AutoCAD Forum

[#1]

Autodesk needs to develop a dimensioning variable that follows accepted metrification styles. For instance provide a gap between every three digits. The use of a comma to separate digits is absolutely incorrect:

100 000 mm is correct,
100,000 mm is incorrect. This in fact is 100 mm as the comma denotes a decimal point.

The correct abbreviation symbol should also be selectable again, mm, m, km etc, and properly spaced.

Imperial units are still being used in the U.S. but the rest of the world uses metric. This is a simple fix that Autodesk really should address.

[#2]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 11:50:11 +0000, forgerone <> wrote:

>Autodesk needs to develop a dimensioning variable that follows accepted metrification styles. For instance provide a gap between every three digits. The use of a comma to separate digits is absolutely incorrect:
>
>100 000 mm is correct,
>100,000 mm is incorrect. This in fact is 100 mm as the comma denotes a decimal point.
>
>The correct abbreviation symbol should also be selectable again, mm, m, km etc, and properly spaced.
>
>Imperial units are still being used in the U.S. but the rest of the world uses metric. This is a simple fix that Autodesk really should address.

What you say is absolutely correct, however I have had instances where
dimensions have been misinterpreted because the drawing used spaces as
thousands separators.

What complicates things somewhat is that the space as a thousands
separator should only be used once the value gets to 10 000. The other
thing that needs to be considered is that it is not a space, but a
no-break-space (ASCII 160). The problem is that old fonts in
particular do not necessarily define this, and other fonts have used
the character for other special characters.

I have to say that this is one case where the practical implications
have not been considered by those , and it is much safer not to have a
value broken up like the standards say. There are just too many
problems with the value being misinterpreted. I mean, despite
Australia having gone metric decades ago, if you give a workshop a
drawing with surface finish values in anything other than imperial
units, you risk getting something you certainly were not expecting.
When I suggested to a client of mine that it was time we specified
surface finish values in metric units, there was an urgent message
from the workshop asking us if the crusher wear liner casting was to
be polished!

[#3]

Three digit separation should be uniformly applied or not applied at all in a drawing set. However this does not mean that interpretive problems don't sometimes happen. That is why we have style guides and that is why we break up large numbers every three digits.

1 000 mm is correct
1000 mm is also correct as not using the space (or a comma) in 4 digit numbers is a matter of preference.
10 000 mm is correct
10000 mm is not stylistically correct. This number is difficult to read, especially when they get bigger.

The space provides the same function that a comma does. That function is readability as it does not "change" or affect the absolute value of the number. It is a stylistic issue and should be followed.


The fact that someone misinterprets a large number using serators just demonstrates their inability to understand the drawings. If this is from a lack of experience reading metric then this is easily remedied. However, drafting incorrectly no matter how well intended, can create contract problems. And puts the project at risk.

Again this should be adopted by Autodesk. The Engineers and Architects here are of two mindsets. Besides the fact that they can not let go of the comma, they also do not want to create "two" versions of a number, so as a result, we have rediculously large digits not separated. They are not easy to read.

It just boils down to bad style. If you're going to do something, then do it right, despite that fact that old dogs don't easily learn new tricks. Nor are they often of such a disposition.

Unfortunately they also write the checks.

[#4]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:42:06 +0000, forgerone <> wrote:

>Three digit separation should be uniformly applied or not applied at all in a drawing set. However this does not mean that interpretive problems don't sometimes happen. That is why we have style guides and that is why we break up large numbers every three digits.
>
>1 000 mm is correct
>1000 mm is also correct as not using the space (or a comma) in 4 digit numbers is a matter of preference.
>10 000 mm is correct
>10000 mm is not stylistically correct. This number is difficult to read, especially when they get bigger.

I agree, but the big problem is that a space is a dangerous separator
simply because it is using the absence of something to indicate a
value. It is for this very reason that financial calculations are
never done using this format. Yes, a space is the absence of
something.

>The space provides the same function that a comma does. That function is readability as it does not "change" or affect the absolute value of the number. It is a stylistic issue and should be followed.

But it is dangerous because as an example, a fax can be transmitted
and because of an issue with the transmission or because the
resolution sees a number disappear (I have had this happen with
castings where a decimal point did not show correctly and a value of
63.5 was read as 635. The castings had to be re-melted - all 20 of
them at our cost because the intention was not clear). This could then
be read as something other than what it is.

>The fact that someone misinterprets a large number using serators just demonstrates their inability to understand the drawings. If this is from a lack of experience reading metric then this is easily remedied. However, drafting incorrectly no matter how well intended, can create contract problems. And puts the project at risk.

Not necessarily. If push comes to shove with the lawyers involved, I
am not at all certain which one will win out. I would much rather see
a thousands separator of a comma (as in some countries) than a space.
But even here, some countries use a decimal point as a thousands
separator and a comma as a decimal point!

Oh yes, now it comes to me. I believe what you want can be done by
setting the Windows thousands separator to a space, and then setting
AutoCAD to use the Windows format. I know of a German multi-national
client who tried this and abandoned it within weeks because of
problems.

>Again this should be adopted by Autodesk. The Engineers and Architects here are of two mindsets. Besides the fact that they can not let go of the comma, they also do not want to create "two" versions of a number, so as a result, we have rediculously large digits not separated. They are not easy to read.
>
>It just boils down to bad style. If you're going to do something, then do it right, despite that fact that old dogs don't easily learn new tricks. Nor are they often of such a disposition.
>
> Unfortunately they also write the checks.

When I started out many years ago, there was a "Great Underlying Rile
of Draughting". It went, "If in doubt, spell it out". In other words,
make sure that the end user clearly understands your intention. If
this means using a thousands separator on large numbers to make it
clear, then by all means do so. Only whatever your do, make sure that
it can only ever be read one way - correctly. Much the same way that
the letters I, O, and Q should be avoided as item identifiers, and
that fonts that comply with the standard should be used because the
numbers 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 cannot be confused. But then we have the
concept of "style" come in ;-)

[#5]

"But it is dangerous because as an example, a fax can be transmitted
and because of an issue with the transmission or because the
resolution sees a number disappear (I have had this happen with
castings where a decimal point did not show correctly and a value of
63.5 was read as 635. The castings had to be re-melted - all 20 of
them at our cost because the intention was not clear). This could then
be read as something other than what it is."

That is indeed unfortunate. If the comma or decimal point was unreadable in the fax then there should have been a space and the dimension read thus: 63 5 mm. (I doubt that it was in meters?)
This discrepency should have bee noted by the pattern maker and at the very least quuestioned.

I have a good link to a National Institute of Standards metrication manual in pdf and some of the reasons for the standardization of styles and the legal implications are discussed. I'll look for it and post it. It is very helpfull.

The difficulty that I am observing is during quality control mark-ups. The discrepancy between no-spaces, spaces, commas and decimal points is creating areas of disagreement.

It would be convenient if AutoDesk could create a variable that accomadates generally accepted metric styles.

Regarding resetting Windows for thousand digit spacing would indeed be a nightmare. Especially if you wanted to draft in Imperial units also.

[#6]

the way we used to do it:
whether meters or millimeters was left to the context.

For example, structure dimensions were meter and details were millimeters. So we had 15.540 and 1400

then we had a note that gave the standard we were following U.N.O. in which case, if there were a chance for confusion we would put km, m, or mm; never cm or dm.

One of the problems of metric is that 1 millimeter is too precise for building construction since 1/16 inch is about 1.5mm. So we usually did the detailing to an accuracy of +- 2 mm; ie you would never see an 'odd' number.