Dependent Views.... Worth it?

[lbjorn]

I would like to pose a question. We religiously use View Templates, especially now that Revit has boosted their presence and usability. This ensures that all of our 'like' views look the same. We also have chosen not to use Dependent Views to break up a building into areas when too large for a sheet. Instead, we create separate views for a composite plan (overall plan) and for each area (using scope boxes). This allows us to have the composite plan on a sheet at a certain scale, showing certain basic information. This also allows the enlarged plan views to have a different scale and show more detailed documentation.

My current belief is that because we use View Templates and Scope Boxes there is no reason for us to use Dependent Views to break up a floor plan. In fact, when we used to utilize this function, it was more problematic as callouts and annotations near a Matchline would sometimes "slip" off of one sheet and onto the other undesirably. We prefer to work in the view that is actually on the sheet, knowing exactly how (and if) annotations will display.

My question is, why are so many married to the idea of using Dependent Views? Is there functionality that we are now missing out on because we don't use them? I welcome any opposing views! Thanks.

[greg.mcdowell]

The only advantage, that I can see, is that, with Dependent views, you can annotate from the overall view instead of jumping back-n-forth between enlarged views... that and you can use Matchlines and view references (though with 2013 and up I think you can create a view reference from anywhere so maybe that's not even an issue anymore).

[damon.sidel]

I agree with Greg about annotating an overall view and the matchlines. The matchlines in particular are important to us. Otherwise, you have a dumb piece of text annotating what drawing to refer to. I've gotten the argument, "Well that's OK, we had to worry about every reference when we used ACAD." True, but since you knew you had to worry about every single reference, you did. If you make some references in Revit dumb, you'll miss them, because everybody will assume all the references automatically update.

Any chance to avoid "dumb" text in place of a reference and I take it. That's why I choose to use Dependent Views and put up with some of the trouble they give.

[Devin_82]

Otherwise, you have a dumb piece of text annotating what drawing to refer to.

In the 2014 release of Revit they have opened up the view reference tag a lot more and you no longer need to rely on match lines to reference other segments. While it is true that you will have to manage visibility more than you would with matchline view references from previous versions, it is still better than text. you are no longer limited to view references that look like detail callouts. You also now have the ability to change the view that the view reference is associated to which you didn't have before. You can then use a detail group for your matchlines and avoid a bunch of the dependent view blues.