RAC 2010 - What is the easiest way to draw a breakline/matchline symbol?

[designviz]

Is there a way to define a linestyle with a breakline symbol as part of it's definition and to be used for Detail Lines? Anyone already have one, they would be willing to share?

[timothy.bungert]

There is a breakline symbol available out of the box in Revit already. It comes in as a Detail Component. Unless you have changed your library, you should be able to find it at: ...Imperial Library\Detail Components\Div 01-General\Break Line.rfa

The family is built to allow you to change its length and scale in every direction. It also includes a masking region to cover up any detail items that are on the "cut off" side of the break line. That region can also be resized.

[designviz]

Found it thanks. But is Adesk smoking crack? This has got to be the most ridiculous and inflexible item out there. Can't they just create a simple line style for this, or at least add a parameter to control the number of break symbols in the line. I have to manually place a series of these and individually manipulate to get the look I want. Talk about throwing the CAD baby out with the bath water, this certainly highlights. Sorry tim, this is not directed at you, but honestly Adesk this is stupid stupid, couldn't you have taken 5% of the time spent on the new conceptual tools and improved some productivity items like this?

[twiceroadsfool]

If you want it to keep repeating, you can nest that detail component in to a Line Based Detail component in about 45 seconds. Two parameters to make it array within the LBDC, and youre done.

Line Styles dont work the same way in Revit as they do in CAD/Bentley/Your platform here. They can only be series of dashes and spaces, because of the way something in the program is written. So no... You cant create a line style for it, unless its a "line style" in parenthesis, by which i mean a LBDC that isnt a line style at all. Even "dots" in line styles are converted to small dashes.

And FWIW, everyone i know finds the DC Breakline very amenable. Ive seen it as a DC, and as an Annotation symbol to regulate the break symbol to a certain size for office standards. Ive seldom ever heard a complaint about it, lol.

[petervanko]

Designviz: yes, ADesk is a smoking crack...but the premise exceeds the basic abilities of a linetype...

As you probably noticed, the breakline is nothing more than a filled region--intended for masking model or drafting information, but when imported it comes in very small. Here's what I did: made (3) types within the OTB breakline--small, medium, and large. This then avoids having to push/pull edit handles all day, or copying/pasting from drawing to drawing in order to get consistent breakline sizes.

[twiceroadsfool]

Or, as i mentioned... Make it an Annotation Symbol instead of a detail component. Then it holds its size on the SHEET, and not its size in the model.

Caveats of that method are: You cant get instanced parameter pull tabs in an Annot Symbol, so you would have to go to properties and type in a width value. But then it could still repeat with an internal array.

[designviz]

Granted, but everyone who wants to do this has to spend that 45 seconds doing this. I just feel this level of customization of the application should not be necessary. I feel however the code is written, perhaps it should be rewritten slightly.

[petervanko]

Well, yes and no. Inherently it works, but you have to be smarter than the OTB symbol.

Using an annotation symbol is a great idea until you have a custom situation; you could use parameters as suggested to control length.

I still advocate several sizes/types within the breakline family. If someone was really anal, they would make one for every architectural scale. For my drawings, though, and likely the majority of firms out there--a small, medium and large version suffices.

[twiceroadsfool]

You dont have to make one for every scale if its a symbol, and then your drawings are more consistant since every breakline is the same size. People arent pulling the break symbol a hair this way and a hair that way... And it can still be adjustable to stretch custom situations, JUST like the original.. It just wont have pull tabs, so you go in the porperties to do it.

As for rewriting the code... Meh. I wouldnt mind Line Styles being able to be something other than dashes and spaces, but i still dont think this is one incident that id use it.

[petervanko]

...if it is an Annotation Symbol, then of course there is "no resizing".
If you use the Detail Component breakline, then there IS resizing required for every drawing scale...

[twiceroadsfool]

...if it is an Annotation Symbol, then of course there is "no resizing".
If you use the Detail Component breakline, then there IS resizing required for every drawing scale...

Im not misunderstanding that at all. Basically the thread is discussing that John has two options:

1. Copy them all up and down the sides of his drawing.
2. Make a new component, or modify the OOTB one.

If we all agree Item 1 isnt his ideal scenario, then considering option 2: Making it an Annotation Symbol resolves the multiple size issues.

FWIW, im saying number 1 isnt YOUR ideal scenario, but in several offices ive been in the OOTB breakline has had virtually no complaints. Actually, im sure plenty of offices do it, but truth be told this is the first time iv ever heard of someone wanting to repeat it up the side of a drawing. Im not knocking the concept or the workflow, just again reiterating what we discussed in the email chat a few weeks back: It may seem outlandish to you, to have to spend that 45 seconds remaking the family... But im not sure all that many people are even doing it.

The few complaints that i HAVE seen generated by the DC version (in the offices ive been in), were all complaints by either A: Me, or B: Project Management, that the break line zig-zags were all different sizes and inconsistant. Which lends itself even MORE to making it an Annotation Symbol, which is what im trying to push at my current establishment. Its a little more cumbersome to use, but with reason.

And to expand on your other comment (John), i dont DISAGREE that "this level of customization" would be nice OOTB, but (and this is SOLELY SOLELY SOLELY my personal opinion): This is how Revit implementation went for ME personally:

1. First time i did it... As much OOTB as i could. Door families OOTB, Casewoek families, detail components, etc. Basically, we modified the titleblocks to suit the office, and away we went. We let OOTB Revit drive. It went fine, some things we didnt like, but tough noogie.

2. Second time i did it... After regrouping from item 1, realized no decent system of organization was in place. the OOTB library wasnt bad, but the organization was a NIGHTMARE. (Legend component dropdown is by CATAGORY, then alphabetical... Component tool is JUST alphabetical. And OOTB Imperial Library (at that time) had no standard system of naming). On top of that, there were ARCHITECTURAL issues with scheduling things, like doors. And the doors. I need a HM door with a vision panel. Save as. Now i need a Double door with Visions. Save as AGAIN. now i need to change the vision panels. Open BOTH, edit, save, reload. WTF.

But on the second trip, i came up with standardized naming conventions, built a few families to replace the most used Library ones, still ran with OOTB drafting patterns, casework, so on and so forth.

It went well, but there was still stuff that wasnt quite as clean as id like. Project to project still wasnt as standardized, etc. Sorry, this is a VERY long post).

3. Third time around, i took the time to do it right. (Disclaimer: I mean right for ME. Im not saying its the only way). I used as many OOTB components, Detail Components, and Symbols as i could... AS STARTING POINTS. But nothing survived that didnt get tweaked. Yes, i understand how absurd that sounds. But i tell you something, it was entirely worth it in the end. The cabinets were all edited to accomodate office standards for varying reasons. Doors were ALL entirely discarded and rebuilt, with nested families and the appropriate scheduling Shared Parameters. Windows: rebuilt from scratch. Specialty Equipment: All severly edited for scheduling purposes. Furniture: all discarded and rebuilt. Drafting/Model Patterns and symbology for all items were edited to match a standard, and on and on and on.

Point being? Maybe that 45 seconds seems outlandish to tweak this one family, but in my VERY humble and discardable opinion, its 45 seconds i was going to spend in that family ANYWAY, while i get it ready for the office.

And truth be told, this isnt just a Revit thing. In our office we just went through to retool the AutoCAD standards, and the Civil 3D standards, and its the same thing. You can *install it OOTB* and run.... But IMHO its not ready for full time production use installed that way, or with those standards.

Now, im not writing all this to jump on you... Lord knows ive given criticism to the Factory about the OOTB content AND standardization (and i WILL give credit where its due, they have been VERY receptive, and communicative to those criticisms)... But (while i am sure we will agree to disagree once again, no hard feelings <smile>) this just seems like one of those times where they gave us a shoot-from-the-hip-and-it-is-useable tool. but they didnt have a prayer of making every office in the world happy with it.

[designviz]

Wow, that sure is a mouthful, and appreciate you taking the time to voice it all. There are no hard feeling here :) I understand what you are saying and essentially have found myself more or less following your evolution of working with the application. I do agree that an annotation symbol approach seems to make more sense to deal with the scaling issues, and will probably investigate that option further.

Your explaination of your process illustrates well the reality that this app is no different than the others out there in this respect, that is they all have their share of quirks and nuances and cases where you ask yourself, "what they heck were they thinking." It is helpful to have a forum like this to where a particular issue falls and assisting in evolving ones knowledge of the app. Sometimes, I just want evolve quicker, and avoid some steps :) In many cases via other posts you and others have helped myself and I am sure others achieve that, but sometimes, evolution is something we all just need to muddle through :)

In this particular case you have argued well for this being a quirk/nuance, although I still feel it is more the latter, but you equally illustrated the reality that any regard, it is what is in this version, so deal with it and then take up with Factory.

With regard to "taking it up with the Factory," what exactly does that mean? How does someone establish a dialogue with someone at the Factory regarding some enhancement or change they would like to see implemented? Is this the same as Autodesk Labs, http://labs.autodesk.com/? or Inside the Factory blog, http://insidethefactory.typepad.com/my_weblog/? or somewhere else altogether?

[cliff collins]

This Forum is one place that can actually get an item noticed by the Factory,
as there are Adesk employees who monitor and use the Forums.

The Wishlist on this Forum is arguably the "preferred" way to post something you would like to see added to the software on this Forum.

Other than that, becoming a Beta tester is about the only other way I know of
to get a more direct contact with programmers. Try this link:
https://beta.autodesk.com/

cheers........

[twiceroadsfool]

Ive found both this forum, the Wishlist and through Support Requests, that the factory is fairly easy to communicate. And while its slow turning around a big ship, i know several people who have seen direct action when appropriate time was taken to articulate why things dont work.

*disclaimer- Im not saying the item that was the topic of THIS conversation doesnt work. I honestly believe theyve given us the tools and the options best capable of satisfying everyone.... Short of just building 250 different Breakline combinations of Annotation Symbols and detail components. And id cry if they spent the time to do that. I want new railing tools first, LOL.

Having said that, they (the Factory) obviously dont hang out here all day. (BTW- another disclaimer: I am in nooooooo way speaking for or with any actual knowledge of what they do. I have nothing to do with them, whatsoever. Im only speaking from my personal experience). When they do hang out here, what are they reading? If were saying:

1. This tool sucks, what the heck are you thinking. I want to use XXX tool to perform YYY manuever."

What can they do? XXX tool might not be possible. Or it might be a major performance killer. Some things in revit arent intuitive, and some things just arent what wed expect. If its the former, MAYBE theres room to change it, maybe there isnt. If its the latter... It doesnt mean they got it right. But it doesnt mean they got it wrong, either.

7 Buildings done as Linked files moves slow. 7 building in 1 file moves REALLY slow. We complain that we cant tag walls in linked files. We get By Linked View, and tag IN Linked Files. We complain thats not "what we want." Thats an example that (just my crummy opinion) i dont think were justified. We have a tool, it works (and pretty well, when youre used to it) and its not a performance disaster. If tagging stuff through a linked file means the performance is closer to what happens when people make one gigantic model.... No way in heck i want to deal with that, OR the management nightmare that goes with it. My point is: We then give the Factory the "yeah but...". It goes like this: "Yeah, but thats not what i wanted it to do." At the end of the day, its not productive.

2. If we say: "This tool sucks, but heres WHY. (And why doesnt mean "because thats how ive always done it. As someone in Revit implementation, that is the dumbest answer i ever hear). This tool sucks, heres why, AND heres how its affecting my workflow. It means i know have to do ZZZ and AAA after YYY bcause XXX doesnt do what i think it should. Furthering that, ZZZ and AAA cost us more money because of CCC that comes in to play, all BECAUSE of tool XXX being a kludge."

Ill stop typing. Its just my opinion. And of course there are no hard feelings, lol. I just think all of us (me and you both included) have an inclination to "want to initiate change," whenever its not what we expect, even if its not always warranted. But it is what it is.

FWIW i love the breakline as an annotation symbol, but its driving the users nuts that they cant stretchy pull the ends.

THAT ill fight for: Line based Annotation Symbols, and Pull tab instance parameters on annotation symbols.

[designviz]

Thanks Cliff. I have tried the Wish List route and though initially got feedback on it, it seems to have vaporized into the ethers, and can't figure out how to track it back. Either I have missed some part of the process or this is just not as fluid as people seem to make it out to be, or both :)

On occassion I have also been directed to these, the Revit Architecture Customer Council (http://www.revitcc.com/), Development Feedback (http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=1109794) and AutodeskCares@Autodesk.com (mailto:AutodeskCares@Autodesk.com). Does anyone have experience with any of these methods and there usefulness over any of the others previously mentioned?

[twiceroadsfool]

I use the email address religiously, as well as the Feedback form. Ive gotten constructive commentary back from both in the past. And i get a zillion read receipts everytime i ping AutodeskCares... So whether they act or not, a whole bunch of poor souls have to listen to me whine when i hit that email address, hahahahaha..... :)

[designviz]

Aaron. Understood, and you examples are spot on, I particularlly like the XXX, YYY, ZZZ, AAA, and CCC, not sure what happened with BBB :)

I agree that priority is key, and that for instance new railing tools would certainly be more imporatant. Like being able to define the railing path in 3D. I am sorry but 2D paths just don't cut it. But I digress.

OK, I hope perhaps this is one of those days and times when someone from Adesk its Labs, Factory or indvidual developers are watching, and will chime in and speak for themselves :) ...

Although, I understand the priority thing, I just want to be assured that if I make a recommendation that 1) whether I am a one man shop or have 2000+ users distributed among 10+ offices, and 2) no matter how mundane or how many people it does or does not effect, that my recommendation has been cataloged somewhere so 1) any developer at Autodesk has the ability to review it and either dialogue further with me or push it up through the chain of command to get it implemented, 2) I as a submitter can track it, and 3) any user can see all the requests that have been submitted and endorse or refute the need. This is sort of there for the Wish List, but I still feel those that don't make the top 10 constatly get lost unless someone continually resubmits them. Thus resulting in comments like "yeah we have asked for that for years."

Right now I have not gotten a comfort level in knowing whether a particular recommendation has been deep sixed, being laughed at and mocked, or actually gotten some developer to scratch their chin and thought, what a novel idea. In a way there seems to be to many places to go, (Wish List, AutodeskCares, Development Feedback, Forums, etc.) and thus no single repoisitry for the developers and users to look at, resulting in most likely multiple duplications, confusion and conflicting opinions on the part of all involved.

I am not asking for much really, :) The forums themselves are great for getting help, and for airing out certain thoughts and ideas. However, when they eventually boil down to the conclusion "sorry that's just the way it is" and that does not suffice for someone (BTW it really does suffice regarding my original post :) ) , then there should be a single reliable place for users to go to request a change! In essence a Change Request form process that works just like the Support Request form process but is strictly for product enhancements and improvements and which is officially tracked by Autodesk and its developers. Furthermore, it would be these and only these requests that would be voted on and be added to the Wish Lists. All the while I as a submitter always have a number I can refer back to and Adesk can add the list of such requests that were actually addressed in each version of the app, and I as a user could look at that list jot down the number (or perhaps Adesk could provide a direct link) and go online and look that number up and get all the background to what the original request was, any subsequent discussion between submitter and developers and possibly other users, etc. etc., etc.

[designviz]

If it's good enough for you, it is good enough for me :)

Thanks.

[twiceroadsfool]

I believe the Wish List was started to be exactly what you have described. The other methods- however fruitful they may be- dont offer options for *tracking* as you say... So if thats what youre after id go with the Wish List.

Also important to realize (and someone can correct me if i have the number of releases wrong...) that the Wish List is 2 releases behind, or something. Because of the time necessary for development, the "wishlist" is basically for Revit 2012. But i may have that off by a year, give or take.

As for "size of firm and influence/advising over the Factory," im afraid i certainly cant speak intelligently, but ive never been in an office of more than 40 users, and most of my time has been in offices of less than 30 revit users. Ive never felt the process was slighted against smaller offices, but i know i may be alone in that thought, based on a lot of things i read here. :)

[designviz]

OK, then I will continue to push the Wish List side and figure out what happened to my particular request and make sure I fully understand the process and how to keep track of items

Thanks for the clarification that the Wish List itself may be a bit further behind than we as users or Adesk would like it to be.Hopefully now that the new interface and Conceptual Modeling tools are behind us a bit they can focus back on some items that are already there and improving them, like the railings you mentioned and other productivity and workflow items.