elevation tag samples

[frame]

So, I am currently exploring the concept of elevation symbols here at the factory (I know, I know....finally!), and am looking for examples.

Specifically:
Interior Tags that reference more that 4 views
A variety of graphic styles/conventions (interior and exterior)
Interior tags that refer to multiple views, where the views might be on separate sheets
Elevations with a "jog" in them (where front clip plane varies in depth)
Elevation tags in other elevations/section views

Many thanks in advance!

[aggockel50321]

How does that saying go??

You can please some of the people some of the time....

[robert.manna]

How does that saying go??

You can please some of the people some of the time....
Except he can't please any of us unless we give him (or her) some examples. I should be one to talk, but unfortunately I don't have any good examples and all I can say is YES! I do want all that functionality. Hopefully some other folks from my firm will have examples to post.

-R

[michael.deorsey]

Well here are some examples of what we do / have done. I have attached both our exterior and interior elevation standards. I tend to think that for the interior elevations we will use your current round as our new standard, but It would be nice if we could use the attached if we so choose.

Thanks,
Mike

[ron.sanpedro]

So, I am currently exploring the concept of elevation symbols here at the factory (I know, I know....finally!), and am looking for examples.

Specifically:
Interior Tags that reference more that 4 views
A variety of graphic styles/conventions (interior and exterior)
Interior tags that refer to multiple views, where the views might be on separate sheets
Elevations with a "jog" in them (where front clip plane varies in depth)

Many thanks in advance!

Frame,
are you working exclusively on graphics? One thing we have run into recently is the need to seperate Interior and Exterior Elevation symbols. Basically we want the Exterior symbols to show up on the 1/8" and 1/16" plans, but the Interior symbols show up on the Enlarged Plans. As far as I can tell Revit sees no difference between the two types of Elevation, and that would be a very useful differentiation. I have some other wish list items along the lines of functional changes in sections, elevations, details, etc. I can forward them to you if appropriate.

Thank!
Gordon

[robert.manna]

I think Gordon brings up a good point, it might be nice to be able to have subcategories within the elevation category (you should be able to now with section symbols as you can create your own). In any case the ability to filter views or something like that could prove useful as a means to help control what view symbols show up in various drawings. As far as your specific case Gordon, I think the new functionality in version 9.1 should help, as you can now have elevations symbols hide themselves at "scales coarser than".

-R

[frame]

Gordon,

Feel free to send me more details, and thanks for the feedback.
greg.demchak@autodesk.com
revit product design

[Alex Page]

From my point of view, looking at the 'graphic' symbol only, really it just needs to have the same amount of adjustability/ editibility as section markers do...then Im happy!

[Scott D Davis]

Here's one from our AutoCAD days that some in our office would like to have: Combo interior elevation/room tag. Also, our elevation/section symbols from AutoCAD, based on Graphic Standards.

[frame]

Scott:

Thanks for the examples. The combo room+sheet label is a great one to consider.
Just the kind of thing i'm hoping to uncover.

[sbrown]

I need the functionality of visibility control on various levels. We do Interiors and Architecture mixed projects in the same model. It becomes incredibly time consuming to turn off the interior elevation symbols that pop up on all the arch. views. So some way to filter elevation types by scale, discipline and interior/exterior.

[dbaldacchino]

Wow, very timely....we were discussing elevation standard notation just today!

As for graphic representation of exterior elevations, what's been posted in this thread is typical for us in ADT (symbol that looks like a section mark without the tail and leader). We would definately like to have the possibility to jog elevations. One thing I don't understand is the reason that elevation tags were implemented in the current fashion, instead of making use of an annotation family similar to section tag implementation. That way, it's all up to the user to define the graphical display and layout and there wouldn't be any more gripes.

On the topic of elevations, we need better control over line weights. Objects farther away need to appear thinner. ADT's elevations are a good example of what users are looking for: being able to define zones where lines will be heavy closer to the viewer and zones were lines start to get lighter/recede as they get further away from the viewer. Using Advanced Model Graphics (silhouette overrides) has been problematic when using wall sweeps (such as brick banding) as these also assume the heavier line weight assigned to the override and thus read incorrectly.

Elevation tag management is a serious issue for us too. I had a thought regarding this.....why not make elevation tags visible by default ONLY in the view where created? This solves the issue of having to manually turn off tags in all other views. If a user is creating elevations just for testing things out (temporary elevation views), they can do so in their personal views and not affect the documentation views. If a user wants to add a permanent elevation, they would go to the respective view, such as an interior plan, and place them there. By default, they would not show anywhere else except in that view, which would be part of the document set. If they are desired also in another view (this would be rare for us), then the user would just have to right click on the invisible elevation annotation in that view and select "Show Annotation in view". This is contrary to what our current workflow is (turning tags off in ALL undesirable views).

Thanks for working on this!!

[Rols]

Throughout my career the choice has been pretty darn simple: single or multi.
We typically use the single elevation tag, regardless of whether it's interior or exterior. If I have enough room on my floorplan to use seperate elevation tags for each interior wall, I use singles. If space is a bit cramped, then I use the multi.

I know there are limitations in using the single elevation tag. I will no longer be able to use those cute little check boxes to create and control multiple elevation views. I can deal with it! Just give me the choice.

Thank you, Frame for looking at this matter and asking for our input.

[cstanley]

Frame, thanks for asking!
I attached some of our "standards" used in ACAD.
On the subject of elevation tags, I typically try not to show the Interior ones. They clutter up my drawings, and although it's neat that they display the reference information, it's really not necessary for me. Instead, I name my elevation views "1032 Radiology W" for example. (the W is for west.) this way they aren't necessary on the floor plans, and the GC can find them easily on the elevations sheets. of course, there are exceptions.

However: I would like them to be "room aware" so that I can have them auto-fill their name, number, and the elevation view title.

That said, see below for our "standards" which we would like to be able to use. since we are a large firm in transition, we need all of our drawings, whether in ACAD or Revit, to appear as though they are from the same software. it should be indiscernible what software was used to create the final product. so more flexibility in appearance is necessary.

also, it would be great to be able to use the tags shown with the text properly rotated (see the section heads/tails and refer to this thread http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=45881)

[aaronrumple]

Aside from the graphics issue - I think a more critical component is how the symbols are managed.

1. They should have the "Hide at Scales Coarser Than" (9.1 Feature - thanks...)

2. When a symbol is placed in a top level drawing such as a floor plan - it should only be visible in that top level drawing - not in their duplicated views of the same type. We have architectural floor plans, interior furniture plans, interior floor finish plans, equipment plans, etc. When I place a symbol in an interior design floor plan - it should not show up in the architectural floor plan.

3. There should be subcategories of symbol types. This also applies to sections, details and callouts. When I'm on a roof plan - I want to be able to turn off everything but symbols associated with Detail Views (Roof Details). I'd rather do this using annotation visibility settings rather than filters or some other technique. (Interior Elevations, Exterior Elevations, Casework Elevations, etc...) These should be user definable just like the detail view types.

4. An elevation that extends from Level 1 to Level 2 should not display on Level 2. It should have to cross Level 2 in order to display on Level 2.

5. Elevation symbols should be separated from the picture plane on a view-by-view basis. I want the symbol in slightly different locations in different scale floor plans. Right now that is a constant fight where one person moves a symbol in one view and then it is right on top of someone other views notes.

6. Elevations should have the "Show In" Parent View Only just like callouts. This feature should also be extended to sections. (All of these comments apply to all symbols.)

6. There should be auto view naming based on level and room name. (We use LVL01.100.E as an example in naming our views in the project browser.) Even something like "North Elevation Room 100" would even be better than 22-a, 22-b, 22-c etc... It would be Ok if it did this on first time placement. But a better solution would be to incorporate VBScript in the symbols parameters so I could enter something like "vbRoomName & vbLevelName" in the elevation name field so it would auto update as the symbol moved from space to space. (That would be cool.)

7. Don't make the view depth confusing like ADT. But give us that functionality. I'd propose just a simple Projected, Near and Far setting. Projected diplays with the lineweight and style per the family category. Near displays with 1/2 the defined lineweight. Far displays with 1/2 the lineweight and screened 50%. Line style and color are not changed of course.

[archjake]

I know this question was for elevation tags, but can we talk about the way an interior elevation should be cropped?

See the attached example. We need the ability or a tool to do this easily if one wishes to.

And while I'm at it:
For elevation view depth I'd like to see a system of planes. We currently have the view depth plane. Keep this the same, but we should be able to add new planes in between (1 to n) and define the graphics for what is viewed behind each plane much like what Aaron is talking about. It should be easy to move and adjust the planes. Much like the view depth we currently have. There may also be an instance where the plane does not cross the entire view. An example of this would be a wall at a 45 degree on the right side of a building and a protruding room on the left side of the elevation that occurs somewhere between. The user may want different line weights.

And more: I think it is sometimes important for an elevation to follow a segmented surface and not just be projected. It is kind of like un-folding but not really. This can currently be done with multiple elevations at a 90 deg. angle to a segmented wall and then placed together on a sheet, but why not have this ability in our tool box. I'd love to be able to do a kitchen like this as well.

[The Sweg]

It sounds like this may already exist, but could we have the ability to create our own graphics for the section and elevation heads, load them and be able to insert whatever we want?

BTW, Thanks for asking for suggestions, we all appreciate it, and it just shows class. Good luck with this task!

[Rols]

3. There should be subcategories of symbol types. This also applies to sections, details and callouts.
This would also be applied to views referencing other views. Not every elevation that may reference another elevation (typical views such as bathrooms) is a "SIM". There may be TYP, SIM REV, REV (reverse), or they may be exactly the same, in which case there would be so extra tag. We need to be able to specify the tag type for each instance.

[robert.manna]

This would also be applied to views referencing other views. Not every elevation that may reference another elevation (typical views such as bathrooms) is a "SIM". There may be TYP, SIM REV, REV (reverse), or they may be exactly the same, in which case there would be so extra tag. We need to be able to specify the tag type for each instance.Yes, the ability to "tag" a view callout as any of these should be an instance parameter so that we don't end up 20 different view types just because of needing all the tags.

Here, here on all the suggustions so far! Having had a programmer for a roomate (works for Microsoft now) I learned about how hard it is to make things infinently flexible in the programming world, but as I think everyone at the factory knows, we need far more functionality in a range of ways when it comes to elevations & views in general.

Thanks,

-R

[aaronrumple]

It sounds like this may already exist, but could we have the ability to create our own graphics for the section and elevation heads, load them and be able to insert whatever we want?

BTW, Thanks for asking for suggestions, we all appreciate it, and it just shows class. Good luck with this task!
Yes - this needs to be fixed. It used to work great, but somewhere along the line this became a type parameter rather than instance and screwed the whole system up.

[Andre Baros]

One thing we were just discussing is that interior elevation tags should be smart enough to know where they are. We always name our interior elevations Kitchen North, Kitchen South, Kitchen East, Kitchen West, etc. Not elevation 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. This may be too much to ask, but if this was at least the default name and we could change it for odd conditions...

I'll try to find some examples from pre-Revit...

[ford347]

has anyone found a way to create a callout like the 'plan detail' shown in cstanley's post? I have wished I could just point to an area to reference the detail before without having a bulky cut in some cases.

My suggestions concur with the others.

1. Visibility control, placements etc. in plan view. The elevation tags get very cumbersome to control from view to view. I think the others covered the suggestions well.
2. The plane based graphics within elevations. Agree as well.
3. The ability to create an elevation graphic you are happy with. I really don't like the ext. elevation symbol and would love to change it and make elevation tags more custom as the sections have been.
4. Control over cropping in any elevation view. This would save some time with work-arounds to make interior elevations more presentable....i.e. filled regions to crop out areas you don't want to see or to outline your view nicely.

Not really anything new, but I agree with the suggestions so far.

[cstanley]

has anyone found a way to create a callout like the 'plan detail' shown in cstanley's post? I have wished I could just point to an area to reference the detail before without having a bulky cut in some cases.




Sure, the plan detail one is pretty simple. just modify the callout head symbol by deleting the default circle, load into the project and there you go!

[Andre Baros]

Camera tag. 3D-cropped section tag. I know they don't exist yet, but they need too. Revit is changing the rules.

Room aware interior elevation tags.

Depth control in all views, especially elevations.

Interior elevations crop to ROOM boundry (good way to check room bounding too)

[davidcobi]

Add "Aquire Room Name" and "Aquire Orientation" check boxes to interior elevation tags type properties.

One of our users had a request and I thought I'd hear what others have to say about it. One of our projects has many rooms and with them many interior elevations. It might be nice if the names of interior elevation views could automatically aquire their name from the name of the room they are placed in and aquire their orientation from project north so instead of reading "Elevation 1-a" they read "Living Room-North."

For rooms that are at an angle just rename Living Room-North to Living Room-East and Revit could update the other 3 view names. All of this could be controlled from the two parameters "Aquire Room Name" and "Aquire Orientation." Changing a Room Name would update the Interior Elevation Name as well.

(Edit: Ok, what Andre said)

[Dean Camlin]

. . . And while you're making changes, Greg, please add the ability to turn the backgound of the symbol opaque so it obscures what is behind it. (This also applies to section heads - see http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=48926.)

[MTristram]

Just wanting to know if anyone has progressed any of these queries. I would especially be interested in any improvement with the ability to define/modify the elevation tag, it seems there is almost a concensus on how it should look - anything would be better than the current one.

[eldad]

I know this question was for elevation tags, but can we talk about the way an interior elevation should be cropped?

See the attached example. We need the ability or a tool to do this easily if one wishes to.
I second that as well as the ability to be "room smart" :)
thanks,

[Dean Camlin]

I'm gratified to see that we no longer need to copy the elevation markers to generate duplicate elevations!

[HawkeyNut]

Specifically:
Interior Tags that reference more that 4 views
A variety of graphic styles/conventions (interior and exterior)
Interior tags that refer to multiple views, where the views might be on separate sheets
Elevations with a "jog" in them (where front clip plane varies in depth)
Elevation tags in other elevations/section views
I think all the suggestions in this thread have been excellent ones. Here are my 2¢ on what are important topics for us:

1) A secondary 'zone' or clip region in which objects can be turned to different line weights or half-tone. This would allow for objects beyond or in the distance to read better in interior and exterior elevations.
2) Fully customizable elevation tags. We generally do not use exterior elevation tags, but our interior tags used to look like flat, hatched triangle with the reference underneath them (see attachment).
3) Jogging elevation lines. Currently we are using sections as elevations in some cases because we want our grade to show at the building facade but also need to properly depict protruding elements.
4) Room crops as mentioned in this thread. It would be nice for interior elevations to have a heavy, solid line at the inside edge of walls, ceilings, and floors with nothing shown outside of them.

Adding these types of features would help us Revit Techies greatly in our ever-continuing battle with the senior members of our staff who argue that drawings output has gotten worse since we started using Revit... (In some cases I cannot disagree with them!)

[Andre Baros]

Ditto on the room outline in interior elevations issue. We have people who spend days, even weeks, tracing the outline of every odd shaped room, ceiling cove, and window section to get interior elevations to look right. Like many Revit items it takes 60 seconds to get it almost there, and then 60 hours to get it the rest of the way to looking right.

[Scott D Davis]

Ditto on the room outline in interior elevations issue. We have people who spend days, even weeks, tracing the outline of every odd shaped room, ceiling cove, and window section to get interior elevations to look right. Like many Revit items it takes 60 seconds to get it almost there, and then 60 hours to get it the rest of the way to looking right.
Why though? What a waste...the project can still be built just fine without going through all the extra effort to trace all the outlines. "looking right" and "constructable" seem to be heading down two different paths. The method of profiling the interior elevations comes from old-school drafting days...maybe its time for a change? Is it really adding to the constructability of the drawings, or is it more to add "artistic" value?

[robert.manna]

Why though? What a waste...the project can still be built just fine without going through all the extra effort to trace all the outlines. "looking right" and "constructable" seem to be heading down two different paths. The method of profiling the interior elevations comes from old-school drafting days...maybe its time for a change? Is it really adding to the constructability of the drawings, or is it more to add "artistic" value?
While I agree with you that BIM tools should force us to re-evaulate what it is we provide to construct our buildings, and the appearance of our documents. The ability to at least easily illustrate depth in an elevation (maybe not the outline) can be quite critical to explaining how the building should appear, and how it should be built. While in the long run I would much rather give a model to a contractor or builder, in the intreim we have a great many projects ahead of us, that will still have to be documented "the old fashioned way" as a tool and a technology I've always felt that Revit needs to find (and generally has IMHO) ways to bridge between the old and the new. Weather or not in the future we are giving models, and not 2D documents sheets, I don't think will ever change the fact that designers will want to be able to evualate conditions in an orthographic projection. The ability to study a project elevation can be quite valauble in the process of design, and if you are using the evlevation (or section) as a tool in the design process, then the ability to understand depth, and have the "drawing" read well in general, is important. So really, in my mind the issue doesn't come to "oru traditional documents" but the use of Revit as a design tool.

-R

[captainbunsaver]

Great discussion here.... The very same one raging in many architectural offices around the world.
Back to Frame's orignal issue - when will Revit provide flexibility in elevation symbols?
2008.1? Next major release? Please give me hope!


TC

[twiceroadsfool]

Why though? What a waste...the project can still be built just fine without going through all the extra effort to trace all the outlines. "looking right" and "constructable" seem to be heading down two different paths. The method of profiling the interior elevations comes from old-school drafting days...maybe its time for a change? Is it really adding to the constructability of the drawings, or is it more to add "artistic" value?

I couldnt agree more. More and more these days, im having discussions with Project Managers about the look of the Construction Documents vs. the "Value added" practicality of some of what they ask. Ive even asking it about smaller items now, just to get them in the mindset that the old way is not necessarily the best, or the most efficient, or the correct way.

I think the interior elevation outline issue will go the way of the Revision Scheduler: You can make it look anyway you want, but you will have spent a lot of time undoing and redoing something that (in the end) is not adding any value to the actual project itself.

Besides, isnt this a moot point with Masking regions now? If you really want it that way, make a masking region with a heavy outline around the "sectioned" casework, etc...

[bclarch]

Why though? What a waste...the project can still be built just fine without going through all the extra effort to trace all the outlines. "looking right" and "constructable" seem to be heading down two different paths. The method of profiling the interior elevations comes from old-school drafting days...maybe its time for a change? Is it really adding to the constructability of the drawings, or is it more to add "artistic" value?
"Looking right" and "constructable" are not mutually exclusive. Drawings are a means of communication. It is the way that we tell craftspeople how to translate our designs into built reality. Line weights, hatching, etc. help others understand and interpret our drawings more readily. They are the visual equivalent to punctuation and grammar (or smilies :) ). It is not just a question of what is "pretty" or "how things have always been done". Anything that makes the drawings more readable lessens the chances for miscommunication and errors in the field.

[twiceroadsfool]

"Looking right" and "constructable" are not mutually exclusive. Drawings are a means of communication. It is the way that we tell craftspeople how to translate our designs into built reality. Line weights, hatching, etc. help others understand and interpret our drawings more readily. They are the visual equivalent to punctuation and grammar (or smilies :) ). It is not just a question of what is "pretty" or "how things have always been done". Anything that makes the drawings more readable lessens the chances for miscommunication and errors in the field.

Im with you, 100%. And in making drawings easier to read to eliminate unwanted errors in the field, if i have to pick between ghosting out a cabinet shown in section, plus a soffit, and only showing an outline so that said contractor has to guess at which items are framing the image because they arent shown, or actually SHOWING the items cut in section, with the view itself framed a a box, meaning he doesnt have to guess because the items are actually drawin in, then im going with the latter.

[dbaldacchino]

Great points on either side of the argument.

It's hard to discern what gets done for the sake of "artistic value" and "readability/constructibility". I can tell you that on the part of most people doing documents these days, artistic value is almost negligible. It's unfortunate in my opinion, but is a sore reality. In interior elevations, it's all about focus. In the past, there was no incentive to show more than is required. First of all, it meant more work and if you did show structure, ducts, etc. that perhaps where above a ceiling (so they're not really necessary), if those elements changed, you'd have to manually coordinate. So as a side effect, interior elevations read better and focused the viewer on what was important (dimensions, materials/finish tags, etc). But now, we can effortlessly show everything and that has led to more cluttered drawings (thus the perception of drawings in Revit not being "nice"). Is the project constructable? Yes. Is the information correct? Absolutely (given you didn't butcher the drawings with dumb annotation and line work). Could the drawings be more readable with less user input/spend less time in achieving that? No doubt in my mind, but the end user has little control over that. We have to be patient and make sure we build a case with the developers so they understand what we face on a daily basis.

Unfortunately, arguments such as Scott uses (nothing against you Scott :) ) don't help much, as they dismiss the importance of the true problems. I tell my users that if something in a drawing bugs you so much, fix it with whatever tools Revit makes available to you, just like you have always manually drafted over the years (interior elevations are one example). But I don't encourage it in any way, unless readability reaches a state that could cause errors and endless RFI's during CA. As much as I'd love to build great models and make that be the only deliverable (well, and specs too I guess), in the foreseeable future we will still communicate via 2D drawings, so we cannot ignore the shortcomings.

[greg.mcdowell]

I just skimmed this post so forgive me if this has already been mentioned...

I think that Revit, like ADT before it, should come, OTB compliant (or as close as can be reasonably made) with the current version of the NCS... and they have a defined set of elevation symbols.

[Andre Baros]

We're already had that discussion in the office. I'm was big fan of drawing for "building" not "pretty" drawings, but when we compared two sets in the office side by side, the "pretty" set was much easier to read. The same way that formating helps text to read, formating helps drawings to read. Close is enough sometimes, but sometimes it's not.

[Scott D Davis]

We're already had that discussion in the office. I'm was big fan of drawing for "building" not "pretty" drawings, but when we compared two sets in the office side by side, the "pretty" set was much easier to read. The same way that formating helps text to read, formating helps drawings to read. Close is enough sometimes, but sometimes it's not.I'm all for making things read clearly, but there needs to be a cutoff point between "time spent/money" vs "value added to contractor". If outlining every interior elevation is making things "easier" to read, great. But would it cause an additonal cost to the project if they weren't outlined? Does "easier" translate to "cheaper"? Is it costing you far more to spend the time to do the work than it is costing the GC in the field?

Take those two same sets of drawings that you compared side by side, and only send one at a time to be built. With nothing to compare to, the contractor probably wont even notice a difference.

Try this: send a set out to be built without going throw all the additional work to outline every single interior elevation, and see if there are more RFI's, issues, questions, etc. that the contractor has.

Bottom line, I'm not against what anyone is saying or doing here, and I'm certainly not trying to target Andre or his practices. I completely understand standards and office practices and the intent of drawings. I'm just trying to raise some points about why we do the things we do in a Constrcution Document set. All the things talked about here I have done/witnessed in my own experieces working for firms.

[Andre Baros]

I don't take it personally, I find this an interesting topic.

In our own interior debate, I was stubborn about it and did send out a set without "cleaning" up the interior elevations and we did hear a lot of questions about it from the field (though your right, they were questions, but not change orders). The problem isn't the process, it's that some jobs just need cleaning up while others don't. Revit is more than enough for the 90% of jobs which don't need cleanup and we justify the cleanup because apart from that ourlining, everything else in the elevations is already done so we're still weeks faster than we were with AutoCAD for those same interior elevations.

[dbaldacchino]

Take those two same sets of drawings that you compared side by side, and only send one at a time to be built. With nothing to compare to, the contractor probably wont even notice a difference.

Try this: send a set out to be built without going throw all the additional work to outline every single interior elevation, and see if there are more RFI's, issues, questions, etc. that the contractor has.

That would be an interesting test and reminds me of something that makes me chuckle a little....we have two buildings under construction right now that are almost identical. Both Revit jobs (Structural and Architectural), almost identical sets of drawings and details. One contractor constantly screws up and sends RFIs etc. and the other doesn't and all is plain sailing. If we were building only one project with the problematic contractor, I can only imagine how Revit would be badgered in our office! It's actually a very enlightening experience to see what a huge variable the expertise of contractors (and the teams they put together) is.

[Calvn_Swing]

I just wanted to throw this in the mix. I wish interior elevations were tied to rooms. Why?

1. However many sides the room has, we should be able to have an elevation for. This could solve the more than four views problem.

2. What you show in those elevations is critical to that room, and especially the room schedule.

3. I think finishes should also be tied to the room directly. So, when you place a room and go to one of it's elevations you can paint a wall, place a baseboard or chair rail, do a tile wainscot up to an elevation, etc... All of this within the room edit mode, all of this information tied to the room, scheduled in the room schedule, etc...

I know this isn't exactly what the OP was asking for, but it's a take on how interior elevations should be handled. Right now rooms are the dumbest part of Revit. The link between finishes on the walls/floors/ceilings/etc... and rooms. It really needs some work. This could make a huge difference in the workflow of finishing out a Revit model with all the quantities and information in the right places, not just some dumb text typed in a project parameter called "North Wall."

[martinsha]

Does anyone have elevation symbol samples I can use that look like the section callout? If not, does anyone know how to convert a section symbol to an elevation symbol?

[Steve_Stafford]

...we have two buildings under construction right now that are almost identical. Both Revit jobs (Structural and Architectural), almost identical sets of drawings and details. One contractor constantly screws up and sends RFIs etc. and the other doesn't and all is plain sailing...When I worked for a small residential firm we had two kinds of sets, those for the contractors we worked with a lot and those for contractors we didn't. Guess which had the most sheets...yep, the ones we didn't know well. We needed to generate much more information because they just weren't as good as those few we worked with a lot.

[Steve_Stafford]

Does anyone have elevation symbol samples I can use that look like the section callout? If not, does anyone know how to convert a section symbol to an elevation symbol?The reason for this thread is that a product designer (Frame) was asking us for samples of what we want our elevation symbols to look like. This is due to the fact that the elevation symbol remains the one annotation type we have very very little control over graphically.

So some will use a Section like an elevation by not using a tail and dragging the line back to the head of the section. Otherwise it isn't possible to do much to an elevation symbol.

We are anxiously waiting for some improvement in elevation symbology and functionality.

[dbaldacchino]

Haha Steve, too bad in our jobs we don't know who will take on the project since most are competitive sealed proposals. The unfortunate thing is that we work with some contractors that nickel & dime at every opportunity they get. It's not like we don't make mistakes occasionally, but this one particular contractor comes to the table with solutions or just figures out the missing info (knows how to connect the dots) while the other one sees everything as an opportunity to make more money. The quality of subs used is also a big variable. For example with the two identical structural drawings sets, we got back one set of steel shop drawings that was very good while the other was full of mistakes and misinterpretations.

The only leverage we have is to produce better and more complete sets, something that seems to have become increasingly difficult with the pace we design and document and also the level of expertise within firms. Staff development is taking on a very important role (well, it should always be high on the list!). Hopefully we can work towards better quality control once we get past the learning curves of BIM and start taking advantage of other technologies that feed off the BIModel, together with techniques that help us leverage the information within it. Kinda puts in perspective where most firms would prefer to see Revit improve....although highly requested (and positively welcomed by myself too), the "looks" of an elevation tag starts to seem pretty trivial.

[cblackford]

Not to beat a dead horse....but I just ran across this old post and here we are in version 2009 and still no improvements in creating CD ready elevations. No better way to make line-weights assist depth perception. Have we just accepted Autodesk's argument that quality elevations are not important to constructibility? No wonder people are still having trouble getting "middle management" to endorse Revit. After all, those are the people who are regularly getting print-outs of ugly elevations left on their desk. Sorry for the negativity, it's been a long week and until this issue is fixed, we will never have 100% adoption at my firm. It's very discouraging that this issue keeps getting shelved.

[Scott Womack]

Greg,

Another piece of functionality that everyone seems to keep asking for would be a check box, similar to the Detail mark that allows you to tell the symbol to only show in parent view. Another possibility, would be to set a range, both smaller and larger scales so that that tag only displays between those scales.

I spend a LOT of time chasing down the Interior designer's elevation tags to turn them off in the dimensioned architectural views. This seems to burn hours upon hours in the course of our projects.

[twiceroadsfool]

Not to throw this thread off track more than it is, but...

Scott, there are already much easier ways to deal with that. Create a new Elevation Type, and call it "Interiors Elevations." Then grab ONE of them, and right click > Select all instances.Then hide.

OR... Do the select all instances, and tell them to hide at all scales coarser than, etc... Though that will hide them from the interiors plan as well.

I dont know, call me complacent... I would love nicer elevation tags, but its so low on my list of desires its not even funny. But im young, and have no *old hat* graphical standards i feel are necessary to replicate... :)

Constructability and clear and concise definetely dictate how i model and draw... But the elevation TAG itself bears very little relevance to either, in my humble opinion...

[cblackford]

Not to throw this thread off track more than it is, but...

Scott, there are already much easier ways to deal with that. Create a new Elevation Type, and call it "Interiors Elevations." Then grab ONE of them, and right click > Select all instances.Then hide.

OR... Do the select all instances, and tell them to hide at all scales coarser than, etc... Though that will hide them from the interiors plan as well.

I dont know, call me complacent... I would love nicer elevation tags, but its so low on my list of desires its not even funny. But im young, and have no *old hat* graphical standards i feel are necessary to replicate... :)

Constructability and clear and concise definetely dictate how i model and draw... But the elevation TAG itself bears very little relevance to either, in my humble opinion...

I agree completely. I don't really care too much about the tags. This post started off talking about the tags, but ended up with a lot of good conversation about the line weights on elevations. We still spend a lot of time with the linework tool getting the elevations to look right. ...and by a lot I mean A LOT of time. I wish the program would allow us to either specify different line weights at different depths or at the very least I wish they would make some drastic improvements to the linework tool and how it interacts with elevations. We've been asking for this for a long time... which is evident by the age of this thread. :banghead:

[aaronrumple]

Scott, there are already much easier ways to deal with that. Create a new Elevation Type, and call it "Interiors Elevations." Then grab ONE of them, and right click > Select all instances.Then hide....

That doesn't solve the problem. He want's the elevation tag on in views A, B, C, D and E. But off in all others. Now he turns them all off and has to track down the views he wan'ts them on in. Add a new tag and you have to go through the whole routine again. Anyway you slice it, this is a time consuming task on a big project.



Though that will hide them from the interiors plan as well.
...

Exactly - it just plain doesn't solve the problem.

[rhuserik.96436]

In my humble opinion it is not so much the look of the elevation tags that is a problem. The real problem in my firm is that we have sheet numbers that are 5 or more characters (out of necessity when you have a 1500 sheet project) and we have problems with both elevation tags and section tags displaying properly because there are no customizations allowed that deal with the problem and Autodesk's response is that it is a "wish list" item. Do I just happen to work for the only firm in the world that uses more than 4 characters in the sheet numbers?

[twiceroadsfool]

LOL, weve got very long sheet names too... Some of them flat out run right out of the section marker. But we CAN change the section marker head, just not the elevations...

"3F06-A2.1" is one of the sheet names. As we get in to tenant work, we end up with hundreds of these, since we cant reuse sheet numbers, lol...

[rhuserik.96436]

Yes, you can change the section head but even doing that we can't get the section head text to rotate or flip with the direction of the section head so it works if your building is all 90 degree angles but if you want a section at any other angle you're out of luck. I'm attaching an image of our autocad section callout, our elevation tags are the same but without the tail.

Twiceroadsfool, what do you guys use for a section head with your long sheet numbers?

[clay_hickling]

... Do I just happen to work for the only firm in the world that uses more than 4 characters in the sheet numbers?

No

Even though our comapny standards do not use long dwg or sheet numbers some our our clients DO!!

I don't have much pull in getting them to change their ways so customisation of the elev/section markers is very important.

attached examples from my point of view.

[david.metcalf]

May I offer these standards from a firm's sample that I particularly like? Use one View title and use A B C D to denote which wall elevation from one View title and also note the Elevation tag sample as well. This makes the interior sheets less "busy" and cleaner.

Oh and is there a way to use Letters A B C D instead of numbers for elevation tags?

[GoDawgs]

May I offer these standards from a firm's sample that I particularly like? Use one View title and use A B C D to denote which wall elevation from one View title and also note the Elevation tag sample as well. This makes the interior sheets less "busy" and cleaner.

Oh and is there a way to use Letters A B C D instead of numbers for elevation tags?

One way is to change the detail number in the properties of the view. I am not certain if that is what you are looking for?

Also, I have a couple of questions. First, how would one create multiple views under one view title without creating separate elevation views? As far as the look of the elevation mark, I think our office would like the ability to stack the view number and sheet number such as in a section mark. This leads me to my second question. Is it possible to create that kind of elevation mark yet?

[Kevin Janik]

The reason for this thread is that a product designer (Frame) was asking us for samples of what we want our elevation symbols to look like. This is due to the fact that the elevation symbol remains the one annotation type we have very very little control over graphically.

So some will use a Section like an elevation by not using a tail and dragging the line back to the head of the section. Otherwise it isn't possible to do much to an elevation symbol.

We are anxiously waiting for some improvement in elevation symbology and functionality.

I guess we will continue to wait. Is Frame still around?

It has been 1 year and 8 months!

Kevin

[greg.gebert978266]

I have attached an example of our office standard. They are pretty generic, but they are in accordance with the following references:
-National CAD Standard
-Triservice CADD standard (ERDC/ITL TR-06-X)
-Architectural Graphic Standards
They also meet the requirements of the following organizations:
-GSA
-National Guard Bureau
-Navy, Army, Air Force, Marines

[david.metcalf]

One way is to change the detail number in the properties of the view. I am not certain if that is what you are looking for?

Also, I have a couple of questions. First, how would one create multiple views under one view title without creating separate elevation views? As far as the look of the elevation mark, I think our office would like the ability to stack the view number and sheet number such as in a section mark. This leads me to my second question. Is it possible to create that kind of elevation mark yet?

Thanks GoDawgs, it is not incremental though, but it will do.

I tried some non BIM workarounds, but think we will settle for the OOTB setup, productivity is a big issue and maybe selected over graphical standards.

[cblackford]

Well, we are coming up on the three year anniversary of Frames original inquiry. How are those elevation tags coming at the factory? :Oops:

[rhuserik.96436]

I'm sure they had to put them on hold afterall now we have those really great ribbons to increase productivity and solve all our problems... 2011 is supposed to have a new logo woohoo! that's what my firm is looking forward to.

[barathd]

Rumor has it that - elevation tags are on hold - why the Factory learns the "alphabet" so they can produce a better "text editor."

[TroyGates]

I'm sure they had to put them on hold afterall now we have those really great ribbons to increase productivity and solve all our problems... 2011 is supposed to have a new logo woohoo! that's what my firm is looking forward to.


Rumor has it that - elevation tags are on hold - why the Factory learns the "alphabet" so they can produce a better "text editor."

Maybe instead of bashing Autodesk all the time, you should do some research into how they develop their products. Autodesk researches and develops features 2 to 3 releases ahead of time. A development cycle for Revit is about 3 years.

More importantly, when will the moderators start clearing out the trash that is plaguing these forums as of late. I don't find any of these Autodesk bashing comments helping people to use Revit any better.

We all get it, you don't like Revit 2010. If you want to bash Autodesk go to the off-topic forums and bash away. Please make the forum comments useful again.

[barathd]

A development cycle for Revit is about 3 years.
.

Quite beyond me - pre Autodesk days - 2 releases or more a year with several dozen improvements per release.

[cstanley]

Quite beyond me - pre Autodesk days - 2 releases or more a year with several dozen improvements per release.

Fightin' Texas Aggies might call that "Ol' Army"
aka "the good old days."

[tomnewsom]

Quite beyond me - pre Autodesk days - 2 releases or more a year with several dozen improvements per release.
Localization for multiple languages, documentation, marketing, cross-compatibility with other Autodesk Products, a whole bunch of middle management who need things to do, plus god knows what else.

It all adds up :(

[TroyGates]

Legacy code probably has a lot to do with it also. Taking code that was written by another company and modifying it is sometime very difficult. Its probably easier to rewrite a lot of the code which also takes time to test and debug to ensure other parts of the software didn't break. Software development isn't as easy as most people think.

[barathd]

99% - BS. When you have a captive market you are free to abuse as you please. Subscription is near criminal. The Federal government needs to start breaking up the Gorilla's monopoly.

[TroyGates]

99% - BS. When you have a captive market you are free to abuse as you please. Subscription is near criminal. The Federal government needs to start breaking up the Gorilla's monopoly.

You really think Autodesk's success for the last 25 years is 99% BS? Maybe you should ask for an invitation to the factory so you can see firsthand how Revit development really works. It will open your eyes.

To relate this to architecture, I'm sure most clients think that we can make major design changes in a few hours right? When in fact we must check the many ramifications of a design change, how does it affect the structure, the aesthetics, does it meet code, what is the cost involved, etc, etc.

[twiceroadsfool]

99% - BS. When you have a captive market you are free to abuse as you please. Subscription is near criminal. The Federal government needs to start breaking up the Gorilla's monopoly.

Troy is right. Im so sick of reading this garbage its not even funny. And those of us that still DO want to come here to read, and help others when they need it, have to wade through all this garbage constantly.

Let me ask you: Who FORCED you in to paying subscription? Who even forced you in to using Autodesk products?

Im genuinely curious, im not even asking to be facetious. Ive had to use all of the major platforms over the year, and (as frustrating as it is) its not like Autodesk is any more reprehensible than the others out there. Yeah, i hate the stair tool too, but you know what? We have three options:

1. Work WITH Autodesk to try making it a better program. (productive)
2. Switch to another platform if we think its better. (productive)
3. Whine and cry like a bunch of 4th grade schoolgirls. (notsomuch)

Guess which one youre doing.

[sfaust]

3. Whine and cry like a bunch of 4th grade schoolgirls. (notsomuch)

:) I third that. Maybe there should be another forum division for whining threads...

[barathd]

Never once have I said I do not like Revit - I was an early user - R2. I love the program and obviously I am as passionate about as anyone here.

I have invested a lot of time and effort into getting the most out of the product. I want to see Revit be all that it can be. I have been totally frustrated with the lack of development since Autodesk's acquisition.

If you call this whining please do - however it is no worse than the endless pandering that I see here as well.

[Brockway]

I don't care what they look like...just make the text automatically, associating-ly, rotate-able in/within the graphic. (there's a bunch of made up words, for ya)

In other words: if the symbols points to the left the text should be rotated relative to the orientation of the symbol.

PS: same comment goes for sections and callouts

[Wes Macaulay]

From what I understand the elevation tag is ye olde code and it just hasn't been high enough on the hit list for someone to tackle it. And I nominate Dick to go the Factory and do it himself :p

[cblackford]

Maybe instead of bashing Autodesk all the time, you should do some research into how they develop their products. Autodesk researches and develops features 2 to 3 releases ahead of time. A development cycle for Revit is about 3 years.

Troy - Just for the record: Though Frame started this particular thread 3 years ago, customizable or at least "Less ugly" elevation tags has been at the top of a lot of wish-lists for A LOT longer than that. Sorry for bringing it up again. It's not really me. I don't really mind. It's these pesky PMs and people who stamp or approve or redline the drawings that it really irritates. Frankly, I am just sick of explaining to them why they are ugly.

I realize I am no longer supposed to care about this item because Autodesk employees and groupies have been telling me I am not supposed to care about it for 5 years now.... Just like I am not supposed to care about the lack of depth perception or line weight variation in the elevations that Revit automatically generates. But, I suppose I am just stubborn as I would still like to see some "out of the box" improvement in both of these areas.

Check these related wishlist items from 2003:

http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=592
http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=131

[Steve_Stafford]

The story I was told is the elevation tag is somehow deeply embedded and the redesign of what it does and how it does it is one of those "small" jobs that turns into a nightmare. It hasn't happened because it hasn't been a priority...that's a fact...if it was priority it would be done. Whether that is boulderdash or not... I have no reason to doubt my source.

That said I like Aaron Rumples explanation, the person that did the code ran off and eloped with the person who did another piece of code that addresses some other long standing wishlist item and now nobody can figure out how to rework it...or something like that. Couldn't find his original comment and I'm too lazy to search deeper.

Sometimes you just have to smile and keep on swimming...keep on swimming...:Puffy:

[aaronrumple]

That said I like Aaron Rumples explanation, the person that did the code ran off and eloped with the person who did another piece of code that addresses some other long standing wishlist item and now nobody can figure out how to rework it...or something like that. Couldn't find his original comment and I'm too lazy to search deeper.

I wasn't so romantic in my assesment. They just died. The body will probably be found some day in some server closet. They will be able to date the body to the day before the section "SYM." was changed from instance to type based...

[nancy.mcclure]

I kinda like the eloping story (then again, I WOULD) [grin]

But the fact remains. We go round-n-round discussing our speculations on why the elevation tags remain non-editable*, and MY default summary is "they do SO MUCH that if we modified them, we'd screw 'em up". Probably not SO far from reality, across the board, but it's a placating excuse. I now have a standard illustrative graphic of ways I've modified 'em, and how they don't work as a result. Personally, I'm fine with the OOTB versions, but I'm a pragmatic gal. Some colleagues of mine wear different spectacles. Just as modifying tags sometimes doesn't work so hot with leaders, so it goes with Sections and Elevation tags. I feel for the graphic purists, but having had a taste of what goes into programing such an element, I'd put my money into [making the Ribbon's Type Selector list more efficient] things that matter MORE.


*yes, you CAN, but they just don't work well if you do.

[sweiser]

I am working on trying to figure out how to have an elevation view that references another view but does not say 'Sim'. I need some views that reference other views to still say 'Sim', and even though I have made a new family for my non-'sim' views, when I can get it to change (which for some reason is also a problem) it makes ALL the 'sim' tags go away. Has anyone figure out how to have elevation tags that reference other views and sometimes are accompanied by a 'sim' label and sometimes are not?

[NKramer]

I am working on trying to figure out how to have an elevation view that references another view but does not say 'Sim'. I need some views that reference other views to still say 'Sim', and even though I have made a new family for my non-'sim' views, when I can get it to change (which for some reason is also a problem) it makes ALL the 'sim' tags go away. Has anyone figure out how to have elevation tags that reference other views and sometimes are accompanied by a 'sim' label and sometimes are not?

As far as I have seen its all or nothing. We end up getting rid of all the SIMs and use text in its place when required. Not very BIMy but the only way it seems to work.

Nick

[greg.mcdowell]

make a duplicate of the family system type and remove the label there - assign your tags to this type

[patricks]

make a duplicate of the family system type and remove the label there - assign your tags to this type

Doesn't work if you need some tags to say SIM or whatever, and others to not say anything, yet all reference the same view.

I personally am also fine with the OOTB elevation symbols, the circle ones anyway. Square ones are *blech* Other than the limitation I just mentioned (same with all section, detail, and elevation view notations), they get the point across just fine. So what's the big deal?

[DaveP]

Here's the big deal, Patrick. (See image)
I can live with the ugly symbol. As long as it's orthogonal.
But as soon as your wall is not at 0 or 90 degrees, there is NO WAY to orient the SIM so that it doesn't overwrite the Detail Number.
Trust me, I've spent a lot of time trying every configuration possible. Left, Right, Center, Inside, Outside. Even if you an find one combination that works for one angle, the one on the opposite side is always messed up.
'Course our designers don't care much for right angles these days.

I started in Revit 6.1 and, as Andre says, it used to be and Instance parameter then. Made it much easier, and I believe you could move the SIM, too.

This is one of the biggest complaints I hear in the office. With most things Revit, at least I have the argument "Would you rather have it pretty or accurate?" Unfortunately, with the SIM, it its simply unreadable.

[patricks]

I have given up on that tags in most cases, for these reasons. I just place text next to the tag and move on. Yes it's a bit more coordination to do, but we just live with it.

[dbaldacchino]

If the SIM/OPH was an instance parameter, you'd still have to enter it yourself manually, right? So turning it off and typing text is actually the same thing. The extra step is starting the text tool instead of just typing to edit the instance parameter right away.

If I had it my way, I'd rather it be a type parameter that accepts multiple values. For example you could type in "SIM" and "OPH" separated by a comma. Then when placing the reference tag, you would click some keystroke to cycle between a blank field, "SIM" and "OPH" (maybe using the spacebar? or an icon on the canvas to cycle through the options?). This way you get instance control, yet you have some level of control of your "standards" through the family type definition, which controls the tags globally. This would avoid variations such as "Sim.", "SIM", "SIM.", "Sim", "sim", and "sim.". You know what I'm talking about? ;)

[aaronrumple]

So turning it off and typing text is actually the same thing.

If I had it my way, I'd rather it be a type parameter that accepts multiple values. For example you could type in "SIM" and "OPH" separated by a comma. Then when placing the reference tag, you would click some keystroke to cycle between a blank field, "

More or less the same thing on first time entry. Except for the fact that a symbol may show in may views, so you have to remember to put in the SIM on other views as well. And then you have to remember to move them all at the same time when things change.

As I recall - the old system had a drop down which stored a list of all the values used.

[Steve_Stafford]

...So turning it off and typing text is actually the same thing. The extra step is starting the text tool instead of just typing to edit the instance parameter right away...Definitely not the same thing! The issue for me about turning it off is that I can't trust ANY view annotation in Revit anymore. With the Type Parameter value present I know that the value represents a view that is referencing a REAL view. The user can inadvertently select the wrong view to reference which means I can't trust those. The views that have no such annotation (SIM,TYP,OPP) are actual views, not a referring view annotation. I can trust that those are filled in correctly.

When users remove the label values from their types they now have to check ALL view annotation to make sure they are correct. Even a view that has no label can't be trusted because the user might have forgotten to add the SIM text or forgot to add it to one of many places it could appear.

[dwills.114624]

Not sure is this is on-topic or not, but while you're at it can you work out a system to give sections and elevations some form of depth cueing? I suggest draggable graphical scopes in plan that specify the lineweights displayed within the zone, so you can can override linework that is further from the elevation or section line.

Jogged elevations would be awesome too.

DW

[Steve_Stafford]

...can you work out a system to give sections and elevations some form of depth cueing?Common request which remains on the wishlist. They added more overrides to elements in views as a partial attempt to address this wish. Using those you can override a portion of the building in the view pretty quickly to use a lighter lineweight/color to achieve the look you want..for now.


...Jogged elevations would be awesome too...Wouldn't a jogged elevation undo the sense of depth you are asking for?

[dbaldacchino]

Definitely not the same thing! The issue for me about turning it off is that I can't trust ANY view annotation in Revit anymore. With the Type Parameter value present I know that the value represents a view that is referencing a REAL view. The user can inadvertently select the wrong view to reference which means I can't trust those. The views that have no such annotation (SIM,TYP,OPP) are actual views, not a referring view annotation. I can trust that those are filled in correctly.

When users remove the label values from their types they now have to check ALL view annotation to make sure they are correct. Even a view that has no label can't be trusted because the user might have forgotten to add the SIM text or forgot to add it to one of many places it could appear.

Steve, you're right on what you described. What I was alluding to as being "the same" is the fact that when it's an instance parameter that you can just type in, then it's kinda like adding text. I don't remember elevations being instance parameters. I came to Revit after that change I suppose.

So I'd like to amend what I said before....I would want to cycle between a list of SIM, OPH etc., but not a blank value. If we could choose a blank value, then I would want reference tags colored differently in the canvas so one can identify those that need manual checking.

The only place I can see his being an issue (not being able to have a reference tag show an empty ref. label) is in cases where you totally draft in a detail in a drafting view or bring it in from a standard library. In that case you'd have to create the view from the model, turn off your model geometry and then place your detail lines & annotation etc. in that same view, perhaps as a detail group. I prefer to leave the model geometry showing through and use it to some extent for the detail itself. That way if things change in the model, you know there's a correction that needs to be made. The only drawback is that if that particular condition that you're detailing just shifted a bit as a whole and your other detailing wasn't locked to the model geometry, now you need to go adjust a detail that shouldn't have changed, technically. And most old-timers don't fail to point this one out ;)

[aaronrumple]

Steve, you're right on what you described. What I was alluding to as being "the same" is the fact that when it's an instance parameter that you can just type in, then it's kinda like adding text. I don't remember elevations being instance parameters. I came to Revit after that change I suppose.

So I'd like to amend what I said before....I would want to cycle between a list of SIM, OPH etc., but not a blank value. If we could choose a blank value, then I would want reference tags colored differently in the canvas so one can identify those that need manual checking.

I seem to recall it was 6.1 that had the instanced param. And there was a drop down for values - which is very similar to your cycle request. It also had the option of moving the text relative to the symbol for cleaner drafting. It was a feature we used all the time until it was changed. I haven't used it since. Plain text is simpler.

[ruthellenwilliams]

View - Elevations - Element Properties - Type Properties
Rename "Elevation" Type to "Elevation - Exterior"
Duplicate and then name the new type "Elevation - Interior"
This separates interior and exterior elevations in your project browser.
Also allows use of two different symbols.

[ruthellenwilliams]

To continue, both exterior and interior elevation tags' Callout Tag parameters refer to the same rfa file.
However, the exterior tag is larger and the arrow (typical symbol) is filled in - the interior tag is smaller and the arrow is not filled in.
Works great, but I can't remember how I did this (carry over from v.2008).
Help!

[ruthellenwilliams]

That's v. 2008 - where did that icon come from???

[yanyan77]

View - Elevations - Element Properties - Type Properties
Rename "Elevation" Type to "Elevation - Exterior"
Duplicate and then name the new type "Elevation - Interior"
This separates interior and exterior elevations in your project browser.
Also allows use of two different symbols.

i have this set too. do you know how to turn off all the interior tag in the overall plan once? i do not want to hide one by one.

[NKramer]

Per view: select one, select all instances and hide. That or change the hide at scales coarser than to a finer scale than your plan. This will turn it off EVERYWHERE that is coarser than the defined scale. There is no way to turn it on by an instance.

Unfortunately there is no way to hide in all views except active at this time. Its been on the wish-list for a while.

HTH
Nick

[ruthellenwilliams]

Manage - Settings - Elevation Tags
Select Type (Exterior or Interior or whatever) and you can change several properties including size of circle and arrow filled or unfilled.

[Wes Macaulay]

You may also add a parameter to elevations (it will be added to all other views as well) and use filter to turn off interior elevations using this method. Call the parameter "View Type" and set your filter to catch views where "View Type" = "Interior Elevations" or what have you; then turn the Visibility off for that filter.

So it is possible to turn off all annotation symbols for views of a given type -- you just have to ensure that the parameter has been added to the views in question.

[yanyan77]

or change the hide at scales coarser than to a finer scale than your plan. This will turn it off EVERYWHERE that is coarser than the defined scale. .

HTH
Nick
how to do this?

[NKramer]

In the element properties of the view change the hide at scales corer than to a scale that is finer than where you want it hidden.

If you do not want to see interior elevations on a site plan:
-the site plan's scale is 1/16" = 1'-0"
-change a elevation's hide at scales coarser than to 1/8" then
-the elevation tag will not appear in any view that has a scale coarser than 1/8" (as in 1/16", 1=20, etc)

This works for all view types (callouts, sections, elevations, etc.)

Nick

[twaldock]

You may also add a parameter to elevations (it will be added to all other views as well) and use filter to turn off interior elevations using this method. Call the parameter "View Type" and set your filter to catch views where "View Type" = "Interior Elevations" or what have you; then turn the Visibility off for that filter.

So it is possible to turn off all annotation symbols for views of a given type -- you just have to ensure that the parameter has been added to the views in question.

You don't need to add a parameter. In v2010 you can now create view filters for elevations and sections - just filter by family & type. You have to select an actual type from a list (say interior elevation), rather than defining a type name that matches more general criteria. It is so much easier and foolproof than selecting all instances and hiding in views, particularly as it keeps working when people add more elevation markers to a plan.

Also,

Definitely not the same thing! The issue for me about turning it off is that I can't trust ANY view annotation in Revit anymore. With the Type Parameter value present I know that the value represents a view that is referencing a REAL view. The user can inadvertently select the wrong view to reference which means I can't trust those. The views that have no such annotation (SIM,TYP,OPP) are actual views, not a referring view annotation. I can trust that those are filled in correctly.

When users remove the label values from their types they now have to check ALL view annotation to make sure they are correct. Even a view that has no label can't be trusted because the user might have forgotten to add the SIM text or forgot to add it to one of many places it could appear.

I agree - it is dangerous to turn off the SIM text, but we just have to do it as it is too global and messy. What we do is put a dot/fullstop "." instead of text. That way you can visually check each elevation marker to see if it is a "real" elevation or a "similar" one.

[Wes Macaulay]

Ha! That's news... I think? Was this added in 2010? or have I just been missing this functionality for so long? :mrgreen:

[dbaldacchino]

Wes, you've spent too much time beating up the new UI and didn't focus on new functionality :mrgreen: Ok ok you know I'm just kidding right?

[Wes Macaulay]

DOH!

No actually -- too much time processing wishes (touche, eh?)

[twaldock]

Wes,
The wishlist is looking good this time around - time input by you and the team is much appreciated. The view filter for elevations will take care of your wish to be able to prevent interiors and architects elevation tags appearing on each other's drawing sets - it works a treat. In fact this was one of two features in v2010 that convinced us to upgrade and "bite the ribbon/bullet". Oh, and SP3, which is full of goodies.