rob2218 wrote:You can set the Working Units to Feet & Decimal Inches to 3 places (1/1000"), which makes it easier to spot these errors.
Archicad can only go down to a 1/64th inch tolerance...
As a simple example, a chain of dimensions 50.3mm + 50.3mm will illustrate to the millimetre as 50mm + 50mm BUT if you then dimension the overall line length which would be 100.6mm it will be rounded up to 101mm. So you then have to explain why 50 + 50 = 101 to the end user. OK there are many fixes, but some of them fall into the categories which are considered bad practice that started this thread in the first place.
How would you suggest such a rounding situation should be handled by Archicad?
@Laszlo Nagy Professionally! 😉
I don't think AC is wrong, I was pointing out what can happen with detailed dimensions. This really is a case of user education and judgement. If the 100.6mm is correct, the dimension display settings should reflect this. Basically, we should be modelling to the displayable dimension tolerance. This is why we have decimals & extra accuracy display options in the Project Preferences>Dimension Settings.
The main problem is that dimensions in Archicad just aren’t prominent enough. Take Solidworks for example, it’s dimensioning and ease of use of the dimension tool takes pride and place, everything you do revolves around it, as it should in a cad / 3D modeler. Archicad’s dimensions are barely visible, and very difficult to change / track after you have set them. They’re pretty terrible tbh and quite obscure, which is bad considering that everything should be focused around the dimensions. And so, it forces this sloppyness from the user making it someone else’s problem later on. It’s the one thing about Archicad that needs a serious overhaul IMO.
Anyone can model a house, but designing one that is dimensionally sound and ready to build is the mark of a true architect. I really want to love Archicad but I keep going back to Solidworks based on the dimensioning alone.
The main problem is that dimensions in Archicad just aren’t prominent enough. Take Solidworks for example, it’s dimensioning and ease of use of the dimension tool takes pride and place, everything you do revolves around it, as it should in a cad / 3D modeler.
Could you show a few examples of why you think Solidworks dimensions are much better?
I do not know Solidworks at all, so this I am genuinely interested in the answer.
@Laszlo Nagy That caught my attention too. Having a quickly read of the SOLIDWORKS help files reveals their dimensioning works both ways e.g. you dimension a part, but you can also change the part by altering a dimension. Sounds a bit like Parametric 3D modelling. I don't think that is coming to AC any time soon! The other thing is they appear to have is a workflow where you dimension from the part to the whole, and the dimensions only appear once in the relevant part when it is added to a layout, which would be great for AC if we had internal parts/blocks/modules*.
I am also interested in @Wookie response...
* Delete name to suit personal preferences.