So - I've gotten an AutoCAD (from Ireland) drawing that I need to print out. The dims are reading like, "4600, 5048, 860..."Is it safe to assume that these are dimensions in millimeters? If I assume that, and I then change the dim style I get dimensions of 4600 = 383'-4"...drawing is drawn to scale, not full size. What is the easiest way to fix this? When I think I've gotten it, I get door/opening widths of 2'-11 3/16" Does this jive? This isn't the most important project - it a favor for a friend of a friend I believe....
thanks
there is a multiplication of about 1/9801 I think - can't remember really. Pisses me off when I ask for imperial drawings from surveyors and get metric and 3d ack it sucks really.
And all the trouble had been avoided, if the first rule of CAD had been respected ; "when you draw CAD you draw one to one.
It is strange the messeage has not come thru, it say in any text book ,whoever you ask who know the program say, 1:1 and the problems are over, --- then when you plot or print it, then you can scale, in fact the sacle factor can be automaticly printed in the drawing head.
but I suppose the problem isn't printing but being able to insert to/from said drawing in/to another. In which case you need to convert the drawing to imperial
Say everyone used only scale one to one, no problems ever.
Say everyone used the scale they want, --- the CAD program still count units in drawing units and don't care if one unit is a cm. an Inch or a mile, it's just one unit. Now emagine the problems just loading one external reference, one external drawing into the main drawing, the door will be bigger than the house, the chair will make you look for a dolls house, the area will be smaller than the paper drawing you are looking at. ------ There are no Inches or Centimeters in a CAD drawing, we just decide that one drawing unit equal one Cm. or one Inch, even ome mile.
Metric is so much more straightforward than imperial. I've had to adapt to the imperial system, and there are so many different scales to draw in! 1/4, 1/16, 1/8, 1/32, 3/32...wow its confusing.
In metric, you typically use 1:200 for site plans, 1:100 or 1:50 for plans / elevations, 1:20 for cabinetry details, 1:5 or 1:2 for building details...it makes it easy to visualise the size of a building or detail e.g 10mm = 1 metre at 1:100 scale.
There is something delightful in the english system that the foot derives both its name and its metric from man (ie someone's foot in a boot). Even the inch is said to have been derived from the width of a man's thumb. The inch is a 12th of a foot, and we conveniently divide the inch in half 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32 until we can't measure it any more. There are 3 feet in a yard (the defining unit of length in the english system), 3 is a multiple of 12, and so on.
The alternative is metric...a meter is defined so abstractly as the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. Unfortunately, the yard is defined in terms of the meter, deferring to SI as the defining system of measurement...
So, really, we do use the metric system...just not convenient multiples of 10, right?
Metric to Imperial, not drawn to scale
So - I've gotten an AutoCAD (from Ireland) drawing that I need to print out. The dims are reading like, "4600, 5048, 860..."Is it safe to assume that these are dimensions in millimeters? If I assume that, and I then change the dim style I get dimensions of 4600 = 383'-4"...drawing is drawn to scale, not full size. What is the easiest way to fix this? When I think I've gotten it, I get door/opening widths of 2'-11 3/16" Does this jive? This isn't the most important project - it a favor for a friend of a friend I believe....
thanks
in my dwgs the dimensions are in metric and always in millimeters, much like you describe...
but 4600mm is about 15 feet, not 383. somewhere the conversion factor is off.
that makes me feel better - I've got it scaled to 15' (4600) now and things seem to make sense...wish AutoCAD was a little more friendly...
thanks
there is a multiplication of about 1/9801 I think - can't remember really. Pisses me off when I ask for imperial drawings from surveyors and get metric and 3d ack it sucks really.
1 inch = 25.4 mm
And all the trouble had been avoided, if the first rule of CAD had been respected ; "when you draw CAD you draw one to one.
It is strange the messeage has not come thru, it say in any text book ,whoever you ask who know the program say, 1:1 and the problems are over, --- then when you plot or print it, then you can scale, in fact the sacle factor can be automaticly printed in the drawing head.
per has a point actually.
but I suppose the problem isn't printing but being able to insert to/from said drawing in/to another. In which case you need to convert the drawing to imperial
Say everyone used only scale one to one, no problems ever.
Say everyone used the scale they want, --- the CAD program still count units in drawing units and don't care if one unit is a cm. an Inch or a mile, it's just one unit. Now emagine the problems just loading one external reference, one external drawing into the main drawing, the door will be bigger than the house, the chair will make you look for a dolls house, the area will be smaller than the paper drawing you are looking at. ------ There are no Inches or Centimeters in a CAD drawing, we just decide that one drawing unit equal one Cm. or one Inch, even ome mile.
I love the Imperial system. I wish the US would adopt it.
^^^metric surely?
Yes. Typo.
Metric. I want the Metric system in the States.
Metric is so much more straightforward than imperial. I've had to adapt to the imperial system, and there are so many different scales to draw in! 1/4, 1/16, 1/8, 1/32, 3/32...wow its confusing.
In metric, you typically use 1:200 for site plans, 1:100 or 1:50 for plans / elevations, 1:20 for cabinetry details, 1:5 or 1:2 for building details...it makes it easy to visualise the size of a building or detail e.g 10mm = 1 metre at 1:100 scale.
imperialism is wrong...although i do like viet/french cuisine!
There is something delightful in the english system that the foot derives both its name and its metric from man (ie someone's foot in a boot). Even the inch is said to have been derived from the width of a man's thumb. The inch is a 12th of a foot, and we conveniently divide the inch in half 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32 until we can't measure it any more. There are 3 feet in a yard (the defining unit of length in the english system), 3 is a multiple of 12, and so on.
The alternative is metric...a meter is defined so abstractly as the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. Unfortunately, the yard is defined in terms of the meter, deferring to SI as the defining system of measurement...
So, really, we do use the metric system...just not convenient multiples of 10, right?
i was out field measuring today. so nice to get out of the office.
How big was the field?
many hectares
In cubits, if you please.
On the topic of NZ / Australian vs American construction notation....
V.I.F (Verify in field) = C.O.S (Check on site)
American builder: "Check on site? Dude where's the money?"
Aussie builder: "Verify in field? Mate, is this some military exercise or what?"
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.