DIMENSIONS

[Anonymous]

I want to create the dimensions of 3d object and i want it to be this way

And i post this because i dont know how to do this in the same way.

help me please!

[Anonymous]

HI,

You may refer to this article please see the link below.

http://www.neit.edu/blog/index.php/2015/09/autocad-placing-your-dimensions-and-text-on-the-right-ang...

Thanks,

[ara_neresesian]

HI

if you want to do it in model space you have to create a flatshot,  

then you have to use aligned dimension for all,

and finally use "DIMEDIT">>>Oblique to select your dim or dimensions   and input angle or select axis for Oblique angle .

if you have problem to do it  just post me , I will do it ,

I just gave the key and you can do it by your own

Good LUCK  

Please select the Accept as Solution button if my post solves your issue or answers your question

[dunnamin]

How to set up dimensions is in the article posted by Glen-Morris.

Using FLATSHOT is in the reply by Ara.

I can add that if you want the dimensions to be valid, take the FLATSHOT from a true isometric angle (click on a corner of your view cube), to get oblique lines to be at 30 degrees, 150 degrees, and vertical. Then scale the flatshot by 1.22474487. Then you can dimension the drawing. Only lines that oblique in the drawing and are now at the previously stated angles will have the right measurement, simply because they're the only ones that ever do in an isometric view.

   -- Dunn

[Anonymous]

No don't use FLATSHOT, in MS simply rotate your UCS to match the face you want to dimension and dimension away.

[ara_neresesian]

HI

I think without flatshot he must change ucs for each face which he want to dim .

but with flatshot I think its very easy way .

he can do it also in p.s  .

fortunately and thanks to  autoacad you have lot of choice and way to rich the target .

GOOD LUCK

[skintsubby]

jorge

@Anonymous way is correct....... Try doing as per attached.

I created a layer called Dims.

I had to modify your DIMSTYLE

I modify the UCS onto each plane as required and DIMLINEAR the faces as shown.

If you do not want to see the dimensions in each viewport then turn the layer "Dims"  off in each viewport.

Any problems post back.

Regards

Mark

*uppercase words are AutoCAD Commands. Check them out.

[Anonymous]

With flatshot, he'll be required to manipulate nearly every dimension placed to alter it's oblique angle and get the text to "lie down" at the proper viewing angle.  And then it is ONLY good at THAT viewing angle, it looks like crap from any other angle.  Matching a UCS to a face is three picks, dimensions all you want, alter the UCS dimension all you want, alter the UCS and complete dimensions, AND they look fine from nearly all viewing angles plus you didn't have to step on the 3D model.

I am constantly amazed at the people whose first inclination is to destroy a 3D model so they can annotate it in 2D.  FLATTEN, FLATSHOT, even VIEWBASE has been a wrong headed approach since inception.  ALL that was ever really needed was a fast way to create sliced views of models in PS and annotate those views in PS.  All this other crap is simply reverting to 2D mindsets.

[dunnamin]

Oh, it's not a first inclination to move from 3d to 2d in order to print, it's a last resort.

We want the best pictures and AutoCAD, at least on any machine I've used it on, does not give high quality prints of those dimensions written in 3d, even the ones still facing the view you've chosen.

All I'm trying to do though, is to convey information to the person approving or building something. The only things from me going straight to machine are flat panels on 2-1/2D CNC machines.

   -- Dunn

[Anonymous]

If the view direction is the same, the dimensions will look the same, whether you annotate them using UCS in modelspace with a single dimstyle or step on the model and create a 2D cartoon, then spend a lot of time fiddling with obliques and text style angles. 

Which one was done your way and which one was done mine??  By the way mine took less than a minute to complete, it took longer than that just to make the text styles for your way.  It would have taken a LOT longer, but I already had the whacked arrowhead blocks to show the angle.

If flatshot really was a "last resort" you jumped over several better options to get there.

[dunnamin]

Either way is the last resort, because it's whatever works best. I will always go for the 2d first.

The oblique text styles and the +30 and -30 dimensions are part of my regular template file and are always there. On the keyboard that I use for most commands (sits next to my regular keyboard), there are already shortcut keys for DIMOBLIQUE and the view multiplier as well as the regular DIMALIGNED, etc.. It may be simply because I'm set up for this, but the 2d is faster for me.

Even drawing the cube you posted, I had to get used to which way to set the UCS so the dims are not backwards, flip the one at the front left for right, etc.. And I don't usually go to 3d to draw a cube. I will draw in AutoCAD in isometric until I think it would be faster with 3d, then I whip out a 3d model, FLATSHOT and I'm back in my drawing, often with only a part of what I need in isometric (the difficult to draw part). So 2d is easier for me.

I was just trying to help the OP, Randall, not to get in a discussion about whether you should use shape files for text, whether to draw on Layer 0, or whether to use the dashboard, ribbons, or neither. Dimensioning isometric drawings, and even drawing many of them, is both faster and easier in 2d for me.

Thanks,

   -- Dunn

[Anonymous]

It MIGHT be faster for you because you already have dim and text styles setup and already have obliqued arrowheads blocked and already have a dozen shortcuts setup to handle the three or four sets of goofy dimensions you have to create to annotate a simple model.  My way needs NONE of that goofiness and only requires someone have a simple understanding of UCS which one MUST have to work in 3D anyway.

I've been building and annotating 3D models in AutoCAD for over 25 years and the 2D mindset is not just slow, cumbersome and unnecessary, it prevents people from getting past that 2D mindset leaving them stuck in repetitive 2D workflows.  Thank you for an excellent example.

[SeeMSixty7]

To help @Anonymous's argument. What happens when your underlying model changes and then you have to recut your flatshot and manipulate dimensions that didn't change, and add or update the dimensions that did change. The 3D aspect here is much more efficient. I do understand the application of 2D when appropriate, but here the 3D annotation offer a very nice solution.