Is there a way to quickly highlight or identify any dimensions that are overridden (i.e. that have the variable “<>” replaced with user-typed-in static numbers?
For architectural construction, it can be dangerous to use dimension overrides, as it can lead to building disputes. So at least, I need to know which dimensions are the static ones!
I know double-clicking reveals any overrides… but it is waaaay too time consuming to check all dimensions one by one!
I am looking for a quick way to globally, at a glance, identify all user overrides.
One easy way would be to select all of the dimensions on the page and in the Dimensions panel turn off Auto Scale and set the scale to something very clearly wrong for the scale of the model. The dimensions that have been modified manually will not change. After you’ve identified and dealt with them, select all of the dimensions and turn Auto Scale back on.
Here are three dimensions with the middle one edited.
Thanks for your ultra-prompt reply, Dave. Over the years, your replies have helped me grow a lot!
Yes, I have been using this trick
But it is too much of a work-around…With my architectural business, I am at the point of where I expect more professional solutions from Trimble tools. I will add the tag “feature request”
But sometimes I do use dimension overrides at early stages when the model is not yet to-the-millimetre and I am under time pressure to produce a presentation where I quickly need to show the design intent. … Then, if I am not careful and don`t remember, these “fake” dimensions can make their way into the documentation set unintentionally
It doesn’t seem like a good workflow to me and clearly your haste on the front end makes waste later on. Your feature request seems like a decent idea but honestly I wouldn’t anticipate it being implemented very soon. At least until it is, I would suggest either making those dimensions a different color when you put them in or put them on a separate layer so all of those “fake” dimensions can be selected and deleted in one go without affecting the real dimensions. A few seconds on the front will save you a lot of time later on.
Simply writing in what the dimension should be instead of updating the model / drawing should be punishable by making you walk barefoot through a dark room with LEGO on the floor.
The computer computes. Use this to your advantage.
I of course agree with this - proper modelling is definitely what I strive for.
Nevertheless what I learned to appreciate is the SU`s ability to seamlessly refine generic/conceptual modelling to highly detailed construction drawings. Every stage has its own level of modelling accuracy.
thanks everybody for your replies - much appreciated!
I also use overrides in the early stages of modelling. I handle it two ways. The first is that I tend to rebuild the model (in more detail & accuracy) after those early stages
My big life hack to keep track of overrides is to add a ~ to the front of the number > indicating an ‘approximate’ measurement. You’re going into type it so just add that one extra character to your habit
@bmike@DaveR Dimension override is a common practice in the architectural world in the early stages. Early on, we sometimes have to make assumptions on elements still being developed by our civil or structural engineer colleagues or perhaps the client. Sometimes the governing agency will raise concerns for health or fire code. Sometimes we’re stuck referencing someone else’s imprecise work.
In my world, we routinely show dimensions on things without a defined edge such as the space between the top of a paved surface (defined) and the bottom of the lowest tree branch (hard to define) to show a minimum clearance. Or the top of a play structure and the bottom (sag) of a shade sail. There are legit reasons to use an override.
I don’t disagree… and for the things you mention they make sense.
But I have dealt with too many plans to count where someone fat fingered a dimension into their CAD file - these were being used as record sets for final work - either high end residential or commercial work, often times out for bid.
When the scope model or shop drawings come out with different proportions, or the as-builts come back wildly different, or there isn’t enough room between the handrail and the timber structural elements - it ends up screwing everyone down the line. These should not make it into production drawings where critical information needs to be communicated.
Apologies for the rant, but the computer computes. Build clean models, and if you fat finger stuff please delete things and re-dimension before you go to production.
I’m currently working on a structural timber frame and I have iPhone pics of a hand drafted plan. Of course the camera wasn’t perfectly parallel to the work, so I am attempting to adjust in Photoshop before I being. I also have ZERO dimensions - just a scale bar… so I am pushing this back to the architect and asking for proper called out reference dimensions that I can use to extrapolate my frame with… otherwise I will politely decline the work and save my sanity for clients who can provide a bare minimum of data to work with (and the hand drawing is not the issue, its the lack or useable information…
SketchUp is professional software so safe to assume that most of the posters in this forum are professionals. If someone is asking for help, they may be curious or they may be at their wit’s end. I don’t know. What I do know is sharing your knowledge to help a stranger solve a problem is a gift. That’s kind of you.
It would be even kinder to deliver possible solutions without judgement. How many times have you cleaned up a mess you didn’t create? I do it all the time. How many times have you made your own mess because you slipped up? I do that too.
Your work frustrations are understandable but they are misplaced in the response. The OP was in a bind and the best way to respond is with a viable solution and that’s it. If the OP is in an office environment, there’s a 100% chance they did not create the workflow. Sharing successful strategies in your work environment is helpful. Commentary on the OP’s workflow is presumptuous and not helpful.
If a stranger stops to help you fix a flat tire, do you want help with the flat or a lecture on routine maintenance? Kindness my friend.
But you would identify those dimensions as assumptions or that they need to be verified or something to show that they aren’t necessarily correct, right?
Correct. That’s what the OP was asking for: a way to find or highlight dimensions with overrides. They did not ask for commentary on how accurate their drawing should be or a lecture on the pitfalls of using an override (a pitfall BTW, that the OP acknowledged in the original post).
This morning I read three posts on different topics from users looking for solutions. They had various levels of experience with SU/LO. I was disappointed to see how many responders were quick to presume and judge the users without knowing the full context or their industries.
When someone has @DaveR level expertise, it’s easy to forget what it’s like to be new or still learning. I’ve been using SU since version 1 and I learn new stuff in this forum all the time. But if you’re wading in for the first time, it can be off-putting to get criticized over a situation that the user is probably already frustrated over. I can see where someone might be reluctant to ask again (or at all) when solutions are served with a side of commentary.
I think we all want a strong SketchUp Community, right? I think an environment that fosters healthy discussion lends itself to that.
this was solved in the first answer. Dave gave a solid trick.
lots of people come here with an urgent question in need of an urgent answer. and they get it. they also get general knowledge. most of them won’t come back anyway until the next time they have a problem.
by the way, you’re welcome to pith in these 3 other threads, you could have worthy insight. if you dont agree with the answer provided then… join the club. wouldn’t you say it’s the best solution ?
I know that’s how I got invested in this forum. trading knowledge and giving detailed explanations about stuff I know.
still more interesting than the last tedtalk I’ve been to. and free too!
Late to the thread, but I do think a “formula view” setting or toggle would be helpful, to quickly identify everything that is autotext (which would apply to dimensions too).
Please jump in on any and all threads to offer your insights, suggestions and solutions. The more the merrier. Especially if you’ve been using SKP since V1…
