I have 2 (or more) details in my layout of a compressed facade section. When I draw a dimension over one detail, rhino switches to the model units (in m) and gives me the correct dimension of the model space (see bottom dim). But when I measure across two details it switches to the layout units and gives me the dimension on the paper (in mm, see top dim).
Would it be possible to change that behavior to where it would give me the actual model space distance between those two points? Otherwise I can’t see how dimensioning a section like this would be possible in Rhino. Or am I missing something?
Dimensioning this in the model space doesn’t help, as the dim text ends up in the cut out part of the section half of the time. And visually you’d want the dim line to continue through the gap between the two details as well.
nice, a full feature set for this would be great of course!
I wonder though if a quick fix to the inconsistent behaviour could be done earlier, so we don’t have to wait for Rhino 8 to be able to dimension facade sections.
All that would be needed is that dimensions which snap to points within details measure the distance between those points in the model space but draw the dimension in the layout. Dimensions that snap to objects in the layout would and should still use the layout units of course.
This behaviour would be more consistant, the dim units and measurements would then only depend on what you snap to.
Just to manage expectations - the feature request in RH-27536 is currently on the “Future” list, so, at this point, not something that is considered for Rhino 8. Also, only severe regressions and crashes are fixed in Rhino 7 anymore.
As a workaround until RH-27536 is implemented, you could create the dimension on the layout and replace the <> value with the CurveLength text field. You’ll need a single edge or curve in the model, of course.
alright, expectations are managed. I was just wondering if a quick fix should maybe be placed ahead of RH-27536 in the pipeline, as I would assume RH-27536 to be quite a major undertaking. But of course thats a development decision that I’m not not even close to being qualified enough to comment on.