Dimension one 1200 length on the inside of the arc. Write "6x 1200" or "1200 TYP" as the dim (actually, "2x <>") and be done with it. If they're all the same general rectangular unit, you shouldn't have to tell them how big each piece is - just how to orient/place subsequent units.

/edit/ More info about the nature of the part may result in more refined suggestions, such as whether or not it's practical to call out an inscribed arc radius to define orientation or not.

To be honest, I've over simplified, they are not all 12, some are 24 and sadly, I am being asked to dimension them individually whilst at the same time being complained to that the dimensions overlap.

Unfortunately I cannot give you any more information than I have. I don't think it would help anyway. If it is not possible then it's not possible, I'm sure I've seen it done though.

It's not possible to create dimensions as you presented them with standard Autocad objects in any way I know of.

You can "oblique" a dimension in the DIMEDIT command but it will shift BOTH extension lines by the same angle, in the same direction - it will not allow you to camber the extension lines inward or outward. It only ITALICIZES the extension lines, so to speak.

My only suggestion is to stagger the dimensions and use DimBreak.

Damn, I was hoping this was just something I'd missed.

Nevermind, they can just deal with the Dims crossing each other.

Cheers anyway.

Been in a similar situation before. It also irritated the heck out of me as it does your coworker/boss/whomever, apparently. Sometimes it sucks but it's necessary.

Hi:
1)One way would be to use ordinate dimensions, but the dimension values may be a little weird.
2)If the dimensions are all similar, just dimension one feature and just use TYP as typical.
3) Use a table of to the side and dimension each feature with leaders that reference the table.
These are all simple solutions, please let me know if you use any of them.
Simplicity is OUR job.
Regards,
Ted

Having management critiquing your work with senseless comments reminds me of this silly YouTube skit, "the Expert"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

I would place the dimensions inside the rectangle; probably snapped to the midpoint of the short edge for your example.

Dimensions inside the rectangle might be an acceptable option, you could add a caterpillar on the edge of the rectangular object to simulate a partial hatch.

Another option, you can always make the dimensions and then explode them, and shape them as you see fit. Obviously this renders the dimensions 'non-updating' and could be completely against your rules, and is generally bad form anyways.

A further option is the same as the second, but add the mid-line dimensions on a 'non-print' layer and make them into a reference parameter that you then reference in the text of the 'false' dimensions.

And then the other option, if you have only two or three different dimensions, dimension the first one [ 1200 TYP, Three (3) Places ] and put a single hash line across the border [ / ] of each similar, dimension the second [ 2400 TYP, Two (2) Places ] and put (2) simple hash lines [ // ] across the border of each similar, and so on. Basically indicating each unique feature in a coordinated fashion, notation also works (see note 1).