Line Weights, AutoCAD vs Revit

[guitarchitect7]

Within CAD I was able to get away with using no more than 5 lineweights: 3mm, 5mm, 7mm, 9mm, and 1.5mm for really heaving lines. 5mm was usually the thickness of my cut walls in plan view, but when going over to Revit, it appears that isn't thick enough In relation to Revit, my 5mm (0.0050") line weight is pen 3, but I need to end up using pen 10 (0.0210"). Whats the deal and why am I having to work with 16 pen styles.

[Scott D Davis]

pen 3 isn't always .005, and pen 10 isn't always .021. Linweights change depending on the scale of the view. If these lineweights are not heavy enough for you, you may need to make adjustments under Manage>Settings>Lineweights. You'll notice in the attached screenshot of the lineweights dialog box that the actual printed lineweights are different depending on scale.

[guitarchitect7]

pen 3 isn't always .005, and pen 10 isn't always .021. Linweights change depending on the scale of the view. If these lineweights are not heavy enough for you, you may need to make adjustments under Manage>Settings>Lineweights. You'll notice in the attached screenshot of the lineweights dialog box that the actual printed lineweights are different depending on scale.

Acutally for me they are the same for every scale (for now).

I'm trying to establish consistency, I'm afraid users will get confused on which pen type to use based on the scale they're using. If all linetypes are the same throughout it eleviates that issue.

Thoughts on that topic are welcomed as well.

[Scott D Davis]

Acutally for me they are the same for every scale (for now).

I'm trying to establish consistency, I'm afraid users will get confused on which pen type to use based on the scale they're using. If all linetypes are the same throughout it eleviates that issue.

Thoughts on that topic are welcomed as well.

My thought would be that you are over-riding a key feature in Revit by making all lineweights the same across scales. What happens when you change scale of a view now? Don't have your users reliant on a pen weight per se....just that they know pen 1 is thinnest and 16 is thickest. Object styles and your template should take care of the rest. Your users should not get confused if the templates and object styles are set up to your liking. I would definately consider changing it back to the default settings, and then tweak the settings from there.

[TroyGates]

At a previous company I used about 8 lineweights in AutoCAD which also happened to be colors 1 thru 8. I matched our Revit lineweights 1 thru 8 to be identical. Users found it very easy to transition using this system.

[jsnyder.68308]

The lineweight table that Scott pointed out is daunting at first, but is actually not difficult to use once you play around with it a bit. We started with 1/8"=1'-0" scale as our baseline for lineweights and worked up and down from there. We use six lineweights for virtually all of our drawings (there are some additional very heavy lineweights provided for special purposes/presentation graphics) but once you set the table up for your template, you will probably never get another question about lineweights from users. Adjusting scales and detail levels in different views is like buttah.
It takes a little experimenting, but the exercise is worth the effort. It's a small price to pay for not having to worry about layers. I think your five lineweight spread is probably sufficient for virtually all the work you need to do. We used the National CAD Standard as our reference. There is a class handout from AU2008 that gives an excellent explanation and jumping-off point (class #CM311-2) that is available online if you are a subscription member.

[aaronrumple]

My thought would be that you are over-riding a key feature in Revit by making all lineweights the same across scales.

Not really. I've flattened our pen weights with the advent of view templates, which make the adaptive pen settings somewhat obsolete.. View templates make it very simple and much more direct in managing pen settings at different scales.

While the adaptive pen weights are a cool technology, it just requires too much testing for different conditions (civil, architectural, presentation CD's,, etc...) View templates give me one spot I can check everything and make QA/QC simpler.

We use a system that has Revit/AutoCAD/Rapidograph names for all generations of architects.

[guitarchitect7]

I'm glad I brought this topic up as there seems to be even a difference of opinion between how to handle line weights. With Pen Weights, Object Styles, and Visibility override graphics, there are clearly various wasy to control lineweight, but what is the standard most effective way?

I understand the idea of having the option of different weights based on scale, but now I don't have a consistency with my pen styles besides what was mentioned before, "pen 1 is lightest, pen 16 is heaviest".

And I still have my oringal question, why doesn't 5mm weight print the same as it did in AutoCAD? I don't like the idea of having to remember more than 6 or so lineweights just to control my drawing. Idn't 0.0050" 5mm?

[d.stairmand]

most of the time its because the users don't want the pens thickness too thick at the larger scales. If i have a 0.5mm wall line weight at 1:50 at 1:5000 it will plot out an just be an absolute blob! Revit has the great feature of adjusting the line weights so that they are readable no matter what scale the view is at - in my opinion a very good feature.

[Steve_Stafford]

...And I still have my original question, why doesn't 5mm weight print the same as it did in AutoCAD? Isn't 0.0050" 5mm?... Well if you have the pen settings truly the same at a given scale they ought to print the same or close enough that you can't tell a difference. The plotter and driver may be a factor. I used a Xerox 8830 in the past that used its own pen driver for Microstation and the Windows driver for Revit. Drove me nuts for awhile.

A 5mm pen would run you out of ink and money FAST! A technical pen of 0.5mm is a pretty thick line, like for a wall cut in plan or section. Typical pens are 0.13mm, 0.18mm, 0.25mm, 0.30mm up to 1.0mm. The 1.0mm was the thickest pen I ever used on vellum or mylar,and rarely at that.

P.S. Watch for the next AUGI | AEC EDGE (http://www.augiaecedge.com) issue, there will be an article that discusses this a bit. There is also a pretty good chapter about this in the Mastering Revit Structure 2010 (http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470521414.html) book, chapter was written by David Harrington. Hmmm, David wrote the article for the magazine too, coincidence? :wink:

[twiceroadsfool]

The chart looks much worse than it really is. What i did, was set them the same across the board, for the FIRST TEST. Then i made a couple of views (a floor plan and section) and duplicated the views to a BUNCH of different scales, and printed them out on one sheet.

Obviously, only one of the views even looked close to what i wanted. So i tweaked that one until i was happy, and then i moved on to the other scales and adjusted accordingly.

It DEFINETELY took some time, but its one of the things i love about Revit.

So Aaron- Your View templates go through the VG overrides and asign different pens to different objects? It sounds like its doing the exact same thing as Object styles, so i know im misunderstanding...

[aaronrumple]

So Aaron- Your View templates go through the VG overrides and asign different pens to different objects? It sounds like its doing the exact same thing as Object styles, so i know im misunderstanding...

We have our object styles set for the lineweights as used most commonly. Most of our plans look fine with no overrides.

Then for other scales - we apply overrides as needed using the view templates.

[guitarchitect7]

As I've had more time to think about this, I can see the benefit of increasing thickness as scale increases. The only issue I still have is explaining this to users..."In this scale you use Pen 2, and in this scale you use Pen 2 although they'll both print off at different thickness."

[Scott D Davis]

As I've had more time to think about this, I can see the benefit of increasing thickness as scale increases. The only issue I still have is explaining this to users..."In this scale you use Pen 2, and in this scale you use Pen 2 although they'll both print off at different thickness."

Most end users don't even need to be concerned with what pen to use if the object styles and linework have been worked out in the template. Users just model, and the linework will be correct without them having to think about it.

[guitarchitect7]

What's your idea of "linework" - line styles?

[twiceroadsfool]

What's your idea of "linework" - line styles?

Line weights, line styles, different scales, etc. Its all covered between that Lineweight chart, the Object styles, and the Line Styles dialogue.

End users here dont EVER mess with lineweights, linetypes, etc. Theres no need.

[guitarchitect7]

So let me throw this out as it's crossed my mind. To aid the end user in choosing the correct detail lines to use for drawing a drafting view, do you go back to CAD style layer names for line styles? I just see naming them Pen 1, Pen 2, etc could be troublesome as they won't know which to use. Now naming it SECT-MCUT would clarify, but that seems a bit overkill as I would now have multiple lines with the same thickness just with different names.

[twiceroadsfool]

So let me throw this out as it's crossed my mind. To aid the end user in choosing the correct detail lines to use for drawing a drafting view, do you go back to CAD style layer names for line styles? I just see naming them Pen 1, Pen 2, etc could be troublesome as they won't know which to use. Now naming it SECT-MCUT would clarify, but that seems a bit overkill as I would now have multiple lines with the same thickness just with different names.

For drafting lines? We just have:

Thin Line
Medium Line
Heavy Line

And the OOTB system ones that we cant change like
<invisibile Line>
<Center Line>

etc.

[diacovoni]

I am new to this Forum and a newbie Revit 2010 user. Our office is diving in with both feet into the Revit world with years of AutoCAD Architecture background. This thread is just what I need to understand. Most of the conversation has been simply about line thickness at different scales. I am working in a Wall Section and need more options than just "Solid" or "Hidden" lines. Do I need to create new line types or styles for every thickness of a "Hidden" line or "Centerline". In AutoCAD you could pick the line Style i.e Solid, Dash, Hidden, etc. independent of the line thickness. I am not seeing how to do this in Revit. Am I missing something really simple?

Dan Iacovoni

[aaronrumple]

In AutoCAD you could pick the line Style i.e Solid, Dash, Hidden, etc. independent of the line thickness. I am not seeing how to do this in Revit. Am I missing something really simple?

Dan Iacovoni

In AutoCAD there is ByLayer, ByObject and ByBlock...

Revit is all about styles. The style defines everything. Yes you need one style for each combination of line pattern and weight you want.

For broken lines, we do those by function. Such as overhead, hidden, centerline, curb, etc...

You really shouldn't be drawing too many lines if you're using Revit efficiently...

[diacovoni]

I know I won't be drawing many lines in the model, but wall sections are another story. The wall types are only greyed out areas. After inserting component families of bricks, blocks, studs etc., I still need to draw some things by hand. Flashing, roof membranes, etc. This will all need specific line types and thicknesses. My current issue is that I have an existing wall that will have some parts demolished, some parts remaining and new parts added. I need different line types to help distinguish between each one of these phases. I was going to use dashed or hidden lines for the demo, halftone lines for existing and solid black lines for the new construction.

Dan Iacovoni

[Scott D Davis]

Flashings could be parametric detail families, rather than hand drafted linework.

[t1.shep]

How do people deal with the added thickness that shows when you define material thickness in your wall types?
While a #5 pen for cut walls is great, when you have finish, sheathing, etc, and each one has a line thickness, the outer cut profile line #5 no longer appears #5 when plotted. You end up with a much thicker "cut" line.
Have people changed their object styles or line weight settings to be thinner when cut?
Do most people draw their plans in coarse detail level to avoid showing interior wall materials? How do you deal with families where you need to show a fine detail level when placed in a plan view that is set to coarse?

[twiceroadsfool]

First, you dont have to set the entire plan to Coarse, you can set just walls to Coarse.

Second, we dont even do that. Our walls are set to 10, and we show them at full detail (medium level), and you can read them just fine. The material divisions in the middle dont plot at the 10, just the exterior cut lines do. The internal material designations use the "Common Edges" Subcatagory of the Walls catagory.

So we have our Walls at 10, and the Common Edges at 3, for Cut walls. Walls in Projection are 5 and 1, respectively.

Of course, the numbers dont mean squat since all of our lineweights are probably set up differently. But it achieves what we want. Thick exterior lines, and you can read the divisions so they arent mud. We typically do plans at 1/8th. Anything smaller we consider using Coarse for walls, though in previous jobs ove done the Medium LOD at 1/16th. But we werent showing exterior lines of walls as dark as we do here.