Here’s an example of a Layout dimensioning fail:
This is how accurate and fast I can work on perpendicular diagonals:
NOTE: You might notice the roundings: 8.4m on the dimension isn’t accurate as 8.4 - 6.4- 1.5 - 0.6 = -0.1 and if the roundings were correct the dimension would say 8.5:
I wish LO in general handled coordinates and transformations more like SU, i.e. having internal coordinate systems in groups/components and other objects, and handle the transformation separately. This could allow for scaling boxes to stay oriented to their object, not always following the world axes. It would also allow for re-use of objects (components) on different places in the document, and not like the current awkward On All Pages layers that only allows the content to be on the exact same spot in every page.
I couldn’t agree more and had never thought of the coordinate system related to dimensions but it makes sense too.
I’d absolutelly need that the first dimension of a string would define the baseline for every other dimension in the string and that the value would be based on the dimension length and scale and not on the model’s true dimensions which is technically wrong in 2D orthographic representations.
At least this should happen when you set a scale for the dimension. If the autoscale feature is turned on, maybe current behaviour should be kept. However current behaviour is only needed for perspective drawings and dimensioning those is traditionally not the most often used workflow for technical drawings (at least in architecture).
This topic was automatically closed 91 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
