Hello,
is this possible in Freecad:
WhatsApp Image 2023-07-05 at 17.38.25.jpeg
Sorry, i meant the Box… That dimension should be checked…
TechDraw Balloon
No, that is not yet implemented for dimensions.
What isn’t implemented? Is there (yet another!) a convention I don’t know about?
Inspection dimensions are not yet implemented. Maybe because no one missed them until now.
TD-22.png
This wants 100% of production parts to be inspected that they are within the tolerances. It is faked with a balloon without leader line.
If TheoreticalExact is true, the dim value is surrounded by a box. Should inspection dimensions work the same way? If Inspection is true, surround dim value with a stadium (squircle? sausage?) shape?
Maybe ‘slot shape’ (Sketcher_CreateSlot) or oval?
It seems like there’s no proper word for this kind of shape. In the list of balloon shapes it is called Inspection.
I have heard of Zeppelin, Torpedo, or Zäpfchen = Suppository (?) but have never read any label for this frame in official documents.
Yes.
This frame needs a devider (the line in front of the inspection rate in the example) that touches upper and lower boundary if an (optional) inspection rate or an (optional) index has to be displayed.
Greetings to the Community!
As long as the specific function is not implemented it is possible, using the “Balloon Annotations”, indicate check gauge dimensions, but unfortunately it is not possible to rotate the “Balloon Annotations” to align them with the vertical and/or oblique dimensions.
It can be called an oblong, racetrack, semicircle, sausage body, squectangle, obround. An oblong for instance can both be an oval and a rectangle with round ends… though stadium is used on wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_(geometry)
It seems too complicated in in general, since it can not cover all kinds of cases. I suggest that dimension in general can use the (all) same shapes as the Balloon tool and if someone needs a vertical line, it is added like the Balloon tool “|” in the Format Spec field in the properties. So are free to handle all cases you want, even for some company internal special uses. Also then the Theoretical Exact field should be wiped, since then it is a dublicate.
Greetings
user1234
+1
+1 if it fills the gaps to the frame and has the same line width as the frame, like it does within the Balloon’s Rectangle.
I’m not sure if we really need more than two options for dimensions.
No, just add another checkbox for Inspection that deactivates the Theoretical Exact checkbox.
I just found out that this norm has been killed. So it probably doesn’t make sense to introduce such a symbol anymore. Why has this symbol been omitted? I have no idea… In my opinion, that has actually always worked…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I1Zo0_QIUw
“With the withdrawal of DIN 406 and the publication of DIN EN ISO 129-1 in February 2020, the test dimension was withdrawn, among other things.”
Good find. I haven’t heard about it yet. 
And so the inspection dimension silently vanished from the Iso world… but what about american standards, company standards, etc?
I don’t have the complete set of ASME Y14, but in the pieces I have, there is no mention of an inspection dimension.
This seems to be a “common practice” rather than a standard. I also ran across some use of various surround shapes to indicate that a dimension should be inspected.
One of the video’s statement was that the definition and documentation of a production process deals with all necessary information about how to secure quality, including how and how often to inspect the product; and so putting inspection information on drawings is considered obsolete.
If this is obsolete outside the ISO world. too we could stop this dicussion and skip the implementation of inspection dimensions.
At least we have gained some new information for our collective memory.