Slope indication in elevation

[ron.sanpedro]

I have the plan representation down, showing a nice 3.5:12. Of course I want 3 1/2:12 but close is all you get in Revit. ;) But in elevation I get the same options, which are really only appropriate in plan. No option to show the triangle, which is the appropriate graphic in elevation, and yet the !@%#$ icon is the triangle, so at least the icon maker knows what these symbols are supposed to look like.
Anyway, am I missing something or is this another "that's just the way Revit works, get over it cause graphic standards are less important than "BiM" & autodesk's %!$#^ bottom line?"

Gordon

[twiceroadsfool]

Mine shows the correct graphical triangle, the way ive alwyas shown it in Architecture, and it does it automatically in a BIM way. Mine even shows the 3 1/2" the way i want it.

I was about to jump in and explain to you that your Spot Slope annotation is probably set wrong (operator error, not Autodesk error), but then i realized you just wanted to come be cranky about Autodesk and complain, so i wont bother. :)

Good luck!

[ron.sanpedro]

Mine shows the correct graphical triangle, the way ive alwyas shown it in Architecture, and it does it automatically in a BIM way. Mine even shows the 3 1/2" the way i want it.

I was about to jump in and explain to you that your Spot Slope annotation is probably set wrong (operator error, not Autodesk error), but then i realized you just wanted to come be cranky about Autodesk and complain, so i wont bother. :)

Good luck!

Was gonna ask what settings you used, as all I was getting for format was the same options as for the arrow. Then discovered that there is a drop down to choose arrow or triangle at insert, but you still need two types because the size is set in the type, and a size that is right in plan as an arrow is stupid huge as a triangle, while the size that is right in elevation as a triangle is too small in plan as an arrow. So I need two types, as different sizes, and then have to use the right arrow or triangle option. Still a lousy interface, I should set the arrow or triangle in the type. Oh well, you forced me to look harder, and the result works even if the process/interface is sub par. Can't expect better of a windows app anyway. ;)

Thanks!
Gordon

And I still think the lack of a fractional inches AND ratio option is just retarded. Two slashes, as in
3 1/2" / 12" is confusing, and decimals seem to give Americans fits so 3.5:12 isn't ideal. What we want is 3 1/2:12. So easy, so totally not an option. Stupid. As is the lack of text in line with the arrow, rather than above. I tried a negative text offset, no dice. Maybe there is a trick there I am missing. I admit I have reached the point where I just assume they didn't get it right.

[twiceroadsfool]

I dont know what sizes youre using, but ive got one type, and it looks great everywhere. No need for 2 types, and no need for different sizes. unless you demand some astronomically huge weird stuff in your plans.

And no freakin way should you set it in the type, then i WOULD have to have two types. And why do i want that, when it works fine with one?

Flipping one parameter is better than managing two types, and having to go through the type selector every time.

But, uh, good luck with that. :)

[ron.sanpedro]

We commonly have slopes like 3 1/2" to 12", and as you can see, the arrow at 1/4" is too short, while the triangle is just right (closer to the roof) and at 1" the arrow is just right, but the triangle looks stupid. If we never had anything with fractions we could probably get away with 1/2" for both, but that isn't an option for us. And then I also need one that shows just the slope, with no data, because for flat roofs with sloped insulation we just want to show slope direction because the actual slope is called out in a note or the specs. But I personally want the slope to be derived from the model, not just a blank text with leader pointing willy nilly as so many people do now. But to do that I need a third type that uses a blank font, because there isn't a graphics only option either. But when a consultant doesn't have that font, the slope arrow shows with the replacement font I believe, which is it's own problem.
In the end, we are our own worst enemies, because you ask 100 architects a question and you get 110 answers back. At the same time, I don't want our stuff looking just like everyone else, because most of what I see isn't that good. But instead we all get autodesk's lowest common denominator solutions, which work well for some, but utterly fail for others.

Gordon

[twiceroadsfool]

I love that youre still blaming Autodesk for your problems, it cracks me up.

What i guess it comes down to is personal preference. I think the two symbols you like the best are sloppy. The section one looks too crammed, and the plan one looks too long. Extra leader line isnt telling any story. The arrowhead is. And having the triangle that small just looks forced.

Ours are both set to 1/2", with 3/32" text, and i think they look great. Long enough to tell the story, short enough that they dont eat up unwanted space.

As for tapered insulation.... if i ever find someone here using a text style with blank font in it, its grounds for a meeting with management. Thats the nastiest possible solution ever. And its slow. Just make a freakin annotation symbol of an arrow, it takes thirty seconds. Then use that for tapering insulation slope, if youre heck bent on not showing the slope. We just show the actual slope. I mean, yeah, its covered in the spec, but im pretty sure its also mentioned somewhere that its supposed to slope a particular way too, LOL. As for wanting it derived from the model.... So do i: So it can report the actual slope. If its not doing that, whats the difference? Its just an arrow on the page at that point.

Ive seen PDF plotters replace fonts, PDF readers substitute them and export to DWG unravels that game. Consultants missing the font is just the start of it, and so on and so forth. Plus, even letting that garbage in your file just promotes the use of it for other things.

[tropitech]

But instead we all get autodesk's lowest common denominator solutions, which work well for some, but utterly fail for others.

Gordon

with all respect Gordon, nobody has a gun to your head. the people i know who dislike revit (for whatever reason) do not use it. Same with my apple-aholic acquaintences, they won't and don't use windows. I totally understand your frustration, but aggressive attitudes just **** people off.