I’m in the process of converting over to Rhino 6 from many years of 5. I’m slowly getting used to the new interfaces, but I’ve found what I think is a bug. I use alternate dimension text for most of my drawings. There are two conditions I’ve noticed that the alternate text is not displayed properly.
If I remove the <> tag and enter values manually, the alternate dimension value still displays.
For formula entries in dimension text (like CurveLength), only the primary dimension is displayed, the alternate is not shown.
@jonathan3 - DimCurveLength behaves the same as in V5, correct? These are sort of pseudo-dimensions that do not really use the annotation style the same way as real ones… yes, it should be better.
The alternate units… I see V5 does not show any if the <> is replaced by a number, and V6 continues to show the value for the actual dimension. Both of these seem wrong to me, I think I’d expect the alternate value to reflect the length factor applied to the hand typed number…?
You are correct that DimCurveLength works the same as in V5. I hadn’t used it much but in V6 being able to add a function to any type of dimension has opened up some new possibilities. For example, I’m using it in this case to note the length of arcs. I dimension with an angle dimension and then replace the angle with the curve length - thus giving me a curved dimension line. That is why I was hoping to get the alternate dimension showing as well.
I think it’s more correct for nothing to show when the <> is removed. It would be neat if Rhino generated the alternate correctly for whatever was typed in, but I can see too many cases where this would be undesirable. Typically, I use this where I want to add a note instead of a numerical dimension - for example “VARIES” instead of an actual number.
I read the comments over on the bug tracking page. I wasn’t trying to create a big discussion, just that I felt it made sense if you removed the <> it should remove all calculated values so you can type whatever you want in the dimension line. I’m not sure I would call the change in V6 an ‘improvement’, but I can accept the decision and continue to use the work-around.
Hi Jonathan - thanks - I guess there is logic either way on this one and we just need to pick one and carry on… I imagine that if it turns out to be a general problem with users wanting both, some sort of option is always possible.