Lineweights - Best Practice

[antman]

I'm not happy with the default lineweight settings. Not even just the lineweights assigned to each object, but the settings of the lineweights themselves. We plan to use Revit in a highly collaborative environment. Will I be causing major headaches if I edit the lineweight definitions, or will linked models from others (and vice versa) translate seamlessly?

[Craig_L]

There is a pretty easy solution to that problem, create office templates that set the line weights you desire. The out of the box styles and weights are not set in stone.

[antman]

That's my plan, I just don't want to shoot myself in the foot and end up needing to do a bunch of modifications to linked consultant files, or worse, content downloaded from manufacturers.

[Craig_L]

That shouldn't affect you at all, most of the linetype filters you set are by element type, symbolic line, etc etc, so it wont matter what standards anyone else uses your template over-rides should still take precedence.

[jamesgchambers]

I'd actually advise against it. Unless you are JUST starting out with Revit. A few of our projects have tried it, but essentially it's a maintenance nightmare. It's fine for the project environment, but once you get into families and object styles, it's a losing battle. The main issue with families is that everything from Revit (out of the box content) has "Thin Lines, Wide/Heavy Lines, etc.) So unless you want to go through your entire content library and modify these, I'd stay away from it. The other issue you will encounter is that the out of the box lineweights/object styles are non-editable. So you will forever have "thin lines" in your project/families.

All that being said, yes it would be nice if you could rename linestyles in a much more logical manner than they currently are. We've resorted to 5 main linestyles:

Thin Lines > Medium Light Lines > Medium Lines > Medium Wide Lines > Wide Lines

The theory (actually borrowed from Lake Flato who we're working with) is that you leave the defaults as is, and add Medium Light and Medium Wide. Using Med Light and Med Wide has them sort pretty close the Medium Lines so it's decently user friendly.

[antman]

I think I still might not be communicating what I'd like to do. See attached image for the settings I want to change. I'm never going to need a line to be 1/2" thick, and I'd like a variance of at least 10 or 11 different usable lineweights, with the largest being about 0.07" for an 1/8" scale drawing. Essentially, I want to move the values for lineweight 10 down to the 16 slot, and stretch the rest down in a gradient and infill from there for some more precise control of lineweights.

Oh, and I am just starting in Revit. These are issues coming up in the first project I'm using it on and I'd rather deal with it now than later.

[cdatechguy]

We use maybe up to pen #12...on our metric drawings we use up #7..(Metric is so much easier..lol)

But yeah, you can adjust your pens to however you want....our #16 is at 0.175"

[antman]

Wouldn't it be better to use a filled region for those types of applications? Isn't the line weight centered on the line itself?

EDIT: hmm, apparently replied to a post that's no longer there...

[gtarch]

I totally agree with this post: Here is what we wish to add:

We would really appreciate a lineweight 0 be added to the program.

Lineweight 1 is assigned to all sorts of objects that need to be about 0.2 - 0.25 weight - Since lineweight 1 is taken by the defaults in Revit, there is no room in the default for a very light / hairline (0.15 - 0.15), and that is what weight 0 could be used for. For now, we use a 50% tin line, which sometimes does not plot reliably.

I'm thinking they could add the zero and that would leave all else untouched, what could be simpler?


I'd actually advise against it. Unless you are JUST starting out with Revit. A few of our projects have tried it, but essentially it's a maintenance nightmare. It's fine for the project environment, but once you get into families and object styles, it's a losing battle. The main issue with families is that everything from Revit (out of the box content) has "Thin Lines, Wide/Heavy Lines, etc.) So unless you want to go through your entire content library and modify these, I'd stay away from it. The other issue you will encounter is that the out of the box lineweights/object styles are non-editable. So you will forever have "thin lines" in your project/families.

All that being said, yes it would be nice if you could rename linestyles in a much more logical manner than they currently are. We've resorted to 5 main linestyles:

Thin Lines > Medium Light Lines > Medium Lines > Medium Wide Lines > Wide Lines

The theory (actually borrowed from Lake Flato who we're working with) is that you leave the defaults as is, and add Medium Light and Medium Wide. Using Med Light and Med Wide has them sort pretty close the Medium Lines so it's decently user friendly.

[cdatechguy]

Lineweight 0?

Just make 1 your lightest weight and modify the object styles and line styles accordingly...

As for the default line styles...(Thin Lines, Wide Lines, etc)...I have had issues with these for some reason where when plotted the line weight doesn't stay consistent.

The defaults can be changed to whatever you want them to be....the OOTB settings are just to keep everything the same for easier editing.

We changed ours to match all of our previous autocad plot settings...

[twiceroadsfool]

With all due respect (and remember, im SAYING with all due respect) leaving the Autodesk OOTB lineweights AS-IS... is a horrifying proposition, unless youre completely throwing your hands up in the air about how you want drawings to look.

Revit CAN make good looking drawings, but its not without effort. Here is my process (copied and pasted from the LAST thread discussing this). Its a very simple trial and error process, and it works great.

Worth mentioning, do this in the TEMPLATE. Not in the project, not in VG. In a template. (Or in a project, then MAKE it a template)




imagine every firm does, that wants the drawings to look good: We meddle with them until were happy. My process is probably similar to everyone elses, but what i do is:

Start with Object Styles. Decide what should be darker or lighter RELATIVE to one another. (And i get rid of at least half of the 16. 16 is just nuts. 8 is plenty, IMHO. Then i use the other 8 for super huge stuff like Titleblock lines). So lets say i have 8 numbers. I assign the OS cuts and projections to 2-8 (keeping 1 for hatch).

Then when im done with Object Styles (pass 1), i go and do a plan detail. With modeled objects, detail components, stuff in projection, stuff thats cut. And i duplicate it, 10 times. I change it to ten different scales. I plot it. i look at it. Theyre not all going to look good. So i check the CONTRAST between the items. If i dont like the CONTRAST, i readjust the OS (pass 2), and go back to print.

Once im happy with the CONTRAST, i print my OS settings, and go scale to scale, with that pesky lineweight chart. This line is too light. What is it? A cut wall. Thats a 7. How thick is a 7 at this scale? Make it thicker. Rinse and reprint. And do it again, and do it again. For all of the scales (pass 1). Its not necessarily true that just because the scale gets bigger the lone should too, but sometimes, it is. So you have to monkey with it, for every single scale.

When i get that one pesky sheet of details to look decent, i revisit OS (pass 3). Anything there i want to revisit? If im happy with them, i do a wall section. Print it at a bunch of scales. Check it, it shouldnt need as much as the plan details did, but it may need some adjustments (LW pass 2). Make some.

Decide which adjustments need to be project wide in the OS/LW, and which ones you want View Templates to override (i dont like using VT's this way, so i try to avoid it).

I also find you have to do it after your content is done, which is a double edged sword, in case you have to go back and adjust your content. But until you know how everything will be built, how do you know how it will plot?

Having moved offices not too long ago, im getting ready to go down this journey with our newly built Revit Template. Im not exicted, its a tedius exercise. Last time i did it, it took the better part of a week. But its a fallacy that all Revit drawings HAVE to look flat. Does Revit suck at Elevations? Yes. Does revit make EVERY drawing look lousy? No.

[gtarch]

As I wrote, we agree with the other poster that it is much easier to leave the defaults alone, there is just so much trauma with constantly having to reset things to the 'office standard' are re-doing it all for every new release of the software. And you can't change the available lineweights that are baked into the family templates. Adding 0 lets all those Revit defaults stay where they are, and remedies the lack of a hair-line in the current setup.

And I do remember the day, when we had 0, 00, 000 pen weights. They were used in these things called rapidographs...



Lineweight 0?

Just make 1 your lightest weight and modify the object styles and line styles accordingly...

As for the default line styles...(Thin Lines, Wide Lines, etc)...I have had issues with these for some reason where when plotted the line weight doesn't stay consistent.

The defaults can be changed to whatever you want them to be....the OOTB settings are just to keep everything the same for easier editing.

We changed ours to match all of our previous autocad plot settings...

[gtarch]

I think the approach here is 'leave as much of the default intact' as possible. It is just a lot easier to get along.

And change what you have to, to get the look you need. Cause we all need our drawings to look good don't we?



With all due respect (and remember, im SAYING with all due respect) leaving the Autodesk OOTB lineweights AS-IS... is a horrifying proposition, unless youre completely throwing your hands up in the air about how you want drawings to look.

Revit CAN make good looking drawings, but its not without effort. Here is my process (copied and pasted from the LAST thread discussing this). Its a very simple trial and error process, and it works great.

Worth mentioning, do this in the TEMPLATE. Not in the project, not in VG. In a template. (Or in a project, then MAKE it a template)

[twiceroadsfool]

As I wrote, we agree with the other poster that it is much easier to leave the defaults alone, there is just so much trauma with constantly having to reset things to the 'office standard' are re-doing it all for every new release of the software.

Im not sure what trauma there is, honestly. We dont have to "reset" anything. It doesnt get done view by view, it doesnt even get done project by project. Set new lineweights for the office (NOTHING we have is OOTB) and its done for everyone.



And you can't change the available lineweights that are baked into the family templates. Adding 0 lets all those Revit defaults stay where they are, and remedies the lack of a hair-line in the current setup.

Sure you can. You can change anything you want in the Family Templates. Change the extension to .rfa, go in, edit it, and change the extension back. The exception (i believe) being Thin Lines, that you cant get rid of. But in our template, Thin Lines shows as dashed, so people know theyve used a naughty line.


And I do remember the day, when we had 0, 00, 000 pen weights. They were used in these things called rapidographs...

It doesnt matter if you call them 0, 00, 000; or Thin, Medium, Wide; or 0-7, or 2-8 (what we have). Lineweight differentiation should still be there. And in the interests of mitigating Risk and ambiguity, the "Thin, Medium, Wide" thing is lousy, since it leaves abiguity. Incremental Digits tell you where things are. Thin, Really thin, medium thin, medium, medium wide, wide, wider, widest, super wide, Xwide, etc... Do not.

[cliff collins]

0-16 also works well, as Revit already uses this system.
Keep a print out at your desk if you need to see them for reference.

PS .

This "lineweights" thread reminds me of the bad old days of Cadd.

cheers

[antman]

This "lineweights" thread reminds me of the bad old days of Cadd.

You're welcome. .-)

[gtarch]

Aaron:


I did not know about the trick to change the family templates to .RFA to make changes to the defaults.


thanks!
gt

[ron.sanpedro]

We just use lineweight 1 as a very thin (.001") line which is used EXCLUSIVELY for non ceiling model hatches. Lineweight 2 is .002" and is used exclusively for Ceiling model hatches. These two mappings are hard wired, so you can't do squat about it, meaning lineweight 1 is used for non ceiling model patterns, no user control. As such, we want to let them ONLY be for those uses, so we don't break things if we decide that in a particular place we want our thin stuff to be different, and having used lineweight 1 for our thinest line we are then also affecting model patterns.
Our first "user lineweght" if you will is lineweight 3 at .003, and grows from there up to lineweight 9. Note that these actual lineweights are for 1/8" drawings. We have a scheme for how actual lineweights increase and decrease from there. Our lineweights 11-16 are interesting, in that they are the same at all scales. 10 = .001, 11 = .003, etc. This buys us a few things. First, hidden lines and the like are lineweight 11, because a hidden line should have the same lineweight at 1"=1' and 1/8"=1' and 1"=100' and everything else. Revit OOTB has different lineweights at different scales for hidden lines, which is just bad drafting in my mind. We also use these line weights for filled region hatches, so a legend with filled regions at 12"=1' is the same graphically as the plan at 1/16"=1' for, say a hatch indicating rated corridors. When you use the standard revit lineweights you need a legend at the scale of the drawing to get matching lineweights, which is a pain in the butt. lastly these consistent lineweights are nice for some site diagramming and adjacency analysis drawings.

One thing to be aware of, Revit has a bug where opening a family for editing !%#$s up all your lineweights by replacing them with the OOTB Revit crapola lineweights. This is a problem no matter what, but with our system 10-16 being special, and OOTB these are just really thick, we can sometimes have issues when editing families. Thin Lines solves the problem, but hopefully the Factory will just fix the bug some day. And the bug where crapola materials are forced into your family when you edit. I think the bug where crapola line patterns where forced into your family on edit has been fixed in 2011, so maybe 2012 will fix the materials and 2013 the lineweights? ;)

Gordon

[iru69]

Our lineweights 11-16 are interesting, in that they are the same at all scales. 10 = .001, 11 = .003, etc. This buys us a few things. First, hidden lines and the like are lineweight 11, because a hidden line should have the same lineweight at 1"=1' and 1/8"=1' and 1"=100' and everything else. Revit OOTB has different lineweights at different scales for hidden lines, which is just bad drafting in my mind.
Just curious why hidden lines should have the same line weight at different scales? Examples?

[twiceroadsfool]

We have 02, 02-hidden, 03, 03-hidden, 04, 04-hidden, 05, 05-hidden, and it works great. Plus most things we use Lines for are Line Based Detail Components now, like Membranes, Flashing, etc.

[ron.sanpedro]

Just curious why hidden lines should have the same line weight at different scales? Examples?

Just our take on graphics. Even in hand drafting, while I would have chosen a thicker line weight for walls at 1/2"=1' vs 1/8", I would have chosen the same line weight for hidden lines at both scales.
So really an example of just how far you can push Revit beyond the assumptions expressed in the OOTB templates, and also the down side when you push so far that you expose some bugs that are non issues when using those OOTB assumptions.

Gordon

[Craig_L]

Just curious why hidden lines should have the same line weight at different scales? Examples?

This comes from the national drafting standards...

Australian Standard AS 1100.101-1992 sets out the basic principles of technical drawing practice. The Australian Standard specifies:

* the use of abbreviations
* materials, sizes, and layout of drawing sheets
* the types and minimum thicknesses of lines to be used
* the requirements for distinct uniform letters, numerals and symbols
* recommended scales and their application
* methods of projection and of indicating the various views of an object
* methods of sectioning
* recommendations for dimensioning including size and geometrical tolerancing
* conventions used for the representation of components and repetitive features of components.

[iru69]

Gordon suggested it was "bad drafting". I was looking for an example of why it makes sense to use the same line weight at every scale for hidden lines (hey folks, a picture is often worth a thousand words). I thought maybe I could learn something. Not important, was just curious.

[Craig_L]

Gordon suggested it was "bad drafting". I was looking for an example of why it makes sense to use the same line weight at every scale for hidden lines (hey folks, a picture is often worth a thousand words). I thought maybe I could learn something. Not important, was just curious.

Hidden lines are generally (actually I can't think of a case where this doesn't apply) showing something concealed by another element (logically)
So, using the same idea that it is something concealed by another, it makes sense to make it lighter pen weight than the other items, so the others in the foreground stand out more...
That's really the idea behind it, to give "depth" to a 2D representation..

Typically its shown as a light pen weight, usually a 0.25 or even a 0.18 or 0.15 pen.
Most other (foreground) items are represented with a 0.35 or higher.

[iru69]

Thanks, that makes sense.

:beer:

[antman]

Hidden lines are generally (actually I can't think of a case where this doesn't apply)

'Optional' or 'similar' design cases, for example - showing 'ceramic tile where occurs' on a door jamb detail. I would typically make these lines slightly heavier than a hidden element. Also, if there is a condition with a lot of hidden lines really close together, I'd make them slightly lighter than standard to keep them from bleeding together.

[twiceroadsfool]

You need that at varying lineweight if your office also uses dashed (hidden) lines to represent things OTHER than objects behind objects. Over the years dashed lines have represented a lot of things, and (since NCS proclaims a graphical legend on a single sheet applies to the drawings on that single sheet only, you can use it to account for MANY things). Items that come to mind: For Reference Only, Not in Contract, Add/Alts, Future Phases, Membrane layers, etc.

So we keep a Hidden Variation of each lineweight. CL too.

[Ning Zhou]

for hidden line stuff, i'm more concerned w/ line style, for instance, hidden line may look like continous instead of dashed at different scale, can we achieve the "same" linestyle effect as Gordon's same lineweight effect? i mean w/o swap different line patterns.

[antman]

We just use lineweight 1 as a very thin (.001") line which is used EXCLUSIVELY for non ceiling model hatches. Lineweight 2 is .002" and is used exclusively for Ceiling model hatches.

These lines are extremely thin. Do those plot and reproduce without disappearing?


These two mappings are hard wired, so you can't do squat about it

Meaning hard wired by Revit, or you hard wired them in your company standard modifications?


We also use these line weights for filled region hatches, so a legend with filled regions at 12"=1' is the same graphically as the plan at 1/16"=1' for, say a hatch indicating rated corridors.

Side note: In ACA, I use a hatch pattern to denote wall ratings and types. The biggest thing I like about that is if the wall width changes the pattern adjusts instead of needing to go back and modify a separate entity. Especially if that entity is not visible in all views.

[ron.sanpedro]

These lines are extremely thin. Do those plot and reproduce without disappearing?
They do, but on second reproduction they often get lost. We recently decided we can't trust contractors not to do something stupid so we are looking at making everything thicker to cover that eventuality. ;)




Meaning hard wired by Revit, or you hard wired them in your company standard modifications?
Hard wired into Revit. Nasty ugly moronic bug that never should have happened. But it seems Autodesk still thinks they know what is good for everyone and shove "standards" up our tail pipes, so making something look good (to us) is needlessly too much work. But it it still better than Acad, or gawd forbid ACA, so we muddle through and hope for the day when autodesk understands that nothing should be hard wired. ;)




Side note: In ACA, I use a hatch pattern to denote wall ratings and types. The biggest thing I like about that is if the wall width changes the pattern adjusts instead of needing to go back and modify a separate entity. Especially if that entity is not visible in all views.
We decided against this for two reasons. 1:, when the hatch changes with wall thickness it starts meaning something else. We want what the legend says is 1-HR rated to look EXACTLY the same everywhere, not varied with each wall type. And 2: Hatches only work in walls. We sometimes need a line in plan that indicates the extent of a rated soffit overhead, or a rated ceiling assembly in section (which Revit doesn't even understand is possible), etc. The line does those jobs too.

Gordon

[antman]

1:, when the hatch changes with wall thickness it starts meaning something else. We want what the legend says is 1-HR rated to look EXACTLY the same everywhere, not varied with each wall type.

Just to clarify - I don't mean that it adjusts the pattern *type*, just that the pattern fills to the width of the wall, rather than overlapping or just running down the middle.


2: Hatches only work in walls. We sometimes need a line in plan that indicates the extent of a rated soffit overhead, or a rated ceiling assembly in section (which Revit doesn't even understand is possible), etc. The line does those jobs too.

Good point.

[antman]

Note that these actual lineweights are for 1/8" drawings. We have a scheme for how actual lineweights increase and decrease from there.

Are you at privilege to share your scheme, or the philosophy behind it? I'm trying to figure this out and it's looking like a jumble of numbers at this point. Maybe I'm just not fully understanding yet how Revit lineweights work. I know they change weight depending on the scale, but I wonder if I just need to see it in action for awhile before I realize the implications of these edits I'm making.

[twiceroadsfool]

They change lineweights per scale... If you TELL them to change lineweights per scale. Like i said: Make a detail, and detail it. Then duplicate it ten times, and make them ten different scales. Put them all on one sheet, and print it.

[darryl_PRP]

Perhaps a silly question - I'm going through this exercise now, how do I get rid of OOTB line styles that I don't want, for eg. Hidden Lines? The delete option is greyed out.

Thanks!

[twiceroadsfool]

Some of them you cant get rid of. So what we do, ghetto as it is, is set their actual line style to be dots or dashes. That way if we see it in the project, we know its wrong.

You cant get rid of Thin Lines either, we just dont use it.

[darryl_PRP]

Thats what I was afraid of....thanks Aaron.

[antman]

On a similar note - I was told in the essentials training class to not use the styles with <> around the name. Is that the consensus among the pros? What is the purpose of those line styles?

[twiceroadsfool]

Its not a concensus, no. I believe people do that for the same reason as above. But, for instance: <invisible lines> You cant replicate that, unless you use the dirty hack of making a "white line" and dealing with the repurcussions. But White is NOT Invisible, and Invisible is. So you use it. <shrug>

[ron.sanpedro]

Funny, my feeling is, why manage both <Hidden> and Hidden Lines. I just use the same one that Revit's Hidden lines tool uses, namely <Hidden>, and I have consistency with no effort. I also use <Overhead> and <Beyond> because they are already there.
I really wish Hidden Lines and Thin Lines and the rest could be deleted, but Autodesk is probably years away from giving us that level of control. In the meantime, the whole system promotes wrong answers. I am half tempted to make all the junk line styles very thick and red just to help minimize their use.

Gordon

[iru69]

Funny, my feeling is, why manage both <Hidden> and Hidden Lines. I just use the same one that Revit's Hidden lines tool uses, namely <Hidden>, and I have consistency with no effort. I also use <Overhead> and <Beyond> because they are already there.
Me too.

There's a point of diminishing returns with "standards"... at some point, you're just pissing your users off... some of us might really enjoy figuring this stuff out and getting our templates "just right", but the majority of users really don't care... yes, they may be anal about how the printed drawings look, but they're not going to care that much how they got there. Whenever you can, keep it simple (life is already complicated enough). Don't introduce complexity in the name of "standards" (e.g. the example Aaron gives of creating a new invisible line type). The more complicated it is, the more users have to remember, the less likely they're going to abide by the standards.

[twiceroadsfool]

You cant use <Hidden> for all of them, UNLESS youre in the camp that believes all hidden lines ARENT the same lineweight. We use the "Hidden Line style (dash, space) for many things, including moisture barriers, roof membranes, etc. They have different lineweights for us.

So we leave them there, dormant. It doesnt turn in to an issue, because they look ridiculous when used.

[iru69]

That brings up another interesting issue... how generic or specific to get with line style names.

A line style for building paper/wrap? Detail Bold Outline? Flashing? Or just stick to line styles like "Line Dash - 3"?

One of the nice things about getting specific is that the user doesn't have to remember which line style they used last time for something like building paper. But you don't want dozens of them either - that can get unwieldy and overwhelming.


We use the "Hidden Line style (dash, space) for many things, including moisture barriers, roof membranes, etc. They have different lineweights for us.

[ron.sanpedro]

You cant use <Hidden> for all of them, UNLESS youre in the camp that believes all hidden lines are the same lineweight. We use the "Hidden Line style (dash, space) for many things, including moisture barriers, roof membranes, etc. They have different lineweights for us.

So we leave them there, dormant. It doesnt turn in to an issue, because they look ridiculous when used.

We do differentiate between line PATTERN and line STYLE. Many line Styles will use the Hidden Pattern, but the line Style still has to be unique. I should also say, in my book at least, all the Line Styles that are named for appearance (<Beyond>, Thin Lines, etc) are ONLY for embellishment. I will use the Linework tool and the <Overhead> Line Style on an Underlay of the RCP to show Soffits in plan, for example. Or Linework to override the back portion of an elevation with <Beyond>. However, any time a line is used to actually delineate something, rather than just embellish it, there MUST be a unique Line Style to do it. For example Control Joint, or Membrane, or... Some of these might use the same Hidden 1/16" line pattern, but color and line weight are different. Not only can they be, they must be or the drawing becomes confusing (is that my membrane, or another piece of steel behind this beam like over here?).
And you now have the option of, in a working view, turning all your Control Joints red and thick, and all Expansion Joints blue and thick, thus helping to verify that you have addressed all the issues. And you can turn off those items in, say a 3D presentation view. But in the CDs, they both might be the same graphic look as Thin Lines, but I would NEVER use Thin Lines to actually draw those Control Joint model lines. None of that is possible when both are just Thin Lines and some text to tell them apart.

Of course all of this is just MY way of doing things, and ask 100 Architects this question, and give them a good 10 minutes to answer, and you will likely have 105 different ones. We ARE our worst enemy when it comes to this stuff. ;)

Gordon

[twiceroadsfool]

We do differentiate between line PATTERN and line STYLE. Many line Styles will use the Hidden Pattern, but the line Style still has to be unique. I should also say, in my book at least, all the Line Styles that are named for appearance (<Beyond>, Thin Lines, etc) are ONLY for embellishment. I will use the Linework tool and the <Overhead> Line Style on an Underlay of the RCP to show Soffits in plan, for example. Or Linework to override the back portion of an elevation with <Beyond>. However, any time a line is used to actually delineate something, rather than just embellish it, there MUST be a unique Line Style to do it. For example Control Joint, or Membrane, or... Some of these might use the same Hidden 1/16" line pattern, but color and line weight are different. Not only can they be, they must be or the drawing becomes confusing (is that my membrane, or another piece of steel behind this beam like over here?).
And you now have the option of, in a working view, turning all your Control Joints red and thick, and all Expansion Joints blue and thick, thus helping to verify that you have addressed all the issues. And you can turn off those items in, say a 3D presentation view. But in the CDs, they both might be the same graphic look as Thin Lines, but I would NEVER use Thin Lines to actually draw those Control Joint model lines. None of that is possible when both are just Thin Lines and some text to tell them apart.

Of course all of this is just MY way of doing things, and ask 100 Architects this question, and give them a good 10 minutes to answer, and you will likely have 105 different ones. We ARE our worst enemy when it comes to this stuff. ;)

Gordon

WEre moving entirely to Line Based Detail Components for all of them. Why? Keynoting.

[arqt49]

WEre moving entirely to Line Based Detail Components for all of them. Why? Keynoting.

Aaron, that is BRILLIANT!
I usualy to do lots of user keynotes for detail lines.
I'll give it a try.

[twiceroadsfool]

Aaron, that is BRILLIANT!
I usualy to do lots of user keynotes for detail lines.
I'll give it a try.

LOL, it wasnt my idea... We just really like how it works.

They get drawn in JUST like lines. Theyve got actual types for "Moisture Barrier," "TPO membrane," etc.

[lhanyok]

We've been using Revit for about 4 years now in our office. Initially, we just used the OOTB line styles, and added to them, using a similar naming convention. For example, we added "Thin-Medium Lines" and "Medium-Wide Lines."

At some point, probably 2 years ago, I modified the names of the line styles we added to include the lineweight in the number, so they became "Thin-Medium Lines (3)". However, it seems like many projects end up with the older line styles in their projects as well - I attribute this to copying something in from an old project.

There's now discussion in our office to completely revamp the naming of our linestyles so that they all appear at the beginning of the list, i.e. "1 V Fine", "2 Fine", etc. I am not opposed to the convention, I am just concerned that our projects are going to end up junked up with old line style names, and we'll have a more difficult time managing graphics.

Has anyone made a similar switch that can speak from experience as to how this would pan out?

[arqt49]

Here is what I use (see pic).
For other, I just add the pattern, use or color.

[antman]

Here is what I use (see pic).
For other, I just add the pattern, use or color.

3 (marginally 4) usable lineweights? I need my printed output to have more definition than that, especially when working in details.