Why can't drafting patterns act like model patterns for cuts?

[AP23]

I can't seem to understand the idea behind drafting patterns that don't resize when the scale changes. One of the reason (that has been stated in previous treads) is that for the creation of a consistent set of documents where the reader can recognize the material easily, there is a need for consistent symbolic representation which is why drafting patterns don't resize. However, when you go from a 1:200 scale drawing (where the brick cut drafting pattern has a certain size) to 1:50 scale, the look of the brick cut changes as the pattern lines are much closer and congested. In other cases, the fill pattern will disappears when the scale is to big. So the consistency of symbolic representation disintegrates then. Wouldn't it be better to have the option to be able to chose model patterns for cuts instead of only drafting patterns? And what is the work around besides the graphic overrides?

[rkitect]

I believe the key here lies in this one little difference between the Edit drafting and edit modeling dialogs:

http://content.screencast.com/users/rkitect/folders/Jing/media/6d509300-9410-44ab-9b05-22c7e8d778a3/2010-05-04_0838.png

Because of the annotative [scale] behavior of drafting patterns they are able to align in certain ways, as opposed to model patterns which do not have this option. Too bad the align feature doesn't always work as desired or else this would be in danger of being a good excuse for this issue.

[twiceroadsfool]

I can't seem to understand the idea behind drafting patterns that don't resize when the scale changes.

Seriously? Concrete, CMU, Brick, Precast, and GWB hatch are all reasons to have Drafting patterns that dont scale. Even in AutoCAD now we make all the hatching Annotative so it doesnt scale. I hate having to go through a set of drawings to worry about if a Revit person or a CAD person used the wrong Hatch scale, etc.

Id love to be able to use Model Patterns for cut patterns, yes. But its an entirely different request. Non-scaling Drafting patterns definetely have a place.

[rkitect]

I'm going to have to agree, the last thing I want in a 3"=1' detail is a close up of the concrete aggregates.

[AP23]

If you look at the attachment then you'll see two identical walls with different scale settings. You can barely see the concrete at scale 1:200, while at scale 1:20 the brick pattern is too 'tight".

Another reason for wanting the patterns size to scale is when detailing you don't have to use filll regions. What looks good at 1:100 will be to congested at 1:5.

[rkitect]

The only problem with that image is that it is completely out of context. You're showing a 1:20 wall detail at the same size as a 1:200 wall detail. When will this ever happen, in ANY proper building documentation? There is no reason at all that you would need to see the same amount of detail in a 1:200 drawing that you would need to see at a 1:20 drawing. You may consider using a coarse fill pattern at scales like 1:100 and 1:200 since you're not seeing any detail at those scales to begin with.

In regards to the details, there are more ways than just hatch scale to combat congested documentation. Pattern Weight and Color for instance are great alternatives to decongest a detail without using filled regions all over the place. If anything, the scale of the hatch pattern should be a good indication of whether or not the view scale is proper for what you are trying to show. If the hatch pattern is to small to be read, there's a good chance the scale of the view is inappropriate to function of the view.

I understand how what you propose could be a beneficial tool in documenting projects in Revit, but I've always been a proponent of using the tool correctly before asking for modifications to the tool.

[twiceroadsfool]

If you look at the attachment then you'll see two identical walls with different scale settings. You can barely see the concrete at scale 1:200, while at scale 1:20 the brick pattern is too 'tight".

Another reason for wanting the patterns size to scale is when detailing you don't have to use filll regions. What looks good at 1:100 will be to congested at 1:5.

I couldnt disagree more. If the scale of the view is so coarse that the hatch doesnt represent well at that scale, maybe i shouldnt be hatching the wall layers at that scale. At that scale, im not even sure why you SHOW wall layers, let alone hatch them.

Or (here is where i agree with you) the OPTION of using a Model pattern here would be nice.

But theres no way id want DRAFTING patterns to scale up. When i have a Wall Section at 3/4" = 1'-0", and a Section Detail at 1-1/2" = 1'-0", i want the hatch to be the same density on the sheet... Just with more of it. i dont want them to be different densities at different scale because the view got bigger.

[darbyclarke]

Why not have the option, just as we have with surface patterns? It would save a ton of time to be able to indicate (diagrammatically of course) structural framing members, for instance.