Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Staggered Dimensions
- Thread starter TheMan51
- Start date
JohnRBaker
Mechanical
If you mean adding what's called a 'dogleg' to keep dimensions placed close to each other from overlapping adjecent dimensions, and if you're running NX 4 or NX 5, just select the dimension that you wish to move, press MB3 and select 'Style' -> 'Ordinate', and in the section labled 'Dogleg', toggle ON the middle icon labeled 'Yes' and hit OK. Once you see the dogleg you can drag the dimension so as to increase or decrease the space between it and the next dimension.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Product Line
SIEMENS PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Product Line
SIEMENS PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA
You can angle them off to the side, but not dogleg as far as I am aware. Go to annotation Style, the "Line Arrow" tab and change dimension "F" to see what I mean.
This is standard drafting practice for regular dimensions, whereas using doglegs is not. For whatever reason doglegs are only standard practice for ordinate dimensions. I can see why this "is" the case for ordinate dimensions as it would have to be the only clear way to allow several nearby dimensions to be clearly shown. Why it is "not" used for regular dimensions is anyone's guess, but NX can't be blamed for only supporting standard practice.
Best Regards
Hudson
This is standard drafting practice for regular dimensions, whereas using doglegs is not. For whatever reason doglegs are only standard practice for ordinate dimensions. I can see why this "is" the case for ordinate dimensions as it would have to be the only clear way to allow several nearby dimensions to be clearly shown. Why it is "not" used for regular dimensions is anyone's guess, but NX can't be blamed for only supporting standard practice.
Best Regards
Hudson
JohnRBaker
Mechanical
As far as 'dog legs' for normal linear dimensions, we did add the so-called 'Narrow Dimension' format in NX 3. This allows you to place the numerical portion of a dimension, complete with 'dog-legged' leaders, where the distance between the witness lines are insufficient to allow the dimension to be placed between the witness lines, yet the user does NOT want to use the traditional 'outside' the witness lines option.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA
JohnRBaker
Mechanical
How about NX2?
While UG/NX has supported Ordinate Dimensions for many releases, including NX 2, until NX 4 it was difficult to add/edit dog-legs, but still possible.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA
While UG/NX has supported Ordinate Dimensions for many releases, including NX 2, until NX 4 it was difficult to add/edit dog-legs, but still possible.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA
John,
Either of these are also good alternatives. I had only thought to respond in terms of a dogleg as applied to the extension lines because that's how I interpreted what had been asked.
A dogleg as applied to the extension line was what I was responding to, by discussing how you can angle the extension lines. If you want to you can angle the extension lines and have the dimension come of a leader at the same time.
To clarify I haven't found a way that to have a dogleg leader on a regular dimension. In fact the narrow dimensions format while quite good is still limited in where you can place the origin of the text on the leader relative to the arrow lines. The leader seems to have a fixed length and orientation relative to the dimension placement.
When it comes to ordinate dimensions it is a question of trying to dimension a different way, another useful alternative not to be confused with the intent of the question at hand. I have always found the doglegs a little difficult to get the hang of a first but relatively easy thereafter. I suspect that like most users I employ ordinate dimensions only occasionally, so I have to refresh my knowledge each time.
Regards
Hudson
Either of these are also good alternatives. I had only thought to respond in terms of a dogleg as applied to the extension lines because that's how I interpreted what had been asked.
A dogleg as applied to the extension line was what I was responding to, by discussing how you can angle the extension lines. If you want to you can angle the extension lines and have the dimension come of a leader at the same time.
To clarify I haven't found a way that to have a dogleg leader on a regular dimension. In fact the narrow dimensions format while quite good is still limited in where you can place the origin of the text on the leader relative to the arrow lines. The leader seems to have a fixed length and orientation relative to the dimension placement.
When it comes to ordinate dimensions it is a question of trying to dimension a different way, another useful alternative not to be confused with the intent of the question at hand. I have always found the doglegs a little difficult to get the hang of a first but relatively easy thereafter. I suspect that like most users I employ ordinate dimensions only occasionally, so I have to refresh my knowledge each time.
Regards
Hudson
Hudson,
I knew about "F" value, but the main problem is that it works only with horizontal and vertical dimension and it is not what I need
. My trick is use 2 dimensions and extra line in expand. It works, dimension value is associative but line position not (NX2). I can do "dog leg" in Catia 
.
Regards
Siwy
I knew about "F" value, but the main problem is that it works only with horizontal and vertical dimension and it is not what I need
. My trick is use 2 dimensions and extra line in expand. It works, dimension value is associative but line position not (NX2). I can do "dog leg" in Catia .Regards
Siwy
Siwy,
Upon careful re-reading and despite BEAEROHEAD's post I don't think you've ever said what version of NX you are running?
Perhaps John's first answer would have worked for you if you're using NX-4 or NX-5. Please let us know if you're on a later version and if that solution works for you?
Personally while I hate to concede anything to Catia, I can't see myself going to quite as much trouble to duplicate this kind of dimensioning technique just because another CAD system is able to do it. If your version of UG supports this technique then all power to you. Otherwise if I were a stakeholder in your design I'd rather you didn't use non-standard dimensioning methods, since other users will no doubt have trouble maintaining your drawings.
Since we were never taught to dimension like this according to the standards I was trained in it is still my contention as far as I am aware that what you're trying to do isn't strictly permitted. If you could post an image showing an example that confirms I'm wrong I'll look at it and let you know. In the meantime having never seen this "dogleg" technique used on other than ordinate dimensions I can only despair that somehow draftspersons and CAD users alike have coped without this up until now.
I hope this clears things up![[thumbsup]](/data/assets/smilies/thumbsup.gif "[thumbsup] [thumbsup]")
regards
Hudson
Upon careful re-reading and despite BEAEROHEAD's post I don't think you've ever said what version of NX you are running?
Perhaps John's first answer would have worked for you if you're using NX-4 or NX-5. Please let us know if you're on a later version and if that solution works for you?
Personally while I hate to concede anything to Catia, I can't see myself going to quite as much trouble to duplicate this kind of dimensioning technique just because another CAD system is able to do it. If your version of UG supports this technique then all power to you. Otherwise if I were a stakeholder in your design I'd rather you didn't use non-standard dimensioning methods, since other users will no doubt have trouble maintaining your drawings.
Since we were never taught to dimension like this according to the standards I was trained in it is still my contention as far as I am aware that what you're trying to do isn't strictly permitted. If you could post an image showing an example that confirms I'm wrong I'll look at it and let you know. In the meantime having never seen this "dogleg" technique used on other than ordinate dimensions I can only despair that somehow draftspersons and CAD users alike have coped without this up until now.
I hope this clears things up
regards
Hudson
Hudson,
My question was general. I asked John beacuse I hoped that in NX? will be add new tab in Dimension Style with dog leg
UG is my main CAD system, I work in Catia ocasionaly.
This non-standard dimensioning method is a standard in my company, beacuse customer require this dimension style.
Please find attached files it should clear. I work in NX2 and lines in expand aren't associative
Regards
Siwy
My question was general. I asked John beacuse I hoped that in NX? will be add new tab in Dimension Style with dog leg
UG is my main CAD system, I work in Catia ocasionaly.
This non-standard dimensioning method is a standard in my company, beacuse customer require this dimension style.
Please find attached files it should clear. I work in NX2 and lines in expand aren't associative
Regards
Siwy
Siwy,
I have to agree that an enhancement to support this form of dimensioning would be preferable to using non-standard means, because it would make your drawings much easier to maintain. I suggested as much earlier not knowing that your customer has a preference for this method of dimensioning.
If I say to you that I can't read sheet music for example. It means that on paper I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Mozart and the Beatles. I hope you will understand that between musicians it makes perfect sense, and I would probably appear foolish to them. So thank you for you examples and forgive me for looking at them with an outsider's eyes. At the risk of seeming foolish I'm really not clear at all about your Sample1. I find it hard to interpret and would have done it in a different way. Sample2 was straightforward, and although I'm not strictly sure why it was considered necessary it is clear to me what is meant. So long as you and your customer have a good understanding and it is clear to you both then it must be okay. Some of our customers like to use GD&T in ways that can be difficult to understand also.
Yours is certainly a method I have not seen used in the past and unless there are a number of other companies who also dimension like this then it may be a while before all CAD systems are willing to add it to their to-do list.
Hoping this clears things up![[smile]](/data/assets/smilies/smile.gif "[smile] [smile]")
Hudson
I have to agree that an enhancement to support this form of dimensioning would be preferable to using non-standard means, because it would make your drawings much easier to maintain. I suggested as much earlier not knowing that your customer has a preference for this method of dimensioning.
If I say to you that I can't read sheet music for example. It means that on paper I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Mozart and the Beatles. I hope you will understand that between musicians it makes perfect sense, and I would probably appear foolish to them. So thank you for you examples and forgive me for looking at them with an outsider's eyes. At the risk of seeming foolish I'm really not clear at all about your Sample1. I find it hard to interpret and would have done it in a different way. Sample2 was straightforward, and although I'm not strictly sure why it was considered necessary it is clear to me what is meant. So long as you and your customer have a good understanding and it is clear to you both then it must be okay. Some of our customers like to use GD&T in ways that can be difficult to understand also.
Yours is certainly a method I have not seen used in the past and unless there are a number of other companies who also dimension like this then it may be a while before all CAD systems are willing to add it to their to-do list.
Hoping this clears things up
Hudson
- Status