Revision Issued Issue

[Steve_Stafford]

When you "issue" a revision you'll find that you won't be able to alter settings for:

view range
underlay
Crop Region (if checked you can't uncheck or uncheck visible)(if un-checked, can't check)
If you try to change one of these three items in a view that contains an issued revision cloud Revit will generate the attached error message. Waiting for a response from Revit support on this as a formal bug or as intended.

The workaround is to temporarily un-issue the revision.

Take care when issuing revisions while others have worksets checked out. If they have attempted to change one of these settings at the same time a revisions has been issued you may find yourself unable to STC. Best to issue revisions after all others have done a STC and are out of the project.

[Chad Smith]

No problems here on all three accounts. I am using Build 20050126_2030 if that makes any difference.

[Steve_Stafford]

Using the same build as you...it does it here. Sure you've got a view that has a revision cloud that's been issued on it? Does it at home, at work, other PC's...metric and Imperial templates and previous builds.

[Chad Smith]

I think I have this set up in the same way.

First image shows revision and the first one as issued.
The second image show the sheet with revision clouds (tagged for reference with the first image) and the revision schedule showing revisions. Then I go into the properties of the view that I have on the sheet and change the 'View Range' fields, and everything changes just fine. :confused:

[Steve_Stafford]

I was using by project, yours is by sheet...might be a difference but I think I tried that option too. Did you finish the change to the view range and try closing the dialog?

[Chad Smith]

I just tried by Project and there was no problem, and yes I did close all the dialogues. I don't know what's going on. Probably some ever so small difference in the drawing process.

[beegee]

I'm getting exactly the same negative result as Steve. ( using both by project & by sheet ) Build 20050126_2030

[Steve_Stafford]

Check's in the mail BeeGee...we moderators have to stick together after all. :wink:

But seriously, I've duplicated it with "By Sheet" as well. Interesting that Chad doesn't get the same results. Did you try the project I posted Chad? It would be very very interesting if you opened it and it didn't do it to you!?! :screwy:

Chad, could you post your project so I can see if I can break it?

[beegee]

Cheque bounced Steve :mad:

Just to add interest, I opened Steve's file and got the same result again as my testing.

[Chad Smith]

Ah, I see the difference now. You place the revision clouds on the view, I place the revision clouds on the sheet.

I prefer clouds on the sheet, so if a view of say a detail is added or more importantly removed, then I can cloud where it was and comment it as removed.

BTW, your error happens when I open your file.

[Steve_Stafford]

aaah...sheet, not view...interesting! At least we know why now.

[PeterJ]

How do you link the view to the cloud then, Chad?

[beegee]

So Chad, you placed the cloud around a view on a sheet,issued it, then you activated the view to test changing the View Range, Underlay and Crop Region. ?

Since the view and the cloud are effectively " divorced " using this method, that would work.

[Steve_Stafford]

Revit help says you can place a cloud in any view but a 3D view. So that means it is perfectly acceptable to put a cloud on a sheet. In Chad's example it makes sense to do so for a detail that has been removed. It is also reasonable to put a cloud in a view too. What remains to be seen is if Revit intended to limit the changes we've encountered to views without issued revisions for some reason.

[Chad Smith]

How do you link the view to the cloud then, Chad?
When clouding in the view, the only link that exists, is the fact that it is in the view. There are no properties for the cloud that say that it is on a specific view, not that I can see anyway.

If you place your clouds on views, and then at a later point decide you don't need that view anymore and delete it both of the sheets and from the Project Browser, you then lose any revision history you had for that view. If the clouds are on a sheet and you delete a view, you still retain the revision history.

You could then say that what happens when you remove a sheet, but that (in my opinion) is a bad thing to do as you are removing a sheet which has been issued and registered, and therefore should stay in the drawing set within the project for continuity.

So Chad, you placed the cloud around a view on a sheet,issued it, then you activated the view to test changing the View Range, Underlay and Crop Region. ?
Either activate the view, or select the view and go to Properties.

[Chad Smith]

Personally, I think clouds should be restricted to sheets only.

[beegee]

Yes, looking forward to hearing what the factory has to say about that.


............ What remains to be seen is if Revit intended to limit the changes we've encountered to views without issued revisions for some reason.

[Steve_Stafford]

Personally, I think clouds should be restricted to sheets only.We'll have to mull this one over...

[beegee]

One possible problem with the sheet view method, is that you cannot export just the view as a dwg to your consultants, since it will not contain the revision reference. You must export the sheet view.

[Chad Smith]

One possible problem with the sheet view method, is that you cannot export just the view as a dwg to your consultants, since it will not contain the revision reference. You must export the sheet view.
If your exporting just the view, then chances are that they will be using it for their own drafting purposes, as an XREF in AutoCAD for example.
If you are sending it for anything else, then it should go as a sheet, complete with revision info and a transmittal.

[beegee]

But, as is often heard in the Forums, " the software should not attempt to dictate working methods "
It is not possible to envisage all the ways in which each user may wish to communicate building information.
I can think of cases where it would be convenient for all parties to just issue and receive dwg views that contained a visual reference ( revision cloud and symbol ) for amendments.


If your exporting just the view, then chances are that they will be using it for their own drafting purposes, as an XREF in AutoCAD for example.
If you are sending it for anything else, then it should go as a sheet, complete with revision info and a transmittal.

[Chad Smith]

I can think of cases where it would be convenient for all parties to just issue and receive dwg views that contained a visual reference ( revision cloud and symbol ) for amendments.
But an exported view with a cloud and a mark isn't really 'issued', there is no relation to a revision schedule and project information, it's purely a view with drawing info. While this view may be issued in terms of the Revit issuing process, it means nothing when it is disconnected / exported from Revit.

I guess which ever way you choose to drawing, as long as I can cloud on my sheet, then I'll be happy :D .

[Chad Smith]

I guess the whole revisioning process would take a different turn, if there was a great deal of intelligence and Revit could cloud changes as they occur (eg. you add a door, and it clouds it instantly), in which case I would expect this to be view specific.

[bowlingbrad]

I don't necessarily know if I want Revit to cloud instantly. Maybe have Revit mark the state of a project at the requested time of issue. Then, later, when you want to see what has been revised, tell revit to show all (or user selected) things that have been modified/changed since the last issue. Then, Revit should ask if you would like it clouded, and assign it a revision issue number.

Brad

[beegee]

But an exported view with a cloud and a mark isn't really 'issued', there is no relation to a revision schedule and project information, it's purely a view with drawing info.>>>>>.
Not necessarily, it could be that someone wishes to export a view, prior to construction, to a consultant highlighting, identifying and tracking a revision on a large project for instance, ( example - a building extending across a number of sheets ) where the amendment may not have been immediately obvious to the consultant without that cloud. These sorts of revisions would be identified in a different fashion to revisions occurring during tender or after tenders had been let.
My point is that there are many ways of communicating information and that Revit has not dictated (yet ) that revisions should only be placed on sheet views, so they should work just as well in views as in sheets, but they don't.

Another problem that could arise with placing revision clouds on sheets, is when another view is added to a sheet, necessitating the original ( clouded ) view to be repositioned and thence requiring the cloud to be repositioned ( if it's tightly focused ), leading to possible errors if its missed in the process. Also, this could happen if the view is rescaled or its crop extents changed etc.

I guess I'm just stuck in the " cloud the view " camp at the moment. I like to keep all the information together in the view and place only the absolute minimum amount of information on a sheet view.

[Chad Smith]

Another problem that could arise with placing revision clouds on sheets, is when another view is added to a sheet, necessitating the original ( clouded ) view to be repositioned and thence requiring the cloud to be repositioned ( if it's tightly focused ), leading to possible errors if its missed in the process. Also, this could happen if the view is rescaled or its crop extents changed etc.
I haven't come across that one yet, but good point.

[beegee]

Just to add further comment to the discussion, I came across these posts of Leonid's.


>>>> In general it is a good idea to limit drafting in sheets only to notes and lines that relate to entire sheet while keeping everything related to views (including revision clouds) directly in views.


There are cases when revision clouds need to be placed on sheets. Examples - (A) changes in schedules, (B) if entire view representing a drafting detail is added/deleted/replaced. However revision clouds for portions of building model are better placed into graphical views.So, it's over to you, Factory.

[LRaiz]

Revision clouds are deliberately allowed both in views and in sheets. It was my expectation that architects would chose view or sheet depending on a situation. In cases when project model geometry is changed (e.g. wall was moved or widows were added) I thought that it was better to put revision cloud in a view that showed the change. This way if a view is later moved to a different sheet (or view location on sheet changes) then revision cloud would move together with a view and sheet would possibly update its revision table. On the other hand if a change was related to sheet composition (e.g. view is added or deleted) then revision cloud would logically belong to a sheet.

At the end of the day users will always chose a workflow that seems most appropriate to them

[beegee]

Leonid,

That is the work flow my office uses.

The problem is that if a revision is issued , and the revision is on a view ( not a sheet ) then the revision appears to lock any changes to the View Range , Underlay and Crop Region. ( See Steve Stafford's first post in this thread )

[LRaiz]

Now I see the problem. After a revision was issued sheets are expected to be printed and sent for review. Revit is apparently attempting to prevent view changes after the issue while previous revision cloud is still visible. I expected that creating a new revision and making issued revision invisible would allow making subsequent view changes. However this is not happening. We will have to wait for a word from the factory if this is a bug or users are expected to take additional actions in order to modify view range, etc. in subsequent revisions.

[DoTheBIM]

We will have to wait for a word from the factory if this is a bug or users are expected to take additional actions in order to modify view range, etc. in subsequent revisions.
This still appears to be an issue in 2009. I was unable to find the "word from the factory";) through searching augi. Does anyone know where I can find the word or even if there's any?