting that could be saved with the view. Add it to layers, scale, DOs, zoom.

Alex is right about the seriousness of this issue. As with all manual workarounds, it's not just the extra work, it's risk of human error as the workaround is half-implemented or not maintained. With dimensions in particular this is critical.

PS, MHO,
Metric: Great system, lousy units.
Imperial: Vice versa.
James Murray
Rill Architects • macOS • OnLand.info

Anonymous
Not applicable
Geoff,

I think you may have misunderstood. The proposal as I understand it is not to make dimension settings into a display option nor to control their appearance through a new display option, but to use the existing list of named dimension settings in the same manner as display options, scale, and layer combinations. These dimension settings control the unit types and accuracy as you describe (along with a few bits like whether to show zeroes etc.).

This way you can set up one called "Survey" with decimal feet and surveyors units, one called "Floor Plan" with feet and inches at 1/4" accuracy, one called "Millwork" with fractional inches at 1/32" accuracy, as well as metric and so on. This function exists now, all I (we?) would like to see is to have it available as a pop-up like the display options etc in the Navigator and to become one of the things that can be set by the view.

Petros Ioannou
Newcomer
Since the topic became quite interesting I will write down my thoughts.
I agree with Matthew's "inch, foot and yard are nice human scale sizes". Colleagues who studied abroad told me that they found this system closer to human scale.
On the other hand if I measure something with my shoes, I am sure that someone will ask me to send him a pair of mine to verify the measurement!
Maybe we should take a look again to Le Corbusier's Modulor?
It was based on wrong maths, but he tried to bridge the gap between metric and imperial system.
Anyway I agree to a more flexible dimensioning system but not too complicated (Autocad comes to mind)
ArchiCAD 22 4023 UKI FULL,
Archicad 21 6013 UKI FULL, ArchiCAD 20 8005 UKI FULL
iMac Retina 5K, 27-inch, 2017
4.2 GHz Intel Core i7
32 GB 2400 MHz DDR4
Radeon Pro 580 8192 MB

Anonymous
Not applicable
James,

What are you doing here at this hour on a Saturday morning? Oh... the same thing I am I guess.

Very good points. The core problem is that dimension settings are global. I agree that dimensions, once set, are unlikely to need to change and it would make me nervous knowing that ArchiCAD is running through the whole project changing all the dimensions every time I switch views.

The one problem I see with your proposal of window based settings is in plan where there is a site plan at one scale, layer combo, etc. along with one or more floor plans in the same window. Another question is stories; same window, different drawing.

I too am not sure that individual settings are the way to go, but it is beginning to look like it may be the cleanest and most reliable approach that addresses all the issues. I REALLY like the idea of dimensions that stay exactly as I put them. I still have dark memories of version 5 when all dimensions would be recalculated (including ones whose text had been edited) each time the units or accuracy was changed. (As I recall this was fixed in 5.1 so I don't think you ever lived this little nightmare.) I sure used a lot of static dimensions back then. It's also when I created my dimension string library part out of desperation.

I absolutely agree (with everyone it seems) that the dimension tools needs improvement it's just how to go about it that seems an open question. Whatever the answer it needs to be one clear, simple, comprehensive, and well thought out solution and not a collection of fixes and patches in various settings and places.

I am leaning toward the individual settings for each dimension and making the list of presets as no more than a handy way to set the defaults (and not reset the dimensions globally as it is now). But, hey, this way the presets could still change with the view selection in Navigator and we really can have it all (and eat it too).

So what do you all think: Is individual settings the way to go?

vfrontiers
Contributor
For me it's easy... We need to have INDIVIDUAL CONTROL over BOTH accuracy and display for each dimension... Have you ever done INTERIOR ELEVATIONS? Clg heights often are dimensioned in FT & IN while cabinets are in IN in the same drawing. For me, there is no other way to do it.

As far as accuracy goes, I leave my dim's on 1/64 and make them work... Then comes a rotated grid and I have a line of framers pointing their nail guns at me! Typically I WORK in 64th (dims) until I am close to PLOTTING, then I choose the appropriate OUTPUT ACCURACY!

It's never gonna be easy!
Duane
Visual Frontiers
AC22 6021:|: AC24 4007:|: Enscape3:|:TwinMotion
DellXPS 4.7ghz i7:|: 8gb GPU 1070ti

Anonymous
Not applicable
I think ViewSets should include dimensioning (and while we are at it Working units settings)

I also think that individual dimensions should have the option to override current dimension settings with their own (nail it down)

Imperial units are source of a lot of idiosynchracies in CAD, but have to admit that from a contractor/ woodworker point of view, I adjusted, and actually learned to like the imperial system, and when given a choice, I used the "backward" fractional inch system. Not because the unit sizes, but because of the system. I comes down to division by 2 which is easy, instead of the 10th (2 and 5) which is not always easy.

by hand one can divide fairly easily by 2 and 3, but five is a little trickier.


as for absulte sizes go, mentally is fairly easy to adjust (like in rope sizes and plywood : 1/8 = 3mm, 1/4 = 6mm, 1cm = 7/16 (which is 1/2 inch less 1/16 about approx. 1 mm), 12mm= 1/2 inch.

1ft = 1/3 meter, etc.

wish the fahrenheit/celsius would become natural so easy.
I have a couple of spreadsheet patches created for practical uses: outdoor temperature ranges, body temperature ranges for quick judgements. Still, no easy replacement for the 0-10-20-30 degrees C. or the 36.5, 37, 37.5, 38, 40 deg C for measuring body temperature.

Anonymous
Not applicable
Hello
I cannot resist wasting a few minutes for that. Alex, do not call me just a Swiss narrow-minded guy, I spent (15 years ago, sorry for the English) 2 years following an arch master program in the US.
I agree imperial sys is nice for design but not for construction. I remember the congested faces trying to calculate in whatever semi liquid units the concrete volume of a 15x 10 ' piece of slab...
Accuracy of dimension are much more important in construction drawings and they have to be as homogeneous as possible in a plan.
But I agree that between plan level (site, preliminary, etc), we should be able to change the units. In Switzerland we will indicate a 15 x 10 m housing parcel but it is not a big issue for us, we can quite easy understand an UK 15000 x 10000 mm dimension (incredible, mhh?). So, as somebody asked, I did not vote, because the big problem is the fraction system. I think American architects miss the most important information. Wall Street moved from the fraction system quotation to a decimal one. How long will you resist? Who's the chief over there?
Piece of sarcastic remarks , I know but you scream a little bit too loudly Alex. Try autocad, an ....(complete the space) made product and you will know what is to work without any feeling of arch needs. Maybe GS as not enough Am arch in his staff... Next time try a Chinese or a Paki product, if they are Hung..ry enough, you might even insult them...

Erika Epstein
Contributor
Matthew wrote:
Geoff,

I think you may have misunderstood. The proposal as I understand it is not to make dimension settings into a display option nor to control their appearance through a new display option, but to use the existing list of named dimension settings in the same manner as display options, scale, and layer combinations. These dimension settings control the unit types and accuracy as you describe (along with a few bits like whether to show zeroes etc.).

This way you can set up one called "Survey" with decimal feet and surveyors units, one called "Floor Plan" with feet and inches at 1/4" accuracy, one called "Millwork" with fractional inches at 1/32" accuracy, as well as metric and so on. This function exists now, all I (we?) would like to see is to have it available as a pop-up like the display options etc in the Navigator and to become one of the things that can be set by the view.
short of going to metric ...YES YES YES
Could this work in the display options similar to the different ways doors can be shown?
Erika
Architect, Consultant
MacBook Pro Retina, 15-inch Yosemite 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
Mac OSX 10.11.1
AC5-18
Onuma System

"Implementing Successful Building Information Modeling"

Anonymous
Not applicable
Erika wrote:
Could this work in the display options similar to the different ways doors can be shown?
This is what I originally intended but after reading y'all's replies I believe it would be best if Dimension Standards be added to Quickview settings rather than display options.

Dave Jochum
Booster
Matthew wrote:
Geoff,

I think you may have misunderstood. The proposal as I understand it is not to make dimension settings into a display option nor to control their appearance through a new display option, but to use the existing list of named dimension settings in the same manner as display options, scale, and layer combinations. These dimension settings control the unit types and accuracy as you describe (along with a few bits like whether to show zeroes etc.).

This way you can set up one called "Survey" with decimal feet and surveyors units, one called "Floor Plan" with feet and inches at 1/4" accuracy, one called "Millwork" with fractional inches at 1/32" accuracy, as well as metric and so on. This function exists now, all I (we?) would like to see is to have it available as a pop-up like the display options etc in the Navigator and to become one of the things that can be set by the view.
I like this approach also. I would also like to see an idividual override for any dimension by way of the pet pallette. Duane's interior elevation senario is a perfect example of why this would be necessary.
Dave Jochum

J o c h u m A R C H I T E C T S http://www.jochumarchitects.com

MBP 15" (2017)+27" 4K•16GB•OS 11.6•AC 24,25 (latest build)

Start a new conversation!

Still looking?

Browse more topics

Back to forum

See latest solutions

Accepted solutions

Start a new discussion!