Custom Dimensions

[ricardo.camelo]

Hi guys
We just implemented Revit a few months ago in our studio and netherless to say, we want our documentation to look the same way it does when using AutoCAD or ArchiCAD.

We normally show grid dimensions as per attachment and would like to know if there is a way to achieve this in Revit. (the implementation expert doesnt seem to think so, but I feel there has to be a way!)

Cheers
R

[Scott Womack]

Hi guys
We just implemented Revit a few months ago in our studio and netherless to say, we want our documentation to look the same way it does when using AutoCAD or ArchiCAD.

We normally show grid dimensions as per attachment and would like to know if there is a way to achieve this in Revit. (the implementation expert doesnt seem to think so, but I feel there has to be a way!

Welcome to the forums!

I don't believe that dimensions can be made to look this way. That said, in Revit 2011 you could make a line-based detail component that has a test label in it, that when you lock the ends to gridlines would report the distance. In that manner it might be possible.

[patricks]

I tried making something like that, using an annotation family nested into a line-based detail component. The annotation family is used to keep the label and box with pointed ends the same size at all view scales. However I couldn't get it to go into the detail component correctly unless I set the detail component view scale to full size. Then when I loaded the detail component into a project, the arrowed box came in super-long, although the label did report the correct dimension. The box was actually the actual reported length based on the view scale. So a 10' - 0" dimension reported by the label, on a floor plan, made the box be 10' - 0" long on a sheet. :shock:

Not sure how to make this work aside from having to make separate types for every view scale.

[wmullett]

How did you do that in AutoCAD?

[Alfredo Medina]

Doing that scalable 'dimension' family is possible in Revit. But it will never be a dimension, just an annotation family created by the user, so it will have issues. The question is why it should be done. Each program has its own playing rules. After this is implemented, another request will arise soon about converting some other thing to 'make it look exactly as in AutoCAD'. I have even read about people using view templates that imitate the colors that people used to have in AutoCAD. This has to stop at some point if you want to fully implement Revit in an office. You can't keep on thinking AutoCAD while working on Revit.

[patricks]

I have to agree. I have the mindset of moving forward with Revit, creating new standards based on Revit, etc. Don't try to force it to look, act, or work like AutoCAD.

But I was just throwing it out there in my post above as something I tried. That standard for grid dimensions is kind of interesting and would be handy if you wanted to distinguish grid dimensions from other building dimensions (which I have wanted to do on occasion).

[Alfredo Medina]

... would be handy if you wanted to distinguish grid dimensions from other building dimensions (which I have wanted to do on occasion).

One common way of distinguishing between architectural dimensions and structural dimension is simply by using "ticks" for architectural and "dots" for structural. Which can be solved very easily: make a dimension, duplicate it, rename it, change the arrow style, and now you have 2 types, done. That's what I mean by using the playing rules of the program, and not force things in strange ways to make them look 'exactly as in AutoCAD'.

[ricardo.camelo]

Thanks for all the responses guys...good to know we can get advice on here effectively cause we have plenty of questions! :)

We have been showing the grid dimensions this way and are a bit reluctant to change it now because a software package doesnt allow us to do it.

In a way, things like this become a trademark of the firm and people are reluctant to change it just like that, specialy in a big firm like ours, but it seems that there is no easy and stable way to get this work, so we have no choice....

[Dave Jones]

Thanks for all the responses guys...good to know we can get advice on here effectively cause we have plenty of questions! :)

We have been showing the grid dimensions this way and are a bit reluctant to change it now because a software package doesnt allow us to do it.

In a way, things like this become a trademark of the firm and people are reluctant to change it just like that, specialy in a big firm like ours, but it seems that there is no easy and stable way to get this work, so we have no choice....

I feel the pain! I'm just starting to produce drawings with Revit instead of AutoCAD. My Acad drawings have developed a personality over the years since I started in '91 and my customers have come to expect that "look". However I realized early on that the Revit output was going to be considerably different looking than the Acad output so what I did is, two months ago I did a small sample project using Revit and sent the drawings to all of my customers with a note: "I'm going to Revit and this is what the drawings will look like. The advantages for you are many and the disadvantages are none as far as I can see. If you have a problem with this change, call me". I got zero phone calls in complaint about style, two phone calls about scheduling impact, and one phone call with a new project :)

[Scott Womack]

Dave, It generally takes a medium to large firm about 1 year to 2 years to learn how to make the drawings from Revit appear much closer to the "old" AutoCAD appearance, or at least much more "professional" looking. A Smaller firm may be able to improve on this timing, but it will happen.

[patricks]

What do you mean by "professional" looking? Revit drawings don't look professional OOTB?

[Dave Jones]

Dave, It generally takes a medium to large firm about 1 year to 2 years to learn how to make the drawings from Revit appear much closer to the "old" AutoCAD appearance, or at least much more "professional" looking. A Smaller firm may be able to improve on this timing, but it will happen.

this smaller firm is at 3/4 of a year just trying to get his feet on the Revit ground. It's starting to come faster now that I'm committing more time to Revit each day. I'll deal with the "make it look like AutoCAD" when someone wants to pay me to do that. I think that the OOTB Revit output is sexy :p

[Scott Womack]

What do you mean by "professional" looking? Revit drawings don't look professional OOTB?

I was in no way referring to OOTB Revit content when I referred to "Professional". Part of the time is to develop Detail components, notation styles, work through dimensioning and Linestyles, etc. The attached Wall Section Sheet illustrates some of what I mean.

[Dave Jones]

I was in no way referring to OOTB Revit content when I referred to "Professional". Part of the time is to develop Detail components, notation styles, work through dimensioning and Linestyles, etc. The attached Wall Section Sheet illustrates some of what I mean.

Scott, these seem to be project specific sections. How do you shortcut the addition of all of the annotation required on these sections if in fact you do?

[wmullett]

Scott ... those were not Revit sections.

[twiceroadsfool]

We have been showing the grid dimensions this way and are a bit reluctant to change it now because a software package doesnt allow us to do it.


We've all been there, believe me. Having said that: Convince management to give up this mindset, or prepare management to fail at implementing Revit in a streamlined and efficient manner. Smart tools have rules, and those helps are for leveraging efficiency downstream.

Lets extrapolate this one example: Instead of using a dimension, using a Line Based detail component with a nested annotation, which you can do. here are the implications:

1. Your "Dimensions" will never respond to the category "Dimensions" again. Theyre now controlled by Detail items, and Annotations > Generic Annotations.

2. The units of your dimensions are now not drive by the Type setting for dimensions at all, since theyre now seperate families instead of system families.

3. You wont be able to edit witness line, or even have multiple witness dimension lines.

4. Since its a line based family, and not a dimension with an alignment setting, youll have a harder chore to place them in straight lines, to references in items. Even holding down shift and control, itll try to turn them 90 degrees past a certain point.

5. Youll need different types for different scales, since the Generic annotation will grow, but the linework werent. This will induce a lot of error when the project teams use the wrong dimensions, or when a view changes scale and they have to go and manually change all of the dimensions.

6. They wont stay locked to references, without you manually padlocking it. This will be a nightmare, moving forward.

7. If this is for anything not in a straight line, youre in for a lot of trigonometry to get an arc or radial dimension to read....

My point in listing these is not to slam your idea, or your graphics... But to give you some insight to whats going to start happening, the more we fight with the program. Now, im not suggesting we bend over backwards to everything the OOTB program and content wont do, but i am suggesting that you and management pick the battles wisely. There are some things (that dimension style) that the program flat out... has rules against. You can fight them if they want, but these seven issues above are almost enough to blow a project budget.

And it gets much much worse. And better. :)

[Alfredo Medina]

Scott ... those were not Revit sections.

Of course they are, what makes you think they're not?

[wmullett]

My bad.... I saw the note leaders... I forgot that in 11, the right note leaders now come off the bottom line instead of the top in muti-line notes.

[Alfredo Medina]

We've all been there, believe me. Having said that: Convince management to give up this mindset, or prepare management to fail at implementing Revit in a streamlined and efficient manner. Smart tools have rules, and those helps are for leveraging efficiency downstream.

Lets extrapolate this one example: Instead of using a dimension, using a Line Based detail component with a nested annotation, which you can do. here are the implications: (...)

Excellent explanation of all the implications of doing some Frankenstein 'dimensions', made with other type of elements. Those are the issues I was talking about. Again, if the OP wants to see Revit fully implemented in his office, he and his coworkers have to let go the AutoCAD paradigma and start thinking on Revit terms. This is something else. It's like speaking another language, with different grammar. Accept the rules of the new game, and you'll never want to play the old game.

[cliff collins]

As Revit is now 10 years old, and catching on like wildfire in the past 3 years,
it will become the "new standard"--and AutoCad dwgs will be a thing of the past.

So I agree--move on, accept Revit's graphic abilities, and stop trying to "make Revit look like_________(fill in name of old standard Cad package).

cheers

[Scott Womack]

Scott ... those were not Revit sections.

Yes they are 100% Revit sections. Admittedly, they have a fair amount of detail components overlaid to make them "readable" but they ARE Revit sections.

I've spent a fair amount of time with creating Line based Detail components to be able to quickly "cover" a raw Revit Section. I have also learned how to add detail components to profile families, so that when the section is cut, that portion is "pre-detailed" already.

Scott

[martijnderiet]

Yes they are 100% Revit sections. Admittedly, they have a fair amount of detail components overlaid to make them "readable" but they ARE Revit sections.

I've spent a fair amount of time with creating Line based Detail components to be able to quickly "cover" a raw Revit Section. I have also learned how to add detail components to profile families, so that when the section is cut, that portion is "pre-detailed" already.

Scott

And very nice looking sections indeed...

But to return on topic: forget your AutoCAD looks. Create a new style and tell everyone who is nagging you about it that they can get the AutoCAD look-and-feel for the same price but then they'll miss the complementary 3D's, schedules, reduction of building costs, etc. It just can't be done, simple as that.

Which doesn't mean every annotation has to stay OOTB. But you'll have to work within the limitations Revit has.