how to override dimentions

[jwenzeljr]

how do you over ride dementions. if i double click the dinention itself i can replace text with a period and then just place the "fudged dimention" below or above that period.
Is there a better way? easier way of doing this

[D.Williams]

I believe it has been intentionally made to not allow a simple dimension switch. If you want the number to be fudged, why not make it the correct dimension? If you're doing it for multiple scenarios, adding text via the replace with text feature should get you what you're looking for.

[eric.piotrowicz]

how do you over ride dementions. if i double click the dinention itself i can replace text with a period and then just place the "fudged dimention" below or above that period.

Is there a better way? easier way of doing this

DON'T DO THIS EVER!!! The whole point of Revit is that you build a virtual model of the real building not a kludged up version. This is not AutoCAD and its going to cause more problems than anyone thinks it will potentially solve to try to work this way.

[DaveP]

Is there a better way?

Yes.
Don't fudge dimensions!

One of the core principles when Revit was designed was that you MUST be able to trust the annotation. You can only create a Dimension between two real items. Elevations and Sections point to the correct View. Any changes to Sheet Numbers are reflected globally. And, a Dimension accurately reports on the distance between two parallel items.
Fudging (perhaps more accurately referred to as "lying") about a dimension could have all sorts of consequences down the road when the data may be used for analysis, estimating, or other calculations.

To be blunt about it ( I guess I'm feeling feisty lately) if you want to fudge dimensions, use CAD.

[rtaube]

As a side note, I would recommend not drawing your Revit walls by snapping to a CAD underlay. You might dimension two walls and find that Revit says they are 10'-0" apart, but that might just be because your tolerances are set to 1/2" or 1/4". If you snap to an underlay, it could 9'-11 251/256".. multiply this by 20 adjacent rooms and your dimension string won't add up to the overall dimension, same as cad.

Just something annoying I had to deal with, jumping into an existing project last week.

[eric.piotrowicz]

As a side note, I would recommend not drawing your Revit walls by snapping to a CAD underlay. You might dimension two walls and find that Revit says they are 10'-0" apart, but that might just be because your tolerances are set to 1/2" or 1/4". If you snap to an underlay, it could 9'-11 251/256".. multiply this by 20 adjacent rooms and your dimension string won't add up to the overall dimension, same as cad.

Just something annoying I had to deal with, jumping into an existing project last week.

I firmly believe that this is the reason that the tape measure tool and temporary dimensions do not have adjustable tolerance settings. They should be used for modeling and positioning everything 100% accurately and then nobody has to redo a ton of work when they dimension a plan and find those five supposedly 20'-0" rooms yield and overall dimension of something other than 100'-0".

[Scott D Davis]

Is there a better way? easier way of doing this

Yes, fix the model to be the right dimension. Both better and easier.

[sthedens]

Whenever my dimensions don't work out, I just replace one of them with "Field Verify". Yes, that is a joke.

I wholeheartedly agree with everyone else. Model it correctly and the dimensions just fall out.

Granted there are situations where you want one detail for similar but varying conditions, and can override a dimension value with something like "Varies - See Plans".

[cek]

I agree with all the responses not to fudge. That's one AutoCAD habit that needs to stay with AutoCAD.

One strategy to improve your model quality and avoid overall dimensions that are giving you errors (due to fractional values in your dimensional substrings that you are not seeing because of the tolerance settings being to low) is to use high tolerance dimensions during your model construction.

We color code these high tolerance dimensional strings to red and run them at a 1/128" resolution. That way we reduce the chances of overall dimensions drifting and the quality control reviewers can easily identify the red construct dimension strings prior to finalizing the model. This assures a model accuracy higher than can be achieved by field construction.

[Scott Womack]

We have had several instances with the dimensions set to 1/8", or 1/16" where an inner string (to windows and doors) will not add up to exactly the outer string, due to "rounding differences in the strings or eleements. These do not become redily apparent until a 1/256" accuracy was displayed in the string.

Actually, recently, our firm has begun setting all of the standard dimensions to 1/256" which is the highest Revit can be set at. That way, everyone in our firm is forced to fixt the offending item in the model, so as not to present a string with these types of fractions in it to our Partners when they review the drawings. No one wants to hear another lecture on dimensioning.

[twiceroadsfool]

Actually, recently, our firm has begun setting all of the standard dimensions to 1/256" which is the highest Revit can be set at. That way, everyone in our firm is forced to fixt the offending item in the model, so as not to present a string with these types of fractions in it to our Partners when they review the drawings. No one wants to hear another lecture on dimensioning.

Yup. EVERYTHING in our template is at 1/256", always. Units, dimensions, everything. Not to be edited. On one job wher ei found it edited, it was changed back, and then not relinquished so it couldnt be changed back.

None of that garbage.

[eric.piotrowicz]

Yup. EVERYTHING in our template is at 1/256", always. Units, dimensions, everything. Not to be edited. On one job wher ei found it edited, it was changed back, and then not relinquished so it couldnt be changed back.

None of that garbage.

I hadn't had a chance to try it out but I was wondering if there was a way to effectively lock them dimensions to 1/256" tolerance. This answers that question. Thanks Aaron :beer:

[twiceroadsfool]

You can only do it on workshared projects, so you cant lock it in the template, unfortunately. But its easy enough to do it on a workshared project. Expand the Worksets dialogue to include project standards. Find Project units and Dim styles, check them out, and not relinquish, lol...

[patricks]

Unfortunately locking out the Project Units settings wouldn't fly around here, as we always change linear dimension units to decimal feet with 2 places when working on grading plans and placing topo points. Makes life 100x easier while doing that. Sucks for anyone else working in the file at the same time, but they can just use a dimension object to check something.

Of course, if we could change the units independently of the project units for topo points (AND change them to SHARED!!!!), that would alleviate all of those issues.

[iru69]

Re over-riding dimensions: Kind of seems like a bunch of Revit bullying... and a bit self-rightous to boot. There are always exceptions to everything, the real world is shades of gray, not black and white. When software doesn't accomodate those exceptions, it's a disservice to the user and project.

Ultimately, the user will break Revit's limitations by having the worst of all possible scenarios: using one of several kludgy workarounds that can make it extremely difficult to idenify the "fudge". What would be preferable is to allow for dimension overrides while implementing a mechanism for identifying and reporting them - something similar to addendum functionality.

[DaveP]

...we always change linear dimension units to decimal feet with 2 places when working on grading plans and placing topo points. ....

Couldn't you just make a new Dimension Type for your Grading plans & Override the Units Format in that style? Not sure about the topo points, but that would at least help with the Dimensions.

[twiceroadsfool]

Re over-riding dimensions: Kind of seems like a bunch of Revit bullying... and a bit self-rightous to boot. There are always exceptions to everything, the real world is shades of gray, not black and white. When software doesn't accomodate those exceptions, it's a disservice to the user and project.


I disagree, unilaterally. I would love to hear a GOOD case for when you NEED a dimension that measures 1'-2" to say 1'-0". While im willing to admit i dont have as MANY years in the seat as some of you, ive yet to hear ANYONE, with any amount of experience, make a good case for needing to do it. Ive put out tons of projects, including some really ugly and intricate reno and demo work over hacked up buildings. Theres just never a need to not have it drawn correctly.



Ultimately, the user will break Revit's limitations by having the worst of all possible scenarios: using one of several kludgy workarounds that can make it extremely difficult to idenify the "fudge". What would be preferable is to allow for dimension overrides while implementing a mechanism for identifying and reporting them - something similar to addendum functionality.

Using that as an excuse is no different than the woes of old, about "whats an office standard." If "users" dont want to be team players and play by the rules for the good of the PROJECT, then they need one of two things: A positively reinforcing conversation about WHY the integrity of the process as a whole is paramount, to get them to understand, or an exit interview.

[iru69]

I disagree, unilaterally. I would love to hear a GOOD case for when you NEED a dimension that measures 1'-2" to say 1'-0". While im willing to admit i dont have as MANY years in the seat as some of you, ive yet to hear ANYONE, with any amount of experience, make a good case for needing to do it. Ive put out tons of projects, including some really ugly and intricate reno and demo work over hacked up buildings. Theres just never a need to not have it drawn correctly.
Well then, that's obviously a discussion not worth having. You've already decided that there's no such thing as a "GOOD" case.


Using that as an excuse is no different than the woes of old, about "whats an office standard." If "users" dont want to be team players and play by the rules for the good of the PROJECT, then they need one of two things: A positively reinforcing conversation about WHY the integrity of the process as a whole is paramount, to get them to understand, or an exit interview.
I don't see it as an "excuse", I see it as a necessary reality. I'll turn the argument back at you - why not provide users with a "safe" mechanism for over-riding dimensions, and if you dislike it so much, you can show them the door if they use it?

[twiceroadsfool]

Well then, that's obviously a discussion not worth having. You've already decided that there's no such thing as a "GOOD" case.


LOL, contrary to your formed opinion because of the aggressiveness of my tone, im not so closed minded that i cant have my mind swayed when theres actually a valid reason. A good case in point is Materials in revit. Since thickness of material is controlled on assemblies, i was staunchly against making the materials IN the material editor, different for different sized materials. An intelligent conversation here completely reversed my direction in that realm, and i dare say i was MORE against that than i am this.

But im still waiting to hear what a good reason is for NEEDING to override a dimension with a bogus value. (Im not talking about text, they gave us that, for the VIF, and SEE SCHEDULE, and whatever else).



I don't see it as an "excuse", I see it as a necessary reality. I'll turn the argument back at you - why not provide users with a "safe" mechanism for over-riding dimensions, and if you dislike it so much, you can show them the door if they use it?

Alright. As long as theres a way- in three clicks or less- i can delete or UNoverride every single overridden dimension in a project, im fine with it. Say, if Overridding a dimension automatically categorizes it as its own type, so i can select all instances and delete, or something. Then fine. But, it has further reaching implications:

It means im never going to take a model with from someone else and rely on its integrity, as it pertains to the corresponding set of documentation. As it is, the first place i visit when i get collaborating models, is their Project Units and Dimension Styles.

And you used the word necessary again, which makes me question how so many of us have been putting out projects for YEARS.... without it. And before you bring up the kludgy workarounds, here are a few things you WONT find in the projects we put out: Dimensions with tiny text and text over the top. Generic annotations that look like dimensions (with the exception of an arrow off one side of a dimension to say "see something something...," but it never references a specific view title or number), or drafted dims, or whatever.

The only reason im qualifying with listing all that, is when i say its not a necessity, i dont mean the TOOL that lets you override, i mean the entire sloppy ACT of overriding it. Hell, at my first job in AutoCAD land, it was punishable by termination. Maybe ive just been lucky, and have (mostly, lol) always worked at places that didnt tolerate that kind of noise.

[Scott Womack]

Our firm has gone to the 1/256" accuracy rule on projects as well, including the default dimension style that will show that accuracy. However, I have created a special dimension style, which is actually a different color on screen that is rounded to 1/8", instead of the normal 1/256" there have been a limited number of times, that trying to find a 1/256" or 1/128" in the middel of a structure, are not worth the time. Typically this can happen because a wall is set to be centered on a column line, but some other item is aligned with something somewhere else visually, that may produce one of these "errata" dimensions. then we'll over-ride the dimension style to "fudge" the dimension. That is as far as we'll go. A complete overriding of the dimesion is NOT possible, and although more CAD like, actually destroys the BIM aspect. If overridden completely, then the quantities during a take-off would be WRONG.

One of the over-riding reasons I don't "completely fudge a simension in the manner possible ment in previous posts, is that often when working on existing buildsings structural engineers have over-ridden dimension strings, without modifying the drawing. Then when trying to "build" the building to perform work on it, you can't make the larger dimesions match the spacing of beams and joists. At that point you don't know if the dimensions were wrong, or the number of joists it took to building was not updated, etc.

[patricks]

There is one reason and one reason only that I have for overriding a dimension value, and it's caused by another limitation of Revit: dimensioning across break lines in a drafting view. Since you can't actually "break" a drafting view like you can model views, if you have a drafting detail with break lines and you need to dimension across it, the only choice you have is to fudge the dimension by placing a period or something in front of the dimension value that you need.

If the Factory would add view break functionality for drafting views (which would require a crop region I guess), then I see ZERO good reasons to do an outright override of a dimensional value.

[russell.eckstein]

Changing the dimension without moving the item is called "Moving the tombstones, but not the graves." The whole item must be adjusted.

[bhoerth]

I disagree, unilaterally. I would love to hear a GOOD case for when you NEED a dimension that measures 1'-2" to say 1'-0". While im willing to admit i dont have as MANY years in the seat as some of you, ive yet to hear ANYONE, with any amount of experience, make a good case for needing to do it. Ive put out tons of projects, including some really ugly and intricate reno and demo work over hacked up buildings. Theres just never a need to not have it drawn correctly.



Using that as an excuse is no different than the woes of old, about "whats an office standard." If "users" dont want to be team players and play by the rules for the good of the PROJECT, then they need one of two things: A positively reinforcing conversation about WHY the integrity of the process as a whole is paramount, to get them to understand, or an exit interview.

I have a good case. I am working on converting our AutoCAD details into Revit details. I am placing the details into drafting views...so they have nothing to do with modeling. None of our details are drawn to scale. However we do have some details that have dimensions shown. We also have all of our details drawn at 1:1. Scaling the detail up will just cause trouble later and will be a waste of time. So when I try to put in a Revit dimension on my 1:1 detail I cannot change the text from 2" to 42". I will have to leave it as lines and text from the import. So in this case, where Revit is dictating to me that I cannot change the number value of the dimension I find it very irritating and it allows the program too much control over my drawing.

[DaveP]

I would respectfully disagree that that is a good case.

A Dimension in Revit is a tiny report from the Revit database that accurately descibes the distance between two objects.

You are not describing a Dimension. What you are describing is a few lines and a piece of text that happen to be near a couple of random lines.

I would not say that Revit is exerting "too much control over my drawing" I would say that Revit is reporting exactly what you have drawn. If you want to be able to use a Dimension in Revit, you have to drawn the way it is. Revit will not and should not let you draw two lines; not to scale; and not representing any true distance and claim that they are 42" apart. If you can randomly enter values, what's to keep you from saying two walls are 1'-2" apart when they are actually 12'-3"?

[patricks]

I have a good case. I am working on converting our AutoCAD details into Revit details. I am placing the details into drafting views...so they have nothing to do with modeling. None of our details are drawn to scale. However we do have some details that have dimensions shown. We also have all of our details drawn at 1:1. Scaling the detail up will just cause trouble later and will be a waste of time. So when I try to put in a Revit dimension on my 1:1 detail I cannot change the text from 2" to 42". I will have to leave it as lines and text from the import. So in this case, where Revit is dictating to me that I cannot change the number value of the dimension I find it very irritating and it allows the program too much control over my drawing.

Not a good case at all. IMHO you need to convert your CAD details into true Revit details drawn to some scale. I would respectfully say that those 1:1 details were drawn incorrectly in the first place. If you draw them correctly now as you bring them into Revit, I see no reason why a correct to-scale Revit detail would possibly cause problems later on. It may seem like a lot of work now but it will most likely PREVENT problems and time wasting later on down the line.

As I said above (last year actually), having view break lines in a drafting view is THE ONLY good reason for overriding dimension text, but that's merely because of Revit's limitation of not being able to actually view break a dimension view.

[wmullett]

One of the best things Revit has going is that you can't over-ride a dimension. I have been burned way too many times by someone too lazy to draw the view correctly and if they had, they would have seen that it doesn't work. I can trust my Revit drawings for now.....

I agree with Patricks. Now is the time to correct the detail and make it right. And I don't mind the broken view dimension problem.

PLEASE AUTODESK - DON'T "FIX" THIS!

[patricks]

lol yeah it ain't broken, so don't fix it!

View breaks in a drafting view would be nice, though.

Just a couple months ago I FINALLY fixed some of our old Revit roof hatch details that were imported from CAD many years ago at some weird scale and never corrected. The rough opening of 30" was drawn as over 12 feet in the drafting view. I converted all the junk lines to Revit lines, detail items, and filled regions, all drawn to the proper scale, and I'm MUCH happier with it now.

[jameswest77]

Re over-riding dimensions: Kind of seems like a bunch of Revit bullying... and a bit self-rightous to boot. There are always exceptions to everything, the real world is shades of gray, not black and white. When software doesn't accomodate those exceptions, it's a disservice to the user and project.

Ultimately, the user will break Revit's limitations by having the worst of all possible scenarios: using one of several kludgy workarounds that can make it extremely difficult to idenify the "fudge". What would be preferable is to allow for dimension overrides while implementing a mechanism for identifying and reporting them - something similar to addendum functionality.

Glad at least one person recognized the reality of the situation as well as the inherent limitations of ANY tool.

I find it absolutely imperative to manually dimension on a nearly weekly basis. For instance, anyone have success dimensioning to the implied edge of a swept curved profile? Yeah, its impossible. So you set up a reference line and "fudge" the dimension. I'm sure there are hundreds of similar cases where an ability and technique to override is necessary. Instead of saying it shouldn't ever be done, which is silly, we should discuss the importance of proper modeling and drafting techniques and how to properly take into account unusual instances that may be less than ideal.

And, to clarify, I work ONLY in the design phases of residential design and our office doesn't produce ANY construction drawings. I'm comfortable with a degree of inaccuracy because no one is building anything from our drawings and they are instead solely used as a communication tool with our clients- but mostly because timeliness is the MOST important consideration in our office. If we solved every design decision with 100% accuracy we would HARDLY be efficient or profitable.

If you use Revit as a design tool instead of a construction tool there is a lot of efficiency to be gained by "sketching" in 3D, since there are so many cycles of design and you don't need to be perfectly precise with every cycle.

It all depends on what you're using the tool for, in my opinion.

[patricks]

Glad at least one person recognized the reality of the situation as well as the inherent limitations of ANY tool.

I find it absolutely imperative to manually dimension on a nearly weekly basis. For instance, anyone have success dimensioning to the implied edge of a swept curved profile? Yeah, its impossible. So you set up a reference line and "fudge" the dimension.

I wouldn't really call that fudging it. That's really just approximating. We have an "approximate" dimension type for use only in those specific cases, which happens often in site plans. Or, I'll replace the dimension text with "+/- <rounded dimension>". And IMHO those are cases where you're using the tools as intended. I never, EVER use the "approximate" dimension type without a +/- prefix on the dimension. I wish there were a way to make that automatic.

If, in your example, you override the dimension or shift the ref plane slightly to get the dimension to an even number, but don't use a +/- prefix or something similar, you're essentially saying the dimension must be or should be "exactly" this, which isn't the case.

Where others have mentioned override dimensions in this topic has more-so been to cover up details drawn to incorrect scale, and so they want to replace that 12-foot dimension with a 30-inch dimension instead of taking the time to draw the detail correctly and to the proper scale, which can then be used on future projects.

[snowocean]

Interesting discussion. I agree that overriding dimensional values is extremely risky, but near deadlines I find it a necessary evil. The best way to do it is to place text over the dimension. The text will mask it. I only do this as a last resort and at a deadline where there is just a ton of stuff that needs to be done. I always create a new text family in blue and keep track of where it has been done so I can go back and work on fixing the model.......not the best solution, but it will get the job done......

[wmullett]

I can understand under late problems. But marking the dimension with a +/- as Patricks suggests or if the dimension is finite using a NTS preceeding the altered dimension, lets everyone know that the model or element is not correctly represented.

Both of these methods allow you to fake the dimension and are easily seen so there is no miss-representation.

[fangoriously]

I posted this a few years ago but can't seem to find where that post went. There are a few instances where overriding dimensions is very helpful. I most frequently use this (which actually isn't all that frequent) when dimensioning something in a drafting view that is beyond a break line. Hopefully this workaround doesn't get "fixed" but I only use it if drawing a bunch of new elements and views is required to achieve a true revit dimension.

Use unicode ALT+0141 which gives you a blank space (hold down ALT while entering 0141 on the keypad). This character is represented by a vertical rectangle for the character which doesn't actually show. Place this before or after your "fake" dimension and you'll be able to have it read whatever you want.

As a sidenote, I think it's silly that Revit treats everyone as untrustworthy idiots when it comes to this dimensioning problem. I understand that many problems can arise from people being lazy and overriding dimensions whenever they feel like it, but these particular people will invariably find many other ways to screw up a drawing.

[MikeJarosz]

To be blunt about it ( I guess I'm feeling feisty lately) if you want to fudge dimensions, use CAD.

I think he thinks he is in CAD