Callouts - Parents, Dependants, and which to show

[RobG]

I've had this issue a few times, and the workaround being used kind of sucks to be honest, so i'm wondering what others are doing

Situation :

a building section on a sheet has a callout of the wall section.
wall section doesn't fit on the sheet, so you create two dependants (say Top and Bottom)
You place them on the sheet, but in the section you don't want it to look like two callouts, but just one big one from the "parent" callout.


How do you get the information from "Bottom" to look like it's calling out the whole wall, but it's really broken into two portions on the sheet?!?

In plan it's fine, cause it creates 3 tags, and you can just hide the two you don't want (say Parent and "Top", leaving it to show the information of "Bottom".

Hope this makes sense to people.

[cdatechguy]

Yeah....I am still dealing with your last attempt at this....:|

[RobG]

while dependant views are a great feature, the ability to annotate them "easily" is missing.

again, the plan condition is fine, hide the two you don't want showing, and it'll leave the annotation for the sheet/view number just fine. That's for a section/detail of a callout.

the real issue is if when you get into a building section and want to show an overall callout instead of two independant callouts, all the while not-placing the "parent" on a sheet.

[arb]

Can you simply hide all 3 views in the building section and place a new callout referencing whichever dependent section view you want?

- Alex

[RobG]

Short answer yes. That's the work around I eluded to, problem is that it leads to managing 4 tags in one place... Kinda crummy...

Any other suggestions i'm not seeing/thinking of?!?

[DaveP]

Why are you creating Dependent Views?
Can't you just Split the Section?
Click on the little squiggly icon on the edge of the Viewport and your Section should break into a "Top" and "Bottom" all by itself. Then you can drag the two pieces closer.

The other advantage to this is that you can even dimension between the two parts and it will show the actual dimension - not the "squished"

[cdatechguy]

What would be nice is if you split the section you can move them side to side like you could a schedule....but since that is not possible one would need to create the dependent views. Yes, you can split them, but when you have 2-3 good floors to show it can get quite messy with a lot of split views.

[RobG]

right, while some people are ok with cutting out repetitive floors, some aren't. Then there's the issue that our building in this case doesn't have repetitive floors.

as CDATechGuy says, the "ideal" would be the ability to drag the cut section to the side allowing side by side as opposed to top/bottom as is "desired"

seems the only real way would be the current 4 tag method (1 being the parent, 2 being the dependants, last being the duplicate referencing the view info we want to show)

[rosskirby]

I think the problem you're always going to run into when trying to do this is that by splitting a single wall section into multiple views, putting those separate views on a sheet necessitates multiple separate view references. Floor plans are a little different because their "reference" is a level, and for some reason isn't duplicated when you make a dependant view.

Here's what I've done in the rare situation when a section is too big for a sheet: make your callout from the building section, set it to a scale that will fit on the page, then make your individual callouts from that, sort of like a key plan for sections. That way you've got a view of what the entire wall section looks like, along with its constituent parts, all on the same page. This is especially helpful when the section gets divided up into more than 2 parts.