Changes in V8 to the measure feature? Number not movable any more? SOLVED

[jotess]

Hello,
I use the measure feature quite a lot and as I updated from version 7.x to the current 8.0 (333) I noticed some changes:

So far, measures looked like this:

V7

grafik.png (1.55 KiB) Viewed 2751 times

Now they look like this:

V8

grafik.png (2.5 KiB) Viewed 2751 times

First I was glad the new measure doesn't have this short vertical line under the number. This looks really strange to me, I'm used to see the number just directly above the measure line like this:

grafik.png (1.5 KiB) Viewed 2751 times

But now I see I cannot edit the place where the number is put. No matter if it's the new style with the number interrupting the line or the old style with the number above the line, there are cases when it is good to move the number because it is obstructed by other drawing elements. This used to be done simply by dragging with the mouse. Is there a new way to do that? Or is this a bug or a feature I have not yet understood?

By the way: Existing measures made with version 7 get changed to the new style when edited. This is not nice, because you would normally like all measures in one document to look the same.
I just updated on one computer where I use the free version - now I'm hesitating to update the other one with the paid version for not to mess up existing documents.

Anyway, great program, and thanks a lot in advance for your advice!
Best regards
Joachim

[lev]

If you want to have your dimension above the line, change Inline Caption to No. You may have to set this style as a default so other PDFs look like this. Once you change the Inline Caption to No you'll be able to drag the measurement with your mouse.

[TrackerSupp-Daniel]

Thanks Lev!

[jotess]

Thanks a lot!
I must have overlooked this setting so far. Maybe because the German translation "Eingebetteter Titel" (translated back to English) is something like "embedded title" which in my opinion doesn't describe what actuality means. Even in English I find it not perfectly descriptive. Maybe "Caption interrupts line" -> "Yes/No" would be better. Or "Caption position" -> "In line/above line".

Anyway, problem solved!
So there is just my wish left not to have this little orthogonal line between measure line and caption, to me this looks totally strange.

Best regards
Joachim

[jotess]

Actually ... there are a few more things I would wish. Is there a better place to post feature requests?

1. If a measure is not horizontal, the position of the caption (right or left of the line) is determined by the direction the measure is drawn. I just found out it is possible to change this later via context menu, but I would like to set a default. (E.g. in Germany it is a norm that the caption always ha to be readable from the right hand side, so it is to be placed on the left of the line.)
2. The list of custom scales is ordered in the way that new scales always get added to the bottom. This can not be altered afterwards. So after a while this becomes a big mess.
   It would also be helpful if it were possible to delete the defaults. E.g. I will never use imperial measures. (But this is a wish that applies to all tools.)
3. It would be helpful to be able to specify a fixed number of decimal digits. (Or have I just not yet found out how to do it?) I would like 1.00m to be displayed as "1.00" and not just as "1"
4. When I set default attributes to measurements this seemingly does not include the text formatting. I find it quite tedious to apply a new default formatting not only to the lines but also one by one to the captions. This would be easier if the set of parameters contained in the default also comprised the text formatting.
5. When applying a new default formatting to existing measurements I think it is usually not desired to apply all settings of the leaders - because changing these parameters changes the position of the measurement line. I think this is the actual problem: Length and offset are counted from the measured object, not from the measurement line.

Best regards
Joachim

[TrackerSupp-Daniel]

Hello Jotess,

The measurement tools, being comments, should respect the "default settings" you have selected when using the "make current properties default" button on the format tab, after placing the first annotation.

Regarding reordering custom scales, unfortunately we currently do not have a method or reordering the list, but it is something that has been requested in the past, so I will make note that there is more demand for this feature.

As for number of digits, this can be done while creating or modifying any custom scale, simply add Zeros where you would like the extra decimals, if memory serves we are currently limited to 2 decimal places, but simply placing "1.00 m" in the calibration will force the annotation to always show those two decimal places when applicable. This article may also help.

You can customize the default for text formatting by double clicking on the annotation, to open the "comment" then highlight the text within, make the changes you wish to be "default" and then click the "Make default" button on the format tab here (while the relevant text is still highlighted).

I am afraid that your last point has me a bit confused. Could I ask for an example of what you mean to illustrate the issue at hand there?

Kind regards,

[jotess]

Hello Daniel!

(I numbered the items in my previous post for easier reference.)

Your first point about how default settings of annotations work in general is perfectly clear to me. What makes my wishes a bit complicated maybe is that they ask for exceptions from the rule.

1. This is just asking for an additional parameter being part of the set of defaults.
2. Ok, would be nice if some day this were possible.
3. I suspected it should work somehow like this. But when I enter

   

   scale

   0.100 instead of any other number of digits, I still get "1m", if it is exactly 1m. I would expect "1.000 m" in this case.
   By the way: How do I change the decimal separator? I'm not in an English speaking country, we use the comma.
4. I know how to set and how to apply the default setting of captions. My point is: The text formatting should be part of the formatting of the whole measurement. So I could select several measurements and apply the new default and the text gets changed as well. Now I have to double click each caption separately and apply the default.
5. Okay, difficult to describe in words. Here is an example:

   

   styles before

   I've got three measurements in style 1 and now I decide that they look better in style 2. So I place my fourth measurement, format it and set this as default. Now I select the first three and apply the new default. Result:

   

   afterwards

   The measurements were aligned on one line above the measured objects, they have varying leader offsets, and they should have stayed there. The leader offset should not be part of the default just as the content of the caption is not, it is individual to each measurement.
   There are different concepts, the one used mostly in e.g. architectural drawings is like this: You have a fixed leader length (and extension) and the leader offset is variable. So in a series of measurements, a closed dimension chain, all dimensions align and all leaders are equal in length, just the distance between the end of the leader and the measured object varies. This would be ideal:

   

   ideal

   grafik.png (8.17 KiB) Viewed 2726 times

   (Having a fixed offset and variable leader length is something I have also seen. Maybe these are different local traditions or habits in different professions.)

Okay, now I think I have made clear what I mean. I admit it may be asking a bit much, as PDF-XChange Editor is not a CAD program but a pdf editor. But I thought it is a pretty feature rich editor and most other features are pretty well designed, so you might be interested enough to come a bit closer to perfection also with this measurement tool feature.

And as I'm just uttering wishes:
6. Closed dimension chains (I hope I looked up the correct wording) would be absolutely great:
You begin as usual :
1. click first object point
2. click second object point
3. click distance of dimension line from object.
Now for the second measurement you don't click on it's first point but the tool knows that it's first point is identical to the last point of the previous measurement.
4. click on second point of next measurement
You needn't specify the second dimension's distance form the object, because the lines automatically get aligned as in my last example image.
5. ... 6. ... each click adds another complete measurement, aligned with the others.

Best regards
Joachim

[TrackerSupp-Daniel]

Hello Jotess,
I will also keep my replied numbered here for organization:

1. See number 5.

2. Hopefully, we can see it in the near future, but currently I am unsure how long it will be in development for.

3. A) I am unsure if it is possible to have the measurement display 1.00, as the length must be calculated according to the Spec, I am fairly certain that this cannot change. I will verify with our Dev team however to see if there is a way to change this. If there is, I will be sure to let you know here.

B) Changing the decimal separator is a bit finnicky at the moment due to a bug we discovered recently. The Editor should automatically use the correct decimal and thousands separator based on your windows regional measurement settings. Currently however this is not working as intended, and all measurements are by default placed with periods as the decimal separator. the only way to get commas to be displayed as the separator in the current build is (with your windows regional settings setup correctly), to select the annotation after placement, navigate to the Format tab, and change the scale ratio to another measurement, then back. To demonstrate, see this gif:

4. Unfortunately I do not believe we can change how this is handled currently, as text formatting is essentially a different "comment" from a style formatting point of view. As with point 3A, I will see if anything can be done, here, and will let you know If the Dev team says otherwise.

5. I have created a feature request for this, a little more abstract than how you described it, to encompass not only this suggestion, but also point 1.
For reference you can ask any member of our support about this ticket number, and they will be able ot provide an update on its progress:
RT#4942: FR: Separate Style appearance and measurement "defaults" for measuring tools

6. To clarify on this request, as it is certainly difficult to describe, you essentially want something that is a combination of the current "distance", and "Perimeter" tools? So that you could draw a chain of "distance" lines each with their own measurement, but directly connected? Something that looks like this perhaps? (although more uniform):

image.png (14.77 KiB) Viewed 2721 times

Kind regards,

[jotess]

Hello Daniel,
nice to hear that my requests made their way into the pipeline. Of course there are always things that cannot be fixed with reasonable effort.

3B, decimal separator: Thanks for the explanation. I have been wondering how I managed to get correct numbers by accident somewhere and I was not able to reproduce that.
Generally (for my personal use case) this is more of a cosmetic issue - as long as the number is not high enough to contain a thousands separator. In such cases it becomes unreadable.

6. Dimension chains:
What I mean by closed dimension chains is what I illustrated in my example with the dimensions that were aligned on the red dash-dotted line. Here is an example from an architectural drawing I made with a CAD program:

Example architectural drawing

So it only applies to measurements in one direction. But the point is that the objects to which the dimensions apply may have different distance to the dimension line (in this case: vertically on the paper). After the first dimension has been placed (clicks no. 1-3), all subsequent dimensions will be added in one straight line, even if the clicks for specifying the horizontal lenghts also differ in vertical direction (not the case in this example).
So for ex. the vertical distance of point 5 to point 6 doesn't influence where the dimension line is put. Or in the chain below for last the measurement of 42.5cm on the right I clicked on the inner corner of the wall and then on the outer top right) corner. If it had been an isolated, single dimension, it would be 60.1 cm in diagonal direction. But as the dimension CHAIN already "knew" it was horizontal, it was extended horizontally.

Now you might wonder how I started the lower dimension chain on the left without getting a diagonal measurement. Well, that's another feature common to drawing programs: constraints.
I didn't want to ask for too much, but as I'm in the course of explaining, I'll add this.
The general type of constraint is what you have already implemented for different tools: Holding the shift key the drawing tool snaps to the nearest 15°. In this case this would not have helped, the constraint would have to be selectable and I would have had to select 90° steps. Common for dimension tools is that they either exist as two separate tools in the UI: a. for orthogonal and b. for arbitrary angles; or one tool has two modes to switch between a and b.

By the way: There is one more tiny little thing (No. 7) I miss: Do you see the little horizontal extension of the dimension line? When we use the slash for the line ending, it is always like "crossing out" the intersection of leader and dimension line. The dimension line is always a bit longer than the measurement. And the dash is always exactly 45°. (Btw: The German translation for "dash" is wrong, it is "Schlitz", which translated backwards means "slot". It should be "Strich" or "Linie". A long time I regretted that the program didn't provide the dash because I never tried the menu item "Schlitz" that didn't make any sense to me.)
Maybe again this is kind of regional custom. In CAD programs this is configurable as the leader length is already in PDF-XChange Editor.
And it is more of a cosmetic thing. But I think technically something pretty easy to implement.

(Finally btw. an explanation for the superscript numbers you see in the example, in case you are interested: This is so called SIA formatting, named after the Swiss architects' association. This is particularly widespread in the architecture branch, at least in Europe, I believe. Meters comma centimetres and millimetres as superscript. Meters and millimetres only appear in case they are needed, so 50 cm only appears as "50", 1.5 meters appear as "1,50" and 1.403 m appears as "1,405" with the last digit as superscript. Traditionally this could only be "5" because this used to be the smallest possible dimension in scales for building houses like 1:50. But in the wake of computer aided drawing this has often been dropped by software developers.
Anyway, implementing this as "architectural style dimensioning" would probably be a bit beyond the scope of a general purpose pdf editor.)

Best regards
Joachim

[TrackerSupp-Daniel]

Hello Jotes,

Thank you for the explanations there. Regarding point 6, Unfortunately I do not believe that this is something we will be offering anytime in the near future. We are, first and foremost, a PDF editing software, while we do want to be as robust as possible, there are some points where we must draw a line to avoid excessive over-complexity (both for new users, and our developers). I have created a formal feature request ticket for this matter, but know that it will likely be put on the backburner for a long while if it is not rejected for being beyond our intended scope:
RT#4945: FR: Add architectural "dimension chains" to the Editor's measurement options

As for the new Number 7: (Note, I used periods to denote decimals in the example below)
On the topic of the exact positioning of the measurement, this is likely caused by the formatting of your calibration. Using a longer line for the initial calibration will help to avoid this, just as an example, measuring a 1cm long line, and saying it is 2.37m then using the measurement to measure a 3.5cm long line will result in a measurement of 8.295m. This is then rounded to match your formatting, so the measurement reports 8.29m ignoring the last digit, and giving imperfect results.
Instead measuring a 10cm line, and telling the application that it is equivalent to 23.700m would give you the same result, but with greater accuracy, so that you will properly see three decimal places for the same 3.5cm line (output of 8.295m as expected).
For Translation, I believe this is because the term used in the English UI is "Slash" not "Dash":

image.png (4.11 KiB) Viewed 2667 times

Not knowing the language myself, I cannot say with any certainty, but looking over google translate, Schlitz seems to be one of the shorter possible translations for the word slash, which is likely why our German translator choose that option. Or is that still incorrect?

As for the last point, I do not believe it is beyond the scope but it may be disallowed, again with the PDF spec. I believe we are required to show the unit of measure at all times, but placing the decimal units in superscript may be possible. I will bring it up and see if we can. For the time being, you can manually do this by editing the text formatting. Simply double click on the measurement and then highlight the decimal text to change it to superscript from the format tab. (you cannot currently remove the unit of measurement however)

Kind regards,