"The dimensions created in drawings don't have pre-canned values based on the points or edges selected, they're generated at the time of creation to reflect the paperspace distance selected with the scale of the view taken into consideration. "
Forgive me for saying this, but that idea still makes no sense to me.
The dimensions are generated to reflect the paperspace distance at the selected scale.
The paper is a 2D environment with a fixed size (like A4 with 210x297mm).
You want the drawing to show a product (let's say a wooden sign) that has the dimensions 1000x500x100mm.
You insert the component into the drawing at scale 1:10 in a top down projection.
That would make it's dimensions 100x50mm on the paper. That would fit nicely.
You put that view to the top right of the paper.
You also want a nicer image for the costumer, so you also insert the standard NE iso view.
You choose a bigger scale and a rendering type that shows the texture so there is more to fill the page.
You add dimensions to the top view. They say 1000x500mm.
Now you add dimensions to the 3D view.
They are now something arbitrary, because they are actually measured in "paperspace".
They neither reflect the actual component, nor do they provide any help to anyone else who would read the drawing.
Instead it creates confusion over which dimensions are meant to be correct. Or if there are two different parts shown.
All the math the drawing workspace should do with a component is to scale it according to the paper size, taking the real units and dividing them by whatever scale the user wishes.
A part that is 800mm long in reality, should be exactly 100mm long on a 1:8 drawing.
The marked dimensions should always say "800mm".
Nothing more, nothing less.
And certainly not two different values, depending on which way you view it.
Nobody benefits from looking at a drawing of a 80cm part that is marked as 63.30860483cm, right?
Don't you agree?
"The dimension value is a 2D projected distance of that edge/points. Thus, supporting this requires some fundamental rework.."
The other projected views like top or right already measure the correct dimensions. I don't see the issue.
The drawing workspace already measures components correctly when they are viewed from any 2D side!
This is why I don't get how this should be any challenge at all.
Any component in the drawing file references a component in a design.
Take the wooden sign:
There is 1 component. Store an index as a short or whatever.
It has 8 points, 8 positions as 3D vectors.
It has 12 edges connecting those points. 12 floats for their length.
It has 6 sides. 6 floats for the area measurement for example.
Regardless of how these are handled internally, you already measure those values correctly in all 2D views inside the drawing.
And they don't change when working on the drawing.
They only change when the design, which they reference, changes. And that change is updated as easily as refreshing a web browser site.
They are the same in 2D as they are in 3D, just make the 3D view display the correct value which is already achieved in the 2D views and this problem would be solved.
Component 1 has edge 01 that is 10cm long. 10cm is the dimension. Across all views. Simple.
How big edge 01 is on the print, where it is positioned, or which way it points because of the view angle,
is irrelevant and purely a visual effect.
How you scale it, render it, name it, etc.. what does that have to do with any of the dimensions? Nothing.
Am I wrong?
Thanks.