Matchlines

[tim.101799]

I have run into a small issue with matchlines and was hoping some of you might have a work around for my problem. I searched the forum but couldn’t find anything that helped.

I am working on a fairly large building that we have to break up into 3 sections in order to fit at 1/8th scale on a 30”x42” sheet. The overall floor plan will fit on a 30x42 sheet at 1/16th scale.

•I have a 1/8th scale overall floor plan broken up into (3) dependant views with matchlines.
•The (3) dependant views are placed on sheets and the matchlines work great in these 1/8th scale plans.

My particular problem is how do I get the match line view references to appear on my overall 16th scale floor plan that is placed on a drawing sheet? The view reference appear on my 1/8th overall plan, the parent view of my (3) 1/8th scale dependant views. But this view is too large to place on a sheet. It seems like there is some missing functionality in match lines. Whats the point of them if they can only work in an overall floor plan that is too large to fit on a drawing sheet. The reason I need to use matchlines in the first place is that my floor plan is too large to fit on a sheet, but I also need to show an overall floor plan. Do I just fake them on the overall plan?

[wmullett]

Match lines... are match lines - they point from one partial view to another partial view. If you want to callout a larger "partial" view from a smaller overall view, use callout's. BTW, the callout can reference the matchlined view. - just "reference other view"

[rkitect]

Why do you need an overall that shows the matchlines? I've never seen documentation like this. Matchlines are meant to show the reader "Hey, in order to see what happens in the rest of the space, go here."

If you really need a callout showing where those segments of the spaces can be found, then wmullet is right on track. Use the callout tool to create callouts and "Reference view" option to point to the dependent views on the sheets.

[narlee]

I'm just a lowly residential designer :), but Tim's inquiry seems logical. You first look at the overall with referenced sheets.

[rkitect]

But again, match lines are not view callouts. They merely allow the viewer to align broken plans; ie: this plan stops here (should be some overlap), the next plan (which is called out on the partial plan) starts here (with a reference to that view location in the CDs).

There's no need to document from the overall to the segments, but instead where the segments are in relation to the whole. This is what key plans are for. However, if you want to clutter the floor plan even more you can place callouts to reference the specific segments of the building to each dependent view on a sheet. You can even create a new callout type that looks like matchlines and place those (would probably work better as a section type).

Please see: http://www.buildingsmartalliance.org/index.php/ncs/faq/ for NCS suggestions regarding plans too large for a sheet (number 3 under sheet organization). Note that there is no requirement according to NCS to call out these smaller plans on the overall but an allowance to do so "if needed." In which case you would use callouts.

[narlee]

"This is what key plans are for."

Right. I guess I misunderstood.

[ron.sanpedro]

I have to disagree. We commonly do "sector plans", with the usual graphics, and then reference them from an "overall plan" as well. The reference is the same match line, with the reference to the views on both sides of the match line. Sometimes it is just two plans, but sometimes we have four quadrants or even more. Yes, the key plan locates the current plan within the overall plan, but it doesn't direct you to the actual sector plan sheet. You need an overall plan with multiple references for that. Also we put overall dimensions here, which are not possible in a little key plan (usually a tiny diagram in the title block), and meaningless in a sector plan. Only an overall plan makes sense for this stuff.
We also often use the overall plan to identify departments or the like. For example, in a school, the library may be part of two sectors, the middle school share parts of three sectors, while the kindergarden is only in one. An overall plan that helps locate those things is helpful. Life safety plans could work for that, but they are already full of other info, and should really contain nothing the code official doesn't need.
As for NCS, just because something isn't specifically mentioned doesn't mean it shouldn't ever be done. I don't think NCS mentions 3d details, or 3d axons of stairs. But we certainly find them useful to include. And contractors love them.
So in the end, it sure would be nice if Revit understood a less simplistic view of what a set can or should be. The real world needs of users are just too complex and varied.

Gordon

[Alfredo Medina]

I agree with Gordon. In overall plans at 1/16" the match lines are shown, too. Works like an index page before you go to the 1/8" plans.

I found something strange in this issue about the match lines. For example, I have a view such as "Floor Plan Level 1 at 1/8", and I draw some match lines. Then I create 3 dependent or "child" views, such as Level 1 Sector A, Level 1 Sector B, Level 1 Sector C. Since these views are dependent, they inherit the scale from the Floor Plan Level 1 view. But, how come, changing the scale of one of the "children" views also changes the scale of the "parent" view? That doesn't make sense to me.

Something's wrong with the hierarchy here. If the parent changes scales, the children change scale. Fine. But a change in the scale in the child view should not change the scale of the parent view. That's why I could not create another child at 1/16" named "Level 1 Overall plan" to show the match-lines and their tags. :(

Also, if I try doing a "Duplicate with detailing" to create the 1/16" view from the 1/8" view that has the match-lines, Revit complains about the match-lines and the view references being already created and tagged, and doesn't let me do that. So I guess the match-lines in the 1/16" should be just typed in with regular text, not linked to the views; not very Revit, though.

[harrisbrett]

Like others have said, I use the matchlines on 1/8" dependant views to show the continuation and callouts for the 1/16" overall plan that reference the dependant views.

[r.grandmaison]

I'm in agreement with Alfredo and Gordon. Construction documents MUST be clear and understandable. Whatever allows for greater understanding should be encouraged so long as it doesn't lead to needless complexity or the potential for internal conflict or bad references.

[ron.sanpedro]

I found something strange in this issue about the match lines.

Alfredo,
I think the issue is that Dependent views are half of the concept, and Autodesk didn't provide the other half. Basically the dependent views ARE the parent view, with the only variance the crop box. So if you change the scale in one of the dependent views, you are changing the scale of the whole "family" or "system" of views, parent and other dependents. They are functionally one and the same.
The part Autodesk didn't understand was the need for a totally separate "Overall" view, with a different scale, different level of detail, different categories on or off, maybe different room tags etc. But with shared match lines and intelligent labels for the "Sector" views, which are derived as Dependent views of, for lack of a better term, a Sector Management view.

Gordon