Dimbreak (or similar) in Inventor

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know a workaround for breaking crossing dimensions in Inventor, the same as DIMBREAK works in AutoCAD?

Seems to me, Inventor as a 3D package is good, but as a 2D drawing package it leaves a lot to be desired!

Thanks

[Sergio.D.Suárez]

I think you should edit the dimension style of your drawing template.

Go to editor styles and then to dimension, try to modify the gaps and the different options, I hope this can help you. Regards

[JDMather]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

…. but as a 2D drawing package it leaves a lot to be desired!

---

I taught AutoCAD for more than a decade.

I have presented classes on both softwares at Autodesk University several times.

In my opinion Inventor has very good 2D documentation tools.

Post example files illustrating any issues that you find one-by-one and we can address those issues one-by-one.

[Anonymous]

Sergio D.Suárez, thanks but altering the 'gaps' does nothing for the issue, I tried that previously.

JD Mather, I've attached a part screenshot of the Inventor drawing. Basically, I'd just like the same result as the DIMBREAK command AutoCAD but in Inventor.

I've used AutoCAD since 1991 and Inventor since 2012 and personally, drawing wise AutoCAD is much superior, you actually get what you want, not what the software lets you have IMHO.

[SharkDesign]

---

@JDMather wrote:

---

In my opinion Inventor has very good 2D documentation tools.

---

People don't like Inventor drawing environment because you can't bodge things like you can in AutoCAD!

[Anonymous]

This email has been classified as OFFICIAL


I disagree. You can bodge in Inventor just as much as you can in AutoCAD by editing the dimension text, using sketches in views etc.



People dislike AutoCAD as they don't know how to use it properly, such as using Paperspace/Modelspace etc.

[SBix26]

Your drawing looks exactly as I would expect a drawing to look.  What standard requires crossing extension lines to have a break?  How do you decide which one to break?

---

Sam B
Inventor Pro 2020.2 | Windows 7 SP1
LinkedIn

[Anonymous]

This email has been classified as OFFICIAL


SBix26, The BS 8888 doesn't specify that breaks need to be added, but where several dimension lines or Leader lines cross it can be confusing and drawings should be clear and concise.



AutoCAD can even mask background features with WIPEOUT, that can have a similar effect.



The point is, Autodesk saw fit to add DIMBREAK to AutoCAD many years ago and it is a useful command for the purpose mentioned earlier, so why can't they add a similar feature to Inventor?

[JDMather]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
... so why can't they add a similar feature to Inventor?

---

In my classes I teach students to strictly follow standards.

It has been my experience that Inventor follows recognized standards.

If you find an instance where Inventor does not follow ANSI/ASME, ISO or other established standard - you should post example and reference the standard.

[Anonymous]

This email has been classified as OFFICIAL


'....In my classes I teach students to strictly follow standards.'



Unfortunately, standards do not cover every possible scenario/design, and while dimension breaks are not specified in the BS's, it doesn't specify not using dimension breaks either. What is an absolute is that the drawings/documents should be clear and concise to avoid costly errors or worse.

[Sergio.D.Suárez]

I fully agree with @JDMather  and @SBix26 .
On the other hand, I personally believe that process drawings should be respected. Many times, fewer dimensions is better. I think it is important not to "overload" a given process of unnecessary dimensions, this makes a drawing unreadable, and can cause serious confusion. I prefer to create two sheets of a drawing with different information oriented for each specific sector, than to have a sheet in the drawing with the global information of the model. Obviously this is just a personal opinion.

[Anonymous]

This email has been classified as OFFICIAL


I agree and do the same

[JDMather]

You can use Sketched Symbol for a "Wipeout", but not sure how you would send back/forward.

[Anonymous]

This email has been classified as OFFICIAL


I wouldn't know how to do the equivalent of AutoCAD DRAWORDER command in Inventor either. Ho hum!

[Ray_Feiler]

True, AutoCAD is a more mature 2D drafting program than Inventor, but as far as I know AutoCAD doesn't automatically break extension lines over dimension text like Inventor does. Does it?

[Anonymous]

This email has been classified as OFFICIAL


RayFeiler, no it doesn't. You have to do it manually using one or more of the options stated in previous replies and this does give more flexibility IMHO.

[andrew_fonck]

IDOT structural drafting standards dictate that the extension line of a dimension should break by 1/16" if it crosses another dimension line. How do you do this in Inventor?!

https://public.powerdms.com/IDOT/documents/1943557/Computer%20Aided%20Design%2C%20Drafting%2C%20Mode... (page 102)

[SBix26]

I just looked through section 5-3.04(d) DIMENSIONING USED IN STRUCTURE PLANS (starting on p 102 of the pdf).  There is nothing there about breaking extension lines that I can see.  The example drawings that are incorporated in that section show extension line breaks, but there is no requirement that I can see.

This whole topic confuses me-- why do extension lines need to be broken when they cross??  What's confusing about crossing dimension lines for someone viewing the drawing?  Extension lines are straight (with the slight exception for jogged dimensions), period.  They aren't like a process diagram where crossed lines indicate a connection.  A crossing dimension doesn't somehow lead the viewer to think that the dimension just turned and went another direction... does it?  Stick with the recognized national/international standards!

---

Sam B

Inventor Pro 2026.0.1 | Windows 11 Home 24H2

[andrew_fonck]

I'm starting to think this is just a subjective thing IDOT does. Within their own base sheets, they break all crossing dimension lines. It's been that way since at least 2006 when I started doing this. I agree that there should be no real confusion as it pertains to where the dimension/extension lines are pointing but from a presentation standpoint I think it looks sloppy. That could just be so many years of doing it one way and my brain is having a difficult time accepting that what I have been trained to do is just atypical.