associative quotas: how do you use it?

[x11start]

from many autocad versions uses membership quotas... In fact in the options there is even the possibility to put 'default' for the new quotas created. I personally have always detached them and every time I stumble into a design that uses them... I wish the worst things to those who invented them (!) and with anger "dissociation" everything!
among you there is someone with enormous patience, who wants to explain to me the correct use: Maybe it's the good time I start using it!

 

[Cristallo]

the correct use is:
_

Other jokes, membership odds are simply quotas whose grips are associated with the object during the creation of the quota.
Let's say you have two rectangles separated from a space.
quoti the first rectangle (high point sx-alto dx) and we call this quota a;
the space between rectangles (high point dx 1° rett -alto sx 2° rett) and we call this quota quota b;
quoti the second rectangle (high point sx-alto dx) and we call this quota c;

moving-ruoting-stirting objects, you will see that the odds are as if they were physically hooked to the original points of the objects, so if you turn one of the rectangles, the quota will stretch to quota the nuoe position of the point.

It's just a mess. and I dissociate cheerfully.

 

[x11start]

thanks to crystal
I'm not the only one who doesn't "appreciate" this fundamental feature of autocad!

We dissociate everything!! !

 

[Cristallo]

So do you stick to my point of view? :roflmao:

 

[marcof]

I don't understand what's wrong with having the odds that always do their job, which means measures between geometric elements. why should it be useful to have dissociated them from geometry, so potentially with a value other than the real one?

 

[mamobono]

thanks to crystal
I'm not the only one who doesn't "appreciate" this fundamental feature of autocad!

We dissociate everything!! !

Why? ?
having the related quotas is one of the things that I have appreciated + just passed from the tecnigraph to the cad (and time has passed )
to be able to correct a drawing (e.g. to stretch 2 mm a tree ) simply with a stretching operation and to have the already updated quotas I find it not convenient to +

find the drawings with the odds exploded I find it a hateful thing and made only to annoy or mistaken
Hi.

 

[x11start]

I fully agree with mamobono that half of the benefits of the cad compared to the tecnigraph, are to be attributed to the possibility of "drawing" the quotas. However I try to explain myself better: to return to the example made by crystal, of the 2 rectangles in which a quota indicates the distance; I can safely make sure that the quota is updated: I just have to use the iron command and select all the rectangle to move including part of the quota to be ironed..... even if the quota is not associative. In fact this is comfortable, as Mamobono says.
instead an associative quota, it would be "adequate" even only by moving the rectangle with a command moves. This is the difference!
so non-associative quotas give me the opportunity to choose.... others make an automatism that can generate errors.

 

[x11start]

There is then a category of designers, that the odds explodes, or creates a style of quota that does it automatically. . .
This is not a good idea!

 

[x11start]

these last rather than "signs" are to be defined as "disegnavacche"! ?

 

[marcof]

I can safely make sure that the quota is updated: I just need to use the iron command and select all the rectangle to move

I would like to understand why there must be the possibility of having a quota that does not reflect the geometry drawn. Where would the utility be?

instead an associative quota, it would be "adequate" even only by moving the rectangle with a command moves. This is the difference!

is to say that the difference is between a quota that is a wandering mine (not associative) and an always reliable quota (association rate)

so non-associative odds give me the opportunity to choose.... others make an automatism that can generate errors

choose to put down a quota that how reliable it could also be drawn with the marker on the monitor?
what would be the errors generated by a quota that actually measures the distance between two elements?

 

[Cristallo]

marcof, autocad you don't know him, or you've worked very little on it. do not leave with your "cruises"
an associative quota is not a symptom for itself of reliable. . Everything else.
I prefer not to have them associated with the object but at one point on the object
a non-associative quota is not a wandering mine (at least for those who have control of what it draws).
the wandering mine is not the associated quota at the time of creation, but it becomes from that moment on.
What if you delete an object that was associated with a quota? You know?
What happens if you move to another position only "a tot" of objects, to which a quota was associated, you know?

for some things would be convenient, but for the implications (futures) that it entails, I prefer not to have them, rather than to have to recheck all the table in search of some "dimmesca" cojonata, after I moved/eliminate/rolled something.
but then that means the non-associative quota is drawn with the marker... Have you ever drawn with autocad?
I return the tenth of a millimeter on the object 1,8 km long, but what are you up to?

I think by association you mean more, it's your phrase "find the odds exploded." One thing is the membership fee, another is the dissociation, another is the exploded one.

what would be the errors generated by a quota that actually measures the distance between two elements?

those who may dynamically and insistently point to an object that is no longer there, or that has been moved to another location for which that quota absolutely loses sense because it continues to measure a distance between two objects that are no longer relatives... For example.

It's the same story about the scales. they are designed for those poor beings who do not have the pulse of what they do, put a text and then scale automatically depending on the scale they establish.
without any control of the position, of the distance between text and the other, between the text and an object (first) adjacent, after overlap. . .

wanting to make a car comparison, we pass the difference between completely automatic change and manual change. As I have the "manic", I prefer the manual.

 

[x11start]

Thank you crystal: you exposed exactly my thought!
for marcof: I'm sorry to have unleashed a putiferio with this post. the initial intention was only to learn something more... although you use autocad since 1990, there are always things to learn.