Align views on sheets - Stop the insanity !!!

[ecbulic.230329]

Looks like the insanity continues. Couldn't find it on the wish list.

No more stupid complicated work arounds please !!!

This is by far the simplest, most rudimentary and necessary feature which has never managed to make it into Revit.

o.k., sure, levels and grids will align (to some extent), but who cares !! I need to be able to acurately align callouts created in drafting views, and just to havve some consistancy between sheets so that plans and elevations between sheets are positioned in the same place.

It's an absolute pain in the gluteus max. on large commercial jobs to have to manually place views on sheets in approximately the same place between sheets so it looks "tidy". Why can't I snap a vew or elements in a view relative to the sheet !!!

I would seriously pay an extra $1000 bucks for Revit for this feature alone !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Brian Myers]

I would seriously pay an extra $1000 bucks for Revit for this feature alone !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:?:

I'm not arguing that this functionality wouldn't be useful, I also know why it IS useful. But I have few points:

1.) If you lose $1000 in productivity while properly aligning your views then there might be some other issues going on in your processes that need to be addressed.

2.) If you do your model properly and document your designs efficiently... then nobody in the field is going to notice a fraction of an inch difference in the views from sheet to sheet as long as physical relationships in the building are properly communicated.

For what its worth, the factory is well aware of this request, its one of the oldest in Revit. But if you can find 50 other companies that would pay an extra grand for this I'm pretty sure the factory (or a third party developer) would find a way to deliver it. :) (but I doubt it's worth 20% of the value of the software...). Would it be worth subscription cost for a release? ... for some companies, I'm sure they would say yes (I wouldn't be one of those, but I can understand why!).

[ecbulic.230329]

:?:

For what its worth, the factory is well aware of this request, its one of the oldest in Revit.

Hi Brian,

A number of our current commercial projects have well over 100 A1 sheets in each, if you add up the time taken for each user to align views, just for consistentcy between this number of sheets, so they look tidy and professional (there is nothing worse than ranomly placed sections & elevations etc.) a thousand bucks does not seem like a lot of money.

This function should not even be a wish list request, it's just plain ridiculous that it isn't a mandatory function.

You're quote speaks volumes, one of the oldest requests and yet it still gets pushed aside.

I stand by my thousand bucks, and I would happily pay the programmer who can figure this out and implement it into Revit.

enough said.

[Gadget Man]

... there is nothing worse than ranomly placed sections & elevations etc...

I am known to all my co-workers and consultants as a perfectionist myself, but I think you are splitting the proverbial hair here.

In my book the set of deliverables is NOT mainly about the alignment of the views - this is NOT that important.

After all, the success of a construction of an architectural structure shouldn't depend on the alignment of the views and if you are basing your professionalism on the looks of your drawings than I wish you luck...

The consistency throughout the documentation in terms of accuracy and relevance is what matters. Yes, the drawings should be as clear and as easy to read as possible to avoid any interpretation error (and alignment of the views plays some minor role here too) but I would rather than AutoDesk spend their time and resources on much more important and pressing issues than this...

I think that the alignment of the views belongs rather to general house keeping rules and user's discipline and it depends too much on different companies' policies to be easily organized on a software level. After all, two different views can be aligned in several different ways, depending on what the user has in mind. Which one is correct? Which one isn't? What about if you have more than two views? How to align them? Based on what? That's a very personal thing and depends too much on the circumstances...

That's just my insignificant point of view...

[jeffh]

Looks like the insanity continues. Couldn't find it on the wish list.

No more stupid complicated work arounds please !!!

This is by far the simplest, most rudimentary and necessary feature which has never managed to make it into Revit.

o.k., sure, levels and grids will align (to some extent), but who cares !! I need to be able to acurately align callouts created in drafting views, and just to havve some consistancy between sheets so that plans and elevations between sheets are positioned in the same place.

It's an absolute pain in the gluteus max. on large commercial jobs to have to manually place views on sheets in approximately the same place between sheets so it looks "tidy". Why can't I snap a vew or elements in a view relative to the sheet !!!

I would seriously pay an extra $1000 bucks for Revit for this feature alone !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You may want to check out these Skill Builder videos. They show how a layout grid can be added to the titleblock family and controled with visibility parameters to aid in sheet layout.

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=13945669&linkID=9243097

Look at the 1st and 3rd videos specifically to see how the layout grid can be added. It is another "workaround" but it can help with consistancy of sheets until (if ever) some kind of functionality like this is added to Revit.

[brethomp]

Looks like the insanity continues. Couldn't find it on the wish list.

No more stupid complicated work arounds please !!!

This is by far the simplest, most rudimentary and necessary feature which has never managed to make it into Revit.

o.k., sure, levels and grids will align (to some extent), but who cares !! I need to be able to acurately align callouts created in drafting views, and just to havve some consistancy between sheets so that plans and elevations between sheets are positioned in the same place.

It's an absolute pain in the gluteus max. on large commercial jobs to have to manually place views on sheets in approximately the same place between sheets so it looks "tidy". Why can't I snap a vew or elements in a view relative to the sheet !!!

I would seriously pay an extra $1000 bucks for Revit for this feature alone !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The good news is that the factory has looked into this (http://insidethefactory.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/09/sheet-alignment.html). But, IMHO this should be given a very low priority over other wish list items. I really don't see the need to have plans and details line up excatly from sheet to sheet, close is good enough.

[cliff collins]

It would be good to be able to snap and align views on sheets.
I agree with th OP--this should be a prerequisite/basic part of the software.

Not to hijack the thread, but.........

I'd much rather have my "tilted wall tool.........." ( uh-oh--not THAT again!)

Seriously. Every time we need a non-plumb/slanted wall, we have to either build
a "fake" sloped in-place wall family, or build a Mass and convert the face to a wall.

cheers.......

[twiceroadsfool]

If everyone who wants it would go read the post on ITF as brethomp posted, its not as *simple* an issue as everyone thinks it is. "We want to be able to align views on sheets."

Align them to what? Each other? Other things? Modeled things? Drawn things? Views? Or titles? Or both?

Depending on how you answer those questions, the implications are far reaching, and it makes it NOT a simple task.

And in 5 years of using Revit, never ONCE has view alignment bothered me, or hindered getting out a project.

[sthedens]

And in 5 years of using Revit, never ONCE has view alignment bothered me, or hindered getting out a project.

I was hearing this complaint from users who had recently migrated from AutoCAD. We have automated routines in AutoCAD that set the viewport size and zoom extent values so ALL 1/8" plan sheets had the exact same initial layout. So Floor Plan, RCP, Lighting, Power, HVAC, Plumbing, Framing, Foundation... all looked consistant from sheet to sheet.

Now in Revit, everyone just drops views on sheets wherever they want. The old guard goes nuts. The young bucks don't understand why. I'm stuck in the middle trying to keep both sides educated and happy.

We use scope boxes and dependent views for our 1/8" plans. It would be really nice if the user could control the extent of the scope box with temporary dimensions. For example, we know that a 250' x 210' scope box is as big as we can get if our 1/8" plan views are to fit within our titleblock. Granted, I can draw a 250'x210' detail line rectangle and then eye-ball (because I can't snap) the scope box extents, then go back and delete my rectangle. But why, should I have to do this?

[twiceroadsfool]

Im still not clear why you have to at all.

I put my project on a sheet. If it diesnt fit, i change the scale, or the titleblock. When i find a setup im happy with, i make the other sheets the same titleblock, and the other views the same scale. Then i put them on the sheet, and its done.

What is the scope box doing, making sure every plan is in *exactly* the same place? Thats seriously minutia, in my humble opinion. I mean, i guess it would be nice, but im still trying to figure out what value its adding? Ive never gotten a complaint that my drawings were haphazard because plans were off a 1/16th of an inch. Beyond that level of accuracy, its just a user thing. Hopefully someone is smart enough to not put one plan on the bottom left of a sheet and one plan in the top right, LOL. When i overlay sheets on top of one another, i verify it by the structural grids or the walls anyway. I dont just bang the papers together and start tracing.

We use reference planes to approximate the sizes of details for things like Drafting views, for our library of standard CYA details, but even then its not something we obsess about getting on the sheet to the nanometer. Just seems a bit... useless. But i know thats just my opinion. :)

[sthedens]

What is the scope box doing, making sure every plan is in *exactly* the same place? Thats seriously minutia, in my humble opinion. I mean, i guess it would be nice, but im still trying to figure out what value its adding?

The scope box is just making sure that all of the 1/8" plan sheets have the same view extent.

I'm not saying it's adding value, because it isn't. There are just some old guard who say, "You mean Revit CAN'T do something that we automatically do in AutoCAD. Explain to me again why we must move to this more advanced software." In their eyes, if Column line "A" is 3 1/4" from the border on sheet A1.1, it should be 3 1/4" from the border on sheets: E1.1, E2.1, E3.1, M1.1, M2.1, P1.1, S1.1 and S2.1.

[wmullett]

I don't know why I'm wasting my time here...

One item by itself completely blows away this kind of logic .... All the view references in Revit are always coordinated.... That alone just says that focusing on this item doesn't make sense. It's the forest - forget the tree.

[sthedens]

Im I put my project on a sheet. If it diesnt fit, i change the scale, or the titleblock. When i find a setup im happy with, i make the other sheets the same titleblock, and the other views the same scale. Then i put them on the sheet, and its done.


As part of a large A/E firm with lots of history, one does not just change a titleblock. Especially not on a per project basis because a view won't fit. One also does not change floor plan scale conventions overnight.
Smaller firms have the luxury of being nimble like a jet-ski. For larger firms it's like trying to turn the Queen Mary.
It may be insane, but then that depends on who you talk to. In my case, those who don't think its insane are also the ones who sign my paycheck.

[twiceroadsfool]

Huh? In the example i gave above, someone was changing either the titleblock or the plan scale, because it didnt fit on a titleblock sheet. That was in reference to the OP's issue of: How do i set up my plans on a sheet. My point was: It fits on the sheet in its current state, or it doesnt. If it does, i place it on the sheet, and go to the next one, which i put in relatively the same place on the next sheet. Do i get out my micrometer to check it? No, i dont. But a plan starting in drawing block A1 on one sheet starts in the same lower left hand corner of A1 on the next sheet, and so on and so forth.

What that has to do with the size of the firm is beyond me, unless you mean that "Turning a big ship is slow moving, and youre talking about turning them away from USING the micrometer to measure drawing spacing." And yeah, ive been there in offices, too.

Rule number 1 in Revit: Its not your old CAD package. Itll do ten million great things, and a few things youre used to... it wont do. I dont care where my leaders come off my text, i dont care about my elevation markers, and i dont care to use a micrometer to measure my drawing spacing. if they care that much... Maybe revit isnt for them?

[Gadget Man]

... "You mean Revit CAN'T do something that we automatically do in AutoCAD. Explain to me again why we must move to this more advanced software."...

To repeat what twiceroadsfool said as well: REVIT is a totally different software than AutoCAD (or anything else for that matter).

Period.

It doesn't have to have and it doesn't have the same features and tools. Some are very similar, some are different, some are new and some are not there altogether.

A different program.

Accept it.

Stop comparing. It doesn't make any sense.

If you don't like it - don't use it. Simple.

[Steve_Stafford]

This is one of those requests I hear all the time. Just rolls off a student's tongue as soon as they put a few views on a sheet and start fussing with them. The developers have been hearing it for years too.

What's wrong with expanding on the ease with which we can create orderly documents? All this request is about is improvement. Would anyone really be unhappy if we could align annotation in one view with another? Text...symbols...?

Every release ought to have some new features, fix some problems, and refine the existing toolset. The love it or leave response doesn't really help anyone does it?

[Gadget Man]

... The love it or leave response doesn't really help anyone does it?

Steve,

My "love it or leave it response" was purely directed towards the people who are coming from the world of AutoCad into the world of Revit and start this transition by glorifying the "old good" ways of AutoCad and complaining about Revit being different.

I don't say Revit is better or worse. I don't say AutoCad (or any other program) is worse or better. They are different.

In Revit you can easily do many, many things which would be difficult if not impossible in AutoCad. In AutoCad you could easily customize and automate many actions and this is not so easy done or sometimes impossible in Revit. These programs are different. That's all...

I admit, on many occasions in the past I complained about Revit too, but not in comparison with some other program (not after I learned better anyway...)

What I have been complaining about (and for sure will many times again) are some half-cooked tools and features already existing in Revit and not functioning as they should. They need Autodesk's attention and resources - not an insignificant face-lift or views align tool...

It's just my view...

[Gadget Man]

As an add-on to my above post, what I meant was that the Original Poster (see quotes below) didn't exactly come here with the peace and constructive dialog in his heart...


Looks like the insanity continues. (...) No more stupid complicated work arounds please !!!

This is by far the simplest, most rudimentary and necessary feature which has never managed to make it into Revit.

o.k., sure, levels and grids will align (to some extent), but who cares !! (...) It's an absolute pain in the gluteus max...

One could think after reading these comments that suddenly Revit stopped working and became an useless piece of junk just because you can't align the views on a sheet...

Just calm down! It's not the end of the world...

I just wanted to put the whole context in perspective, that's all...

[twiceroadsfool]

This is one of those requests I hear all the time. Just rolls off a student's tongue as soon as they put a few views on a sheet and start fussing with them. The developers have been hearing it for years too.

What's wrong with expanding on the ease with which we can create orderly documents? All this request is about is improvement. Would anyone really be unhappy if we could align annotation in one view with another? Text...symbols...?

Every release ought to have some new features, fix some problems, and refine the existing toolset. The love it or leave response doesn't really help anyone does it?

Steve-

Im certainly not against having a new tool, for convenience sake, even if its something i wouldnt get much use out of. Where it would irk me in a funny place, is if it was something development started to devote a decent amount of resources too, and in the end we got a product NONE of us were happy with.

The discussion that covered this topic on Inside the Factory demonstrated just a few of the many different ways this potential *tool* could work, and depending on wh ois asking (The OP here, me, you, Scott, Steve, or anyone) we may all want it to work very differently.

1. Being able to snap to modeled objects seems like the simplest one... Except that crop regions can be altered seperately from sheets. In AutoCAD they belong TO the sheet. So how will you maintain consistancy after its placed? Or does it now have to lock?

2. Constrain to a 3D origin. Well, what if its nowhere near the view at all?

3. Constrain to an origin of the view: How does it place the origin on the view with a variable crop region,and does that mean titles are no longer movable independently?

4. "Sheet underlay" mode, where you can snap OTO like viewports do now, but again, it only would work out well for plans / elevations.

5. Ability to Duplicate/Copy floor plans/etc from sheets and paste/current view to other sheets. Of course, this would only work if we could change the associated level of a floor plan on the fly. Something i desperately wish we could do anyway....

So you see, im certainly not saying *love it or leave it* in the face of any possible advancement... Im merely pointing out that we LOVED something that was a specific attribute to a particular trait (That vports belonged to layout tabs, so they were easier to simply copy and paste in original coordinates), and that its more an Old Hat than it is a prerequisite for the ARCHITECTURE to move forward.

[Steve_Stafford]

It is a practical problem that could use an elegant solution. The factory doesn't usually like being told what the solution is, they like to study the problem and get creative. I'm not dabbling with how to achieve it, I just want it and I know I'm not alone.

View title annotation align and the model aligns when views are the same scale. There is no elegant way to align grids in one view with another. Same for level annotation and many other items. I'm relaxed about it...close enough works for me for the most part because it doesn't matter if they are off a tiny bit. The building doesn't suffer, the contractor can get it built.

People are used to being able to be orderly about how they assemble their documents, first with pen/pencils/scale/triangles and then with AutoCAD. Now Revit comes along and effectively says we've all been worrying about silly stuff like creating neat drawings and keeping things neatly aligned. This is disconcerting to many...me included...though I'm much more zen about it now.

Revit is old enough now that we ought to be able to reasonably expect some more sophistication and refinement along with some big ticket cool tools.

[christo4robin]

Back in the Acad R14 days, we would simply draw a line in PS that was snapped to an endpoint that existed in MS. That would then be our alignment tool for views.

I'm no coder, but that seems like a low-tech, high usability method. So, what it means is that we would need a detail line on a sheet to be able to snap to geometry in a view. Possible?

[sthedens]

To repeat what twiceroadsfool said as well: REVIT is a totally different software than AutoCAD (or anything else for that matter).

Period.

It doesn't have to have and it doesn't have the same features and tools. Some are very similar, some are different, some are new and some are not there altogether.

A different program.

Accept it.

Stop comparing. It doesn't make any sense.

If you don't like it - don't use it. Simple.


Fine then, I'm just going to take my bag of marbles and go home! Heaven forbid someone should point out something that can be improved upon!

It's all about comparing - CAD production vs. BIM production. Management is looking very closely at Revit. They are looking at it from a productivity standpoint (time efficiency) and quality of output.

If a company uses a tool to produce a product, and a better tool becomes available, you want to use it. Now if that tool causes you to change your production workflow or gives you different results than expected, management gets upset. So, you fix the things you can fix as part of implementing the software. You build custom tags and callouts. You create 3D families that will work in plan, elevation, section, as legend components and will schedule properly. You change your workflow as necessary. As a Revit implementer, I can point out the 12,000 things Revit does better than CAD, but they will focus on the 5 things it can't.

The "look" of contract documents (sheet layout, titleblock, etc.) is part of the Brand of the A/E firm. The powers-that-be do not want BIM-jockeys tinkering with the Brand.

[twiceroadsfool]

LOL, regardless of whats been said, i really dont think anyone is suggesting that you "take your marbles and go home."

I know that my comment about "Its not your old cad software," wasnt meant to imply anything negative, but was made to say this (ill try again, more eloquently...):

Would it be great if Revit did EVERYTHING our old platforms ALSO did? Absolutely. There are some things though, that Revit doesnt do. Ive seen firms run by the exact type of people youre discussing. I *LITERALLY* watched management take a dial caliper to the dimension of a Leader Shoulder, off of a piece of text, and then compare it to a leader off a piece of text in AutoCAD. They then asked me to change it. I said i couldnt.

This is my point: In a situation like that, you have very few options. You can promote the values and savings of the new tool, the new workflow, and all that it can help you gain. But in the end, if someone decides that leader offset is a deal breaker.... Then what can you do?

I love working in Revit. Ive taken and lost jobs based on not wanting to go back to the old way. But i also know it takes a LONG time to get revit to "look good,: and that a lot of "drawing conventions" that make up Brand Identity are also "old hat traditions" that dont always help the bigger picture.

But to be clear... Im not saying we SHOULDNT have the tool. Im saying (in my very simplistic and humble worthless opinion) that this specific tool doesnt matter much, and that if management is sticking to their proverbial guns over it and forcing you guys to eat up man hours crafting up ways to align views to a level of precision beyond visual accuity... Id probably be very concerned.

My other point was just that as end users we all have VARYING levels of how this tool would be "acceptable." Some people would live with being able to snap through the viewports. Others would still say its not good enough. Do i think the tool should be there? Sure. But since we (collectively) dont agree or even fathom HOW the tool should be there, im not sure its something id advocate for, in lieu of the many other things we can all agree we need yesterday.

Having said all that... We use reference planes to get it VERY close. Close enough that i cant imagine needing it closer. But our "standard imported drafting views" have reference planes that depict the drawable area of the Detail Box in our titleblock, and on plans you can throw Reference planes around (and dimension them, which works better than the scope box... Plus scope boxes are useful for other things)). Then i move the viewports by selecting them and the move command using the ref planes as a baseline. I cant snap to them, so its not EXACT. But goodness, it takes NO more time, and i still have trouble fathoming people looking so closely that youd need a measuring tool smaller than a ruler.

[Gadget Man]

. Ditto.

[DaveP]

Back in the Acad R14 days, we would simply draw a line in PS that was snapped to an endpoint that existed in MS. That would then be our alignment tool for views.

Sounds like a stupid complicated workaround to me...

[Steve_Stafford]

Sounds like a stupid complicated workaround to me...Yes...which I why I wrote that we ought to have a elegant solution, one worthy of Revitness. Sure we can draft reference planes and detail lines and get things really really close, close enough that it doesn't matter anymore except to a CNC machine like "Frank" (hi, Jeffery) maybe. But is that elegant? Not really...

Like I wrote earlier, I don't get upset or angry about it and get by but it sure isn't elegant. Great, I've used the word elegant more than I'm allowed to write elegant in one day and it's only lunch time. :sad:

[Scott D Davis]

The "look" of contract documents (sheet layout, titleblock, etc.) is part of the Brand of the A/E firm. The powers-that-be do not want BIM-jockeys tinkering with the Brand.

IMO (and just my opinion....not the voice of Autodesk here.....), the "Brand" should be the building that is produced, not the drawings that were used to produce it. As long as the CD's are clear and concise, coordinated, mistake-free, and can get the job built, that's what's important. A very small fraction of people actually see the drawings, while everyone can see the building.

[ecbulic.230329]

IMO (and just my opinion....not the voice of Autodesk here.....), the "Brand" should be the building that is produced, not the drawings that were used to produce it. As long as the CD's are clear and concise, coordinated, mistake-free, and can get the job built, that's what's important. A very small fraction of people actually see the drawings, while everyone can see the building.

Fine, let's all break out the crayons and toilet rolls 'cause no one really cares.

It would be soooo much easier to archive hard copies on toilet rolls as well, just draw on it and roll it up. And after the building's lifecycle is complete, and it gets demolished, THE TOILET ROLLS HAVE A SECOND USE !!!

pure genius...

[ecbulic.230329]

IMO (and just my opinion....not the voice of Autodesk here.....), the "Brand" should be the building that is produced, not the drawings that were used to produce it. As long as the CD's are clear and concise, coordinated, mistake-free, and can get the job built, that's what's important. A very small fraction of people actually see the drawings, while everyone can see the building.

Fine, let's all break out the crayons and toilet rolls 'cause no one really cares.

It would be soooo much easier to archive hard copies on toilet rolls as well, just draw on it and roll it up. And after the building's lifecycle is complete, and it gets demolished, THE TOILET ROLLS HAVE A SECOND USE !!!

pure genius...

[Gadget Man]

Fine, let's all break out the crayons and toilet rolls 'cause no one really cares.

It would be soooo much easier to archive hard copies on toilet rolls as well, just draw on it and roll it up. And after the building's lifecycle is complete, and it gets demolished, THE TOILET ROLLS HAVE A SECOND USE !!!

pure genius...

My architecture teacher said once: "it doesn't matter with what you draw your drawings. It could be a blood on a parchment or a tar on a concrete, as long as they are accurate, readable and correct. As long as they can be used to correctly build the structure from."

This is the most important, not if the views are aligned or not...

I couldn't agree more...

[iankids]

IMO (and just my opinion....not the voice of Autodesk here.....), the "Brand" should be the building that is produced, not the drawings that were used to produce it. As long as the CD's are clear and concise, coordinated, mistake-free, and can get the job built, that's what's important. A very small fraction of people actually see the drawings, while everyone can see the building.

Scott,

Totally agree with this view. Our drawings are and have never been an end in themselves. It is the building which is constructed from them which is ultimately the only thing that matters.

Should our drawings be easily understood and logically presented?- not a shadow of a doubt. Does it matter to the contractor if a view is slightly displaced on one drawing to another? - not one iota.

Should Autodesk improve the way we align views on sheets? Maybe. But not before fixing up and improving the numerous other long sort for items on the wish list. (A cut tool for roofs and floors which can work in phases - better stair creation - etc etc)


Cheers,


Ian

[dfriesen]

Typos on a drawing set will (usually) not prevent the building from getting built, but they will instill a bit of mistrust. I see a drawing set where plans are laid out helter-skelter in the same way. They may not affect the final building, but they make the architect look just a little bit sloppy, and make you wonder where else they're sloppy.

As it is, eyeballing to guidelines in my titleblock gets it close enough, but being able to snap to elements in views would be a big help. The test I use is flipping through a multipage pdf, and if the plans don't jump around, I'm happy.

[Wes Macaulay]

Idiotic tip o' the day: I draw a detail line from the lower left corner of the title block to the intersection of some grids using the "eyeball snap" to the intersection of the gridlines :mrgreen: (so I'm drawing this in paper space, if you will)

I nudge the viewport into place -- done. Cut the detail line > paste aligned on the next sheet. Select the viewport, nudge, done. Repeat. Etc.

They look aligned, and no programmers get hurt in the process, or distracted from whatever important task they're doing. Everyone is happy, because hey, Revit is amazing.

You can flip through the PDFs at high speed and they are all spot-on.

[sumedha2512]

I agree with Jeffh...the Autodesk site does have a tutorial on how to make layout alignment grids on its titleblocks....the only thing is that you have to add the visibility parameter onto it,so that you have the option of switching off the grid during printing...

[twiceroadsfool]

Idiotic tip o' the day: I draw a detail line from the lower left corner of the title block to the intersection of some grids using the "eyeball snap" to the intersection of the gridlines :mrgreen: (so I'm drawing this in paper space, if you will)

I nudge the viewport into place -- done. Cut the detail line > paste aligned on the next sheet. Select the viewport, nudge, done. Repeat. Etc.

They look aligned, and no programmers get hurt in the process, or distracted from whatever important task they're doing. Everyone is happy, because hey, Revit is amazing.

You can flip through the PDFs at high speed and they are all spot-on.

Exactly my point. I reference plane / line up / eyeball snap/nudge, and you can rail through the entire multi page PDF and NEVER NOTICE. Unless you (literally) get out a micrometer, LOL.

[sthedens]

Idiotic tip o' the day: I draw a detail line from the lower left corner of the title block to the intersection of some grids using the "eyeball snap" to the intersection of the gridlines :mrgreen: (so I'm drawing this in paper space, if you will)

I nudge the viewport into place -- done. Cut the detail line > paste aligned on the next sheet. Select the viewport, nudge, done. Repeat. Etc.

They look aligned, and no programmers get hurt in the process, or distracted from whatever important task they're doing. Everyone is happy, because hey, Revit is amazing.

You can flip through the PDFs at high speed and they are all spot-on.

Or have some simple automation so I don't have to paste a line, nudge, nudge, delete a line on every plan sheet...

Consistanly layed out sheets makes for a more readable set of documents.

[twiceroadsfool]

Or have some simple automation so I don't have to paste a line, nudge, nudge, delete a line on every plan sheet...

Consistanly layed out sheets makes for a more readable set of documents.

My documents are consistantly laid out, and very readable. Never had a single complaint from the field, but i HAVE had plenty of compliments.

Im yet to hear how you actually want this tool to work.Even the group that wants to snap to objects IN the view port. So were okay with having to manually move the views around on every sheet, as long as we can snap to something... But were not okay with it because we cant snap to anything?

So what im hearing is were okay with:

Drag view from browser: Click on sheet: Select VP: Move command: Snap to Wall Object: Snap to point in Titleblock.

But were not okay with:

Drag view from browser: Click on sheet: Select VP: Move command: Hover over Wall Object (no direct snap): Snap to point in Titleblock.

What we really want is:

Drag view from browser: Click on sheet: Get prompted by a window asking if wed like this sheet to align with other views on other sheets: Select yes: Ill assume it simply cant prompt you for the first view of a certain type. Get prompted by another window with a list of views on certain sheets that are the same scale (Would it be a "view" list, or an "alignment" list, like a scope box?: Click a view (Note: Only views of the same phase? Or all phases?: Get prompted somehow (or not, and have a mess of a drawing set) if i select a view that contains an entirely different part of the model (or perhaps it respects the same origin system and throws the view off the page... Or is it just respecting the first one in the chain as "it is what it is": and then: When someone grabs one of the views on a sheet and clicks move/nudge, get prompted: "You are moving a view that has other views constrained to its orientation, what would you like to do: "Move other views" (yikes) / "Remove constraints" (irritation) / "Cancel" (why didnt it do anything?). Or better yet... CAN they move? And the view title, is that still free floating as it is now, seperately? Or do we also mandate that they be placed identically on the varying sheets? When a view gets deleted, does it ask anything or just break the association? What about when a views crop region is altered, and it no longer respects the view relationship? Or is a crop region also mandated by the alignment, ala the days of literally copying and pasting the Vports in AutoCAD? How will worksharing react to such a thing? (I suppose thats less of a question. When someone checks out a "view alignment" they will basically be checking out "all view alignments," otherwise im not sure how it would work.

By the way, as hard as this is to believe, i am NOT writing the above paragraph to be obnoxious. I am GENUINELY curious how it would work. I understand that its NOT OUR JOB to figure out how it would work, but im asking the question because it SHOULD BE our job to know WHAT WE WANT. The above paragraph is not meant to turn us in to software programmers, its to figure out quite literally: What is it we want? Well, we want our views aligned on the sheets. Okay... But what DRIVES that alignment?

Honestly folks, we need to take a step back. Asking development for things, and not knowing WHAT WE WANT is how we get half baked tools. If we demand this tool, and dont think about how it affects us as Architects who USE it, were going to end up with the Copy half of Copy Monitor: A good tool with Great potential and Fantastic implications, but that no one can use efficiently because its a federal disaster area. :)

That said: If youre willing to take the challenge, im literally opened to picking a neutral third party on the forums, and ill pay out of pocket to fed ex drawings. I want to see if they can even tell theyre not perfectly aligned. I completely sympathize with your argument of "it doesnt matter, i want to be able to do it anyway," as ive heard it on various fronts over various issues in Revit. Some of the issues, i would argue are worth fighting for. This one MIGHt be as well.... IF we know WHAT were fighting for.

[STHRevit]

So, we definately have two camps on this thread, those for and those who don't really see a need. I get that. I do accept that lining views with a reference plane or grid in the title block does work, I use this method also and have had good results.

Saying that though, how hard would it be to write a script for Revit to be able to align the grids from sheet to sheet?(coming from a person who has no programming knowledge or experience :) )

I don't do resitential construction, so all of my projects will have a grid on the floor plans, ceiling plans, elevations and sections so it would make sense that Revit can auto align the grid from ground floor on sheet A1.01 to the first floor on sheet A1.02 and so on.

I am not saying that it is a deal breaker and there are ways to deal with it, but imagine the time you could save by dragging the view onto a sheet and it automatically lines up with the floor plan on the previous sheet, no moving nudging, ref planes etc etc.
OK maybe not much time saved on one sheet, but when you are dealing with 30,40 50 sheets of plans, it all adds up.

After all, isn't time saving and removing repetative tasks a aprt of using Revit.

just MHO.

[Steve_Stafford]

One Example - Two elevations on a sheet view, North and South. Grids can't line up because we are looking at the opposite sides of the building. That makes sense, doesn't bother me. However the Level annotation on the right hand side of each view does not line up with each other. We have to position the views, then activate the viewport adjust the levels, deactivate the viewport and repeat until "close enough".

Using a line on the sheet as a gauge for alignment is still "close enough" because that line can't snap to the level annotation in either view. When we are adjusting the levels in the activated viewport they can't snap to the line in the sheet either. It isn't as much about snapping to each other. It just isn't efficient to go back and forth to get it close. If these elements could "see" each other somehow then it would be much easier to use the Align tool perhaps. I'm not asking for unilateral snapping, aligning.

All a QA analyst really has to do, to get a sense of this request for some finesse, is try to put together a neat set of drawings of oh, say...four hundred sheets with more than 50 dedicated to details, enlarged sections and such. If you have four details stacked above each other on a sheet they will line up nicely if they share a common grid line. Even if they do line up the other annotation in each view is "oblivious" to the other view's annotation. Try to get 15-20 text notes or tags to align neatly with the other views. A detail grid symbol in a drafting view that has some guide lines for where the text should go and where the "model" or detail items should go will help a bit...but it still too fiddly.

Now put several people on the task of doing details as commonly happens...chaos can ensue. Too late to do much about it, times up... All the strict rules, training, conscientious work you'll still get "messy". It takes too much "effort" to be neat. I'm not asking for the precision of snapping or aligning, I'm after efficiency...better product, less effort. Just giving up on order and neat because it is a pain in the butt to get there isn't a real good answer either.

Last...I've been selling the same line that is echoing in this thread, "close enough will get the building built" too. I actually agree with it to a point. At three years I accepted it. At five years I accepted it. While RST and RME were born and starting to walk I accepted it. Revit is old enough now to start getting some distinguished features, a little refinement, a little finesse...a little bit more. Do I care about this concept more than better railing tools? NO!!!!!! Do I care about this more than better integration between trades? NO!

I do think it is time to stop selling them ambivalence about "lesser" concerns...it's co-dependency. :smile:

[Gadget Man]

My proposed solution: why can't we have a "paper space" (sheet view) align tool which would see the objects inside the viewports and align whole viewports based on our choice (picking of elements we want to align together).

Also, when you are placing keynotes they already snap-align to other keynotes. Why my "sheet view" align tool can't see these snap lines too?

[twiceroadsfool]

Last...I've been selling the same line that is echoing in this thread, "close enough will get the building built" too. I actually agree with it to a point. At three years I accepted it. At five years I accepted it. While RST and RME were born and starting to walk I accepted it. Revit is old enough now to start getting some distinguished features, a little refinement, a little finesse...a little bit more. Do I care about this concept more than better railing tools? NO!!!!!! Do I care about this more than better integration between trades? NO!

I do think it is time to stop selling them ambivalence about "lesser" concerns...it's co-dependency. :smile:

Im not selling ambivalence. That paragraph above, id really like your opinion on. Its not that its a lesser concern: Its that were all agreeing we want more finesse, but none of us can say how. Is that enough, that it just let us snap to anything and everything? Both through the viewport and on the paper? Thats all we want?

Someone else mentioned "lining up all the grids automatically." Well, it already lets them snap, and if it does it AUTOMATICALLY, what happens when buildings are broken up in to pieces?

Im *NOT* selling ambivalence, and i know it wasnt a comment made to incite a riot. But my point is... id be COMPLETELY in favor of the tool, if i thought there was a way it could work and not be a total pain in the arse. So far, no one has a way thats going to make a majority happy, so its sort of like were peeing in to the wind? :)

[Steve_Stafford]

That's the beauty of it, I don't have to tell them how it has to work. I just have to tell them what the problem is, what I don't like and what I would like to be able to do. If I (we) just describe the problem clearly enough they can offer some ideas. I posted my original wish (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=310&highlight=align+views+sheets) for this on May 25, 2003, yes more than SIX years ago. It is old enough that it wasn't even posted here at AUGI...it was while this forum was part of Chris Zoog's forum Zoogdesign, about a month after he turned on the server in the basement and fired up the bulletin board.

The topic keeps popping back up over the years. I created a video (http://www.screencast.com/t/MzE3N2YyMmEt) for a blog post that will go live at 1pm (PST) tomorrow to show what I'm writing about too. That said I don't think they lack understanding or appreciation for the concern, they just haven't put any energy into addressing it yet...for over six years. :sad:

P.S. It is possible to precisely align views from sheet to sheet because each sheet has an origin and the project has a common origin. If you are ready to put on your thinking cap you can check out the CONCEPT (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?p=936272#post936272) that JShaver shared in a thread here at AUGI after reading a blog post (http://revitoped.blogspot.com/2009/01/aligning-views-between-sheets.html) I made in January 2009. It does not however resolve aligning annotation between views when seen on the same sheet.

[tory.puglisi]

This is by far the simplest, most rudimentary and necessary feature which has never managed to make it into Revit.

I won't even say this is a good idea because it is pretty straight forward. For the price you pay for it and for it's apparent target market, I would have thought this was standard.

[cliff collins]

I think Steve has summed it up--

6 years now, and absolutely no hint of a response from the Factory.

The lack of response from the Factory is actually more the issue than the issue itself ( the align views on a sheet thing..)

I'd still rather have my "tilt the wall tool" and better Site Tools, Stairs/Railings,
ability to schedule sweeps in a material take-off, etc. than the "align views on a sheet" tool.

Perhaps RAC 2011 or 2012 will give us a lot more of the longstanding Wishlist items?
LOL......

cheers......

[twiceroadsfool]

There was a conversation on Inside the Factory about "How would this tool work," which makes me ASSume that theyre not ignoring us... But that theyre not entirely sure what to do with the request.

Thats MY interpretation, not theirs, obviously.

I have high hopes for 2011 as well. :)

[wmullett]

I think there are so many other things the factory should be working on than this issue. 6 years - I don't care if it takes 10.

FACTORY - please pay attention to important stuff first. Help us with linked models.... Help us with better schedule tools...There are so many more important issues than this one.

[Steve_Stafford]

Personally...improving linked model integration and interaction is needed, but what we get with each release is really just a band-aid. What is needed is some real innovation that redefines what it means to share a project. How's that for "blue sky"? :Puffy:

[lcamara]

Are you just using reference planes as an "invisible" alternative to drafting lines, or are you able to align them view-to-view like levels?

[twiceroadsfool]

Are you just using reference planes as an "invisible" alternative to drafting lines, or are you able to align them view-to-view like levels?

Lionel, they dont snap like Grids do. We just use them as an approximation, that is invisibile. But theyre also nocer than drafting lines since you dont have to put them in all of the plans, since they have 3d extents in the model...

[rudolfesterhuyse]

Ok, as an example it is extermely annoying when doing a presentation of plans in say powerpoint as the slides changes the plan jumps around on the screen. Same thing with bound documents for sat letting plans of a multistorey building. It looks extremely unproffesional if it changes position on each sheet but trying to get them in the same place on sheets is way too much of a effort! I thought Revit was supposed to be a all in one tool not just a "it will get the building built" tool as seem to be suggested by the repies here. I'd say this is a very high priority

[rudolfesterhuyse]

P.S. It is possible to precisely align views from sheet to sheet because each sheet has an origin and the project has a common origin. If you are ready to put on your thinking cap you can check out the CONCEPT (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?p=936272#post936272) that JShaver shared in a thread here at AUGI after reading a blog post (http://revitoped.blogspot.com/2009/01/aligning-views-between-sheets.html) I made in January 2009. It does not however resolve aligning annotation between views when seen on the same sheet.

Thanks! This should sort out my problem

[neil3d]

I have my first Revit project and this is my first AUGI posting. The project is a seven story medical building that is large enough to do six matchline drawing sheets per floor @ 1/4" scale. I like Revit so far, but now for the dilemma of sheet layout for the floor plans.

Is there a way to set up one floor with the six different sheets and automatically create the remaining floors to match the first set? In other words, I will need 42 sheets total, so does each of the 42 sheets need to be done individually? Gasp!

To make matters worse, I need to also make 42 RCPs, 42 FF&E Plans, 42 Finish Plans, you get the idea? I am on the threshold of insanity unless there is an automated tool for this.

I am coming from an ArchiCAD background which allowed me to copy sheets and swap views at will with full snapping abilities for alignment control, so I would only need to layout out the six original views on six sheets for one floor and be done with the task of copying layouts in a couple of hours.

Can anyone enlighten me before I totally loose it?

[Wes Macaulay]

Hi Neil

You're talking Dependent Views. Right click a view > Duplicate as Dependent. Once you've set up one storey, right click the parent view of that storey and choose "Apply dependent views..." and choose the other floors. Bang. Done. So creating the views can be done in seconds.

As for plopping them onto sheets -- I have a Detail Line I draw from the corner of the sheet and "eyeball snap" to a gridline in the view -- I copy that to other sheets viewing the same area of the building and using the arrow keys nudge the viewports into position.

[j_starko]

I stopped reading this thread on page2, as it seemed like too much theoretical debate.

so at the risk of having missed some crucial detail being debated......


Can't you just have some non printing lines on your title block to align the views too ?

or

if it's only a few sheets and not the whole set , make some sort of template lines ( non printing again) and paste them on to the applicable sheets?

my 0.02$

[neil3d]

Hi Neil

You're talking Dependent Views. Right click a view > Duplicate as Dependent. Once you've set up one storey, right click the parent view of that storey and choose "Apply dependent views..." and choose the other floors. Bang. Done. So creating the views can be done in seconds.

As for plopping them onto sheets -- I have a Detail Line I draw from the corner of the sheet and "eyeball snap" to a gridline in the view -- I copy that to other sheets viewing the same area of the building and using the arrow keys nudge the viewports into position.

Thanks for the "Apply dependent views..." tip, Wes. That IS nice. I can set up the cropping for one set of views for a floor directly on the sheets with Activate View, then apply that command to replicate the views for the other floors and plan types (RCPs), very nice. It doesn't name the dependent views to anything useful in the viewport title, but a big time saver nonetheless.

Although, I guess there is no getting around placing the other views onto new sheets one by one and positioning them by eye and nudging, right?

[DaveP]

Again, this doesn't help with the Sheet setup, but you'll also want to check into Scope Boxes to help with your Zones. Wes' Apply Dependent Views helps a lot when setting things up in the first place.
If you ever need to change your Zones, though Scope Boxes are invaluable.
You create a Scope Box for each Zone and the assign it in the View Properties for each View. The Scope Box does the cropping so you don't have to go change every View's Crop region (Drag, regenerate. Drag, regenerate. Drag, regenerate. Drag, regenerate - OK, done!)

[lcamara]

...
Can't you just have some non printing lines on your title block to align the views too ?

or

if it's only a few sheets and not the whole set , make some sort of template lines ( non printing again) and paste them on to the applicable sheets?

my 0.02$

You can't draw invisible lines on the sheet, unfortunately, but you can make invisible lines in the titleblock, like you mentioned, or put lines that you can turn off with a titleblock property (for detail grid guides, etc.). I've seen & worked with both. The invisible lines are good if you're going to make lines on top of them that will be customized (trimmed, etc.). But if you need to nudge for detail/plan placement (where the lines eventually won't be printed) then visible lines that you can turn off before printing work out better.