I think it’s backwards and confused and I’m not clear what advantage there
is to the more obvious convention - scaling only affects annotation size in
layouts and if it’s turned off it doesn’t affect size in either model space
or layouts.
In V6 if I create two dimension sizes, one set to Model Space 1 and the other set
to Model Space 2, what I get is:
The dimensions in model space are the same size if scaling is Unchecked
They are the correct size if scaling is Checked
That’s backwards to the convention of scaling which only affects size in
layouts
And in Layout -
The dimensions are the same size relative to each other if scaling is
Unchecked but that size is relative to the geometry, not the Layout
The dimensions are the same size relative to each other if scaling is
Checked but that size in the layout remains the same if you zoom in and out
It seems to me you’ve blocked the door that some of us use to escape from
scaling in Rhino altogether.
What about a checkbox in V6 that says Use V5 Dimensions?
Hi Alex and All,
Your points are completely valid. I worked with @lowell yesterday. I am waiting to test the fixes in the next build and then we will go from there.
I do have a problem with changing the terminology from Annotation Scale to “V5 Compatibilty.” Please allow me to make my case for not using this term
Feature Whip Lash: Rhino 4 did not have annotation scale, Rhino 5 did , now in Rhino 6 we change it to V5 Compatibility. This is ludicrous. We added Annotation scale in Rhino 5. OMG Let try to stick with Annotation scale a few releases, for our customers sake.
Every major CAD application calls it Annotation Scale. And for the sake of customers that use Rhino and CAD, stop the madness.
Finally, stop with the V5 compatibility. If I am coming to V6 from Rhino 3 or Rhino 4, should I use it? There are many, many customers still using the older version of Rhino. At least every day I talk to a customer who uses Rhino 1.1 through Rhino 4. Again, this does not make sense.
Annotation Scale Does not Export or Import.
If you have to work with model from AutoCAD and other CAD close, avoiding Annotation is your only way to survive. This is on the bug tracker, but I doubt it will be address at Rhino 6 shipping.
Finally, Rhino 6 WIP only works well for those that use Rhino 5 and use Annotation scale. What about everyone else? I confess, this is the bulk of my side work. BUT, I like many of you have legacy files that I have to maintain. It can be as simple as opening changing the date and reprinting for my clients. They do not want to pay me to update this file. So as you said so eloquently, let us escape annotation scaling.
I agree! This is not a new issue. But it was solved for a while, and now it is back.
August of last year, I posted this bug and it was fixed. RH-35246. Just so you all know I was doing my job.
Thanks for helping us debate the merits of this issue.
Kind regards,
Mary Ann Fugier
I’ll bug you some more, then
[In my Pro/E, NX, SW world, dimensions either exist in sketches that define the model or in drawings and the two don’t mix as they do in Rhino and obviously in AutoCAD].
I didn’t use scaling in RH5 and don’t do much detailing in Rhino anyway. But I remember having to fiddle quite a bit to get dimensions in layouts where details have different scaling to look the same.
As such, the new RH6 way seemed like a good idea. But if the RH5 way is the ‘right’ way, I might as well try to understand that one. Therefore, @mary, could you go through my previous post and tell me why it is correct that Rhino doesn’t do what I expect it to do? (The short version being: ‘why doesn’t anything change - either in layout, detail, or model - when the model space text scale is changed?’).
CC: @margaret
I try to read through the posts in this topic and feel that there are many words that I’m not getting. It seems like the same feature is interpreted differently by different people. I tried to find a concise definition of things like Model Space and Layout Space in the help file but couldn’t find those. Basically, at this point, I’m wondering if there are 3 “spaces”: 3D model; on the layout; in a detail. I wouldn’t think so, but based on what I read I feel like I should expect different behavior.
:bug: In the process of testing a hypothesis on model vs. layout space I ran across something that probably is a bug in RH6 - but then... I'm confused, so who knows...
When I make a leader and assign it the length of a curve in RH5, the display of the length adheres to the settings in Document Properties > Units > [MODEL / LAYOUT] > Distance display > Display precision.
To re-use one of the scenes that I used previously:
The blue leader (text: 20.000) lives in layout space; the red leader (text: 20.0) lives in the 3D model.
The Document Properties > Units > Model > Distance display > Display precision is set to 1.0. The Document Properties > Units > Layout > Distance display > Display precision is set to 1.000.
Red leader is in 3D, blue leader is in layout.
The Document Properties > Units > Model > Distance display > Display precision is set to 1.000. The Document Properties > Units > Layout > Distance display > Display precision is set to 1.
I wish I had time to dive in this. For now I have one super important question:
Does dimension line/text offset gets scaled in R6 along with the Text, Dim arrows etc.? It doesn’t in R5 and that’s the sole reason this Annotation Scaling feature could never be made to work for us (read: was totally useless).
In v6, the formatting of the distance when a field is used for curve length has been changed to use the settings of the annotation style of the leader, not the document display settings.
That happened when someone reported that when they used DimCurveLength, the formatting didn’t follow the style.
Is that a problem in your opinion, or was this more of a curiosity?
I think you’re talking about the space between the dimension line and the dimension text, right? That’s DimGap in the dimension style. Or did I misunderstand what offset you meant?
DimGap does scale with all other dimension sizes in both V5 and V6.
The attached pictures are from V5 with two different model space scales and scaling on in a layout
Is there something else that I didn’t get?
Solution would be to pull dims farther, but then on smaller objects they will start overlap each other. We’re keeping our dimension text pretty close to the surface edges we dimension.
OK, I suspected I didn’t understand what you meant.
No, you’re right, that’s not scaled in either V5 or V6.
That’s a different kind of scaling and I’m not sure what the implications might be.
At least it would need to be a separate option since I think many people would not want that to happen.
It would be possible of course, but it’s not something I’ve seen requested before.
Just curious what you mean about this. Would you really have this setting defined in a dimension style? Can’t you edit points and move where the dimension is located? It works in 2D and 3D. In my experience (Revit) We often have to move the dimension location so it reads cleanly.
