Dimension resolution limits

[divingdoug]

Is there any way to force IV to allow more than the 5 decimal place resolution that is listed in the Units drop down box?

And is there any way to force the result in the distance command to show all the decimals even if they are zeroes? When I specify 6 decimal places in the distance / measure command, I want to see 6 decimal places. If I don't, then I don't know if the rest of the digits are zeros or if it just didn't accept my choice to show 6 decimal places.

Very frustrating on both issues.

[Cadmanto]

See if this link helps you.

http://forums.autodesk.com/autodesk/attachments/autodesk/78/421283/1/Custom%20Parameter%20Formatting...

[divingdoug]

Yea, that doesn't have anything to do with the display for on screen dimensions or the measure command.  For the on screen display, the only adjustment I can find is the Linear Dim Display Precision field in the Documents Settings.  (In reality, this should be resolution, not precision)

If I enter a dimension that is longer than 5 decimal places, it will simply not show on the screen unless I click to edit the dimension

Then if I use the measure command, by default is appears to use the same resolution the Units is set to unless you intentionally set it higher. In first pic, the decimal places matches what the sketch displayed.

Even with the resolution set to the highest level in the measure command, it does not display to the full extent to which I originally entered the value.

My question is, can this behavior be changed for either function.  The on screen display or the Measure command.  

It is quite irritating that AD would choose to limit the dimensional resolution that the operator can see.

[JDMather]

---

@divingdoug wrote:

It is quite irritating that AD would choose to limit the dimensional resolution that the operator can see.

---

What manufacturing process goes beyond 4 decimal places? 
(In my experience most people cannot reliably measure beyond 3 decimal places.)

Nearly all 4 decimal place work is done with grinding processes (read expensive) and become temperature dependent beyond that.

[JDMather]

and if I set to All Decimals it goes out to 9 decimal places.

[divingdoug]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

What manufacturing process goes beyond 4 decimal places? 
(In my experience most people cannot reliably measure beyond 3 decimal places.)

---

You are making assumptions on what I am doing the work for. Not everything is designed for normal machining / molding / fabrication methods.

The end result of this, the most digits I can see in the measure command is nine (9) and then there is always that little bit of uncertainty since it removes trailing zeros. (Did I really have it set to 9 digits, or All?) You would think that if I had it set to nine digits, it would show nine digits, zeros or not. 

And for the screen display, five (5) digits is the limit. As I say, you, and apparently Autodesk, make a lot of assumptions on what the end user requires.

All I ask is give me the option to display to whatever resolution I want to display at.  Really shouldn't be so hard.

[rdyson · Accepted solution]

What happens if you set dim display to "Expression"

Also the measure cursor change to a caliper glyph when using all decimals

Edit: HMMM? Print Screen doesn't capture the cursor. But, try it, you'll see.

[JDMather]

---

@divingdoug wrote:

You are making assumptions on what I am doing the work for. Not everything is designed for normal machining / molding / fabrication methods.

---

I teach this stuff - so I need to know when I am giving student the wrong information.
Explain to me why you would need more than 4 decimal places.

That way I won't be making erroneous assumptions.

[divingdoug]

---

@rdyson wrote:

What happens if you set dim display to "Expression"

Also the measure cursor change to a caliper glyph when using all decimals

Edit: HMMM? Print Screen doesn't capture the cursor. But, try it, you'll see.

---

Display as Expression appears to work.  Thought display as Precise might but it stops at 10 decimal places.

Never noticed the caliper glyph before but will know now.

Thanks for the assistance without questioning my motives.

[JDMather]

Scientific inquiry requires questioning eveything I "think" I know.

The day I stop questioning you can add me to the list of stick-in-the-mud faculty teaching the same thing year after year to till they retire.

I am still interested in the why and how as it relates to design for manufacturability.

[nannerdw]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I am still interested in the why and how as it relates to design for manufacturability.

---

I think it has more to do with having a robust CAD model than the actual manufacturability of the part, in which case I'd recommend working with linked parameters, skeletal modeling, and derived parts instead of relying on a non-associatve tool like the measure command to "fudge" dimensions.

[JDMather]

---

@nannerdw wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I am still interested in the why and how as it relates to design for manufacturability.

---

I think it has more to do with having a robust CAD model than the actual manufacturability of the part, ......

---

Well, I get feedback from employers, "Aren't you teaching your students anything about DFM....?  All they are doing is generating pretty pictures of stuff that can't be made at a reasonable cost...."  on-and-on.

Too many using over-the-wall thinking.  I'll do the concept and turn it over to manufacturing to figure out how to actually make it - that is their job.  But the easiest time to make changes that will impact the final cost is at the design stage.

Not sure if any of this relates to this thread because I'm still making assumptions (as pointed out by the OP) without more information on the design intent.

[Paul-Mason]

Why would you want to go beyond 5 decimal places.

British Standards recommends 2 for workshop and 3 for inspection drawings for metric with 3 and 4 for Imperial

[SBix26]

JDMather wrote:

>> Explain to me why you would need more than 4 decimal places. <<

In the absence of direct response from the OP, I'll propose a reason: diagnosing things going on in Inventor.  I can recall instances in which dimensioning between two lines in a part sketch has resulted in a strangely small value, or even 0.  Typically this is because the lines aren't parallel as I assumed (and intended), and it takes a while to recognize that I got an angular dimension instead of a linear dimension.  But figuring out where the non-parallel condition arose may involve measuring things to the eighth, ninth or tenth decimal place.

Similar need may arise when holes don't line up-- the mismatch may be in the seventh decimal place, which is of no consequence at all for manufacturing, but I haven't found the means to communicate to Inventor constraints that they need to relax their standards a bit.

Sam B
Inventor 2012 Certified Professional

Please click "Accept as Solution" if this response answers your question.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventor Professional 2013 SP1.1 Update 2
Windows 7 Enterprise 64-bit, SP1
HP EliteBook 8770w; 8 GB RAM; Core™ i7-3720QM 2.60 GHz; Quadro K4000M
SpaceExplorer/SpaceNavigator NB, driver 3.16.2
still waiting for a foreshortened radius dimensioning tool in Drawing Manager

[swhite]

Unless your part is being machined for press fit, there is rarely a use for decimal places beyond 4. No welder in a shop is going to cut anything closer than 1/8" and 1/16" if we are lucky. Is there no longer a selection in 2013 for all decimal places as in 2011? I can go 10 decimal places and the measure tool will display all 10.

[SBix26]

2013 is no different from 2011 as far as the Measure tool is concerned.

Sam B
Inventor 2012 Certified Professional

Please click "Accept as Solution" if this response answers your question.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventor Professional 2013 SP1.1 Update 2
Windows 7 Enterprise 64-bit, SP1
HP EliteBook 8770w; 8 GB RAM; Core™ i7-3720QM 2.60 GHz; Quadro K4000M
SpaceExplorer/SpaceNavigator NB, driver 3.16.2
still waiting for a foreshortened radius dimensioning tool in Drawing Manager

[JDMather]

---

@sbixler wrote:

@Anonymous wrote:

>> Explain to me why you would need more than 4 decimal places. <<

In the absence of direct response from the OP, I'll propose a reason: diagnosing things going on in Inventor.  I can 
 

---

You made a good point that I too have seen on occasion.
I may have been mislead into making assumptions based on the images the OP posted.
A complete problem description helps to avoid assumptions.

I have a few raw spots having been dragged across the carpet by a few employers of students I graduated.

[rdyson]

In my opinion:

The number of decimal places in a dimension in a model is irrelavent to the manufacture of the part.

If using CAM, the CAM package will happily recognize all the decimal places and and create its tool path accordingly, for no additional cost.

If using more traditional methods the machinist should not use or care about the model (other than for reference), but will use a dimenioned 2-D drawing. That's where it's important to understand the ramification of decimal places and tolerancing in general.

[JDMather]

Part has to be inspected.

Cutting tools come in standard sizes.

I worked ouut on the shop floor 8 years (back in the last century) proving "tapes" on first run jobs on CNC machines.

I found decimal places to be critically important.

Taught CAD/CAM programing for 5 yrs after that.  The GIGO principle applied.

Now if the part is complex "organic" freeform milling... different story, but I asked (more or less) about design intent.

Maybe with change in technology since the last century my experience is out of date, but I doubt it.

[JimSteinmeyer]

I had a professor that stressed that we would detail our prints with a micrometer, the shop would then lay it out with a tape measure, mark it with a children's crayon and cut it with an ax.

I wish the OP hadn't left, I too would be interested in the need for such precision, perhaps his use of the term resolution would give us a clue as to what he was after, but I don't know what it would be.