Reference Label Location Problem

[bowlingbrad]

I'm having trouble trying to figure out how to locate the reference label away from the reference number. Tried all of the settings and nothing seems to be working. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

[aaronrumple]

Built in right now. We need to send Revit a new elevation tag guy. Last one died @ R4.

[bowlingbrad]

That explains a lot. ;)

[bowlingbrad]

Well, I got a response back from them:

Thank you for choosing Autodesk Subscription. Here is the recommended resolution to your Support Request:

Currently this cannot be done in Revit. We are currently working to improve such features in future releases. Please let me know with anything else regarding this issue.

Not really happy. Going to use the NON-REVIT text note method. Bummer :cry:

[bowlingbrad]

I'm starting to feel that they need to start fixing a lot of these little nagging operational issues. The bulk of the program is humming along right now. I don't think that any of us would mind a point release addressing all of these concerns. Let's start a list of little nagging things that should be addressed immediately (unless one is started already).

1. Referring to other views should not be restricted to Drafting and Plan Views.
2. Reference Label Location should work.
3. Dimensions should be more flexible (text overrides, snap to corners, etc.)
4. Callouts, Sections and Elevations should be able to be viewed only in their 'parent' view if desired.

I really think that this list isn't any longer than 15 to 20 items :wink:

Any other issues?

[janunson]

...

Not really happy. Going to use the NON-REVIT text note method. Bummer :cry:


Agreed. We faught w/ that thing here too a few months ago and lost.

[bowlingbrad]

1. Referring to other views should not be restricted to Drafting and Plan Views.
2. Reference Label Location should work.
3. Dimensions should be more flexible (text overrides, snap to corners, etc.)
4. Callouts, Sections and Elevations should be able to be viewed only in their 'parent' view if desired.


I thought of a couple more:

5. Better control of fill patterns - Creation and Lineweight.
6. Better control of DWG imports - access to and/or converting of existing ctb files.

[Calvn_Swing]

Another problem with the reference label is that it is a type parameter. You might have one elevation that is referenced as O.H. in one place and SIM. in another. We're currently using just SIM for all locations as a default, but it is just more informative and easy to read a set using both designators. The reference label should be an instance parameter that is tied to the tag and not the view. I could make it so if they'd let me edit the blinking family, but this is another one of those "only we at the factory can change it" which is a really dumb way of increasing their workload beyond the bounds of reason if you ask me. If we could edit it, I could post a better tag on this forum, and put it on a few libraries, and in 3 months it would be a non-issue and Autodesk wouldn't have to do squat. Here I'm offering free labor and they're not buying. What has the world come to...


1. Referring to other views should not be restricted to Drafting and Plan Views.
2. Reference Label Location should work.
3. Dimensions should be more flexible (text overrides, snap to corners, etc.)
4. Callouts, Sections and Elevations should be able to be viewed only in their 'parent' view if desired.

Actually, I take issues with two of these suggestions...

#3, I'd like to have more control of what dimensions snap to, and what tick marks look like, but the whole point of Revit is the necessity for accuracy and "text overrides" on the Dimensions would kill that. You're still thinking of Revit as ONLY a documentation tool and not as a tool for linking architecture to construction, CNC, etc... The Prefix and Suffix options allow a lot of possibilities already, the only thing I'd like additionally is the ability to make a "REF" dimension like in door legends, etc...

#4, Callouts already are only visible in their Parent views (for the most part - there is some weird behavior in overlapping sections with callouts that may be a bug). Sections and elevations are visible in all views because they are modeling tools, not documentation tools. I would like finer control in VG settings so that I can turn off "wall sections" in view and not "building sections" rather than the all or nothing "to show sections, or not to show sections" approach we've now got. What good are sub-categories if we can't take advantage of them. There are ways to do this kind of stuff using Filters, but that shouldn't be needed when it is obviously a common problem. Once again I'd say that you are thinking of Revit as a CAD replacement and that alone. Revit has much more potential that CAD, and you might examine your documentation process a bit as well and question changing it. The No.1 way to have a bad Revit implementation at your office is to try to replicate your CAD standards. Just can't be done. Be creative and you might like what comes out even better!

[bowlingbrad]

...blow the dust off of this thread...

Calvn,

You make some good additional points about dimension properties and snapping to more items. But I'm still of the opinion that there are MANY uses for dimension overrides. I'm not going to re-state them here. There are many threads devoted to this topic.

Our Revit implementation is going great.

[ron.sanpedro]

Re: #3

But how do you do a Dimension that says Varies, or Verify in Field. In both cases, you don't want any actual numbers, just the text. Revit doesn't allow for that. I fully agree that the lack of a dim NUMBER override is a good thing, but replacing the number with text is needed. And the suffix needs to have an option to drop it under the dim line, ala AutoCAD \X.

And I would add, stacked fractions could honestly be useful. Not with a bazillion options like in Acad, so somecan waste 20 perfectly good hours futzing with it. But a simple stacked option would go a long way in really tight details.

And I will add to the list. FIX the interior shadows bug! Please!

Hopefully with 10.0 being a performance release, we will see 10.1 as a major bug fix release, but I suspect we will actually see new features in 10.1, since the general mentality is new features sell seats. Fixing annoyances that we have already found workarounds to doesn't sell seats. I disagree, but I think that is what Autodesk thinks.

Best,
Gordon

[Calvn_Swing]

...blow the dust off of this thread...

Calvn,

You make some good additional points about dimension properties and snapping to more items. But I'm still of the opinion that there are MANY uses for dimension overrides. I'm not going to re-state them here. There are many threads devoted to this topic.

Our Revit implementation is going great.


I did not mean to imply it wasn't! Ours was not for a while for those reasons, and I am in the habit of cautioning my posts with that disclaimer. I just wove it into to that response a little too much I think!

I've seen the posts, and in general I disagree that dimension overrides should be part of Revit. I think they'll cause worse problems than they solve. Hopefully someone smarter than me will come up with a creative solution that will make us both happy! (knock knock, any Revit programmers around?)

(Edit: The more I re-read my previous post, the more pompous it sounds. I really didn't mean it to be. It wasn't a good day for me to try writing I think. Sorry again!)

[Calvn_Swing]

Re: #3

But how do you do a Dimension that says Varies, or Verify in Field. In both cases, you don't want any actual numbers, just the text. Revit doesn't allow for that. I fully agree that the lack of a dim NUMBER override is a good thing, but replacing the number with text is needed. And the suffix needs to have an option to drop it under the dim line, ala AutoCAD \X.


That's precisely what I meant by a REF# dimension. They could just create a dimension style that doesn't measure anything and instead is specifically for those purposes where you want have text linked to the space between two "things". Ref. Door Schedule, or Varies, etc... Same thought, I just didn't put it down very well did I?

Thanks

[ron.sanpedro]

That's precisely what I meant by a REF# dimension. They could just create a dimension style that doesn't measure anything and instead is specifically for those purposes where you want have text linked to the space between two "things". Ref. Door Schedule, or Varies, etc... Same thought, I just didn't put it down very well did I?

Thanks

I guess I would rather have an override so I don't have to manage two different dim families to maintain graphic consistency. One dim family, with an instance parameter for text override, would be better in my mind. Not a major difference, but more than a semantic difference. I am sure plenty of people have a valid argument for why my preference is nuts ;)

Best,
Gordon

[bowlingbrad]

...Sorry again...


Don't worry about it! No offense taken.

[Calvn_Swing]

I guess I would rather have an override so I don't have to manage two different dim families to maintain graphic consistency. One dim family, with an instance parameter for text override, would be better in my mind. Not a major difference, but more than a semantic difference. I am sure plenty of people have a valid argument for why my preference is nuts ;)

How about another Dim Type, not another Dim Family? One Type is for dimensioning values and another for dimensioning notes? Can you make your own dimension families/types? I must admit I haven't tried that...