I forgot to mention I will also discuss your specific concern with the
dimensioning team.
Sincerely,
Shaan Hurley
Autodesk, Inc.
"Shaan Hurley" wrote in message
news:FD16D44A107D2473DB9E9D88CF3BDCF2@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Joe,
>
> I was referring to 3D Face objects not even associating with DIMASO based
> dimension node points in past releases which is the same cause that you
> cannot acquire the object transpatially. The new associative dimensioning
> only works for entities that have been able in past releases to have a
> dimension node associated. You should always check your drawings as
> unfortunately the there are many ways to get bad dimensions of objects in
> any CAD system until such time as computers have artificial intelligence.
In
> your specific case of 3D faces and the concern I would suggest just not
> dimension from paperspace if you are concerned about missing errors.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Shaan Hurley
> Autodesk, Inc.
>
>
> "Joe D." wrote in message
> news:849F3AC95F826FA2C6D8C12D5CBF452B@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > I am not certain what you are asking. My AutoCAD use has spanned
> > 10,11,12, LTv2, and then jumped to LT'97, till I recently upgraded to
the
> > Inventor Series with 2002.
> >
> > I think the past problems I had with paperspace dimensions on LT'97
were
> > because of drawing file corruption, well... at least that is the
Autodesk
> > theory. I also had some paperspace problems with earlier versions of
> > AutoCAD, so I wanted to be very careful with the transpacial dimensions.
> >
> > I really considered using the old-style paperspace dimensions, using
> the
> > DIMLFAC variable. But, I am just so gun-shy about relying on them. My
> past
> > experience has taught me that I might come in one morning to print out a
> > drawing that was fine when I worked on it yesterday. I print out the
> > drawing and give it to the shop for production... but unknown to me, a
few
> > of the dimensions (out of hundreds) have forgotten their DIMLFAC scale
> > factor and show a wrong value. Hopefully, the value shown will be
> obviously
> > wrong to the guy building it and they will ask me about it. But, I can
> > certainly see times it might not... i.e. what was 2'-1 3/4" now reads 2
> > 5/8". The guy in the shop interprets it as 2 feet and 7/8" inches.
After
> > all, he already know that AutoCAD will mess up the dimension display...
> "it
> > must have dropped that dash."
> >
> > Unfortunately, I just don't see an easy fix for the program. To
> maintain
> > compatibility with the old "associative" dimensions, and the newer
> > "associative" transpacial dimensions, they come up with the new and
> improved
> > "SUPER DUPER ASSOCIATIVE" dimensions. Pretty soon, it will take an
> advanced
> > doctorate degree in AutoCAD dimensioning to figure it all out!
> >
> > Joe Dunfee (not Joe Dunne)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Shaan Hurley" wrote in message
> > news:6FC4CCC8824EE812F2FB51B7374BE0A1@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > Joe,
> > >
> > > It appears the dimension is not associated with the 3D Face just like
> > > dimensions in prior releases except that now you are seeing this same
> > > limitation transpatially more as you are trying it more often. Is this
> > > correct?
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Shaan Hurley
> > > Autodesk, Inc.
> >
> >
>
>