Forced dimensions instead of automatic?

[psanoor]

I am just curious to know, if it possible to input dimension (like in Autocad), instead of the automatic dimensions ? For example if I want to change the dimension between two walls read different than the actual dimension between the walls ? The distance between the walls is 12', but I want the dimension to appear as 13' ?

[whittendesigns]

I'm going to go really deep and say, why on earth would you ever want a 12' dimension to say 13'?

BTW, if you mean replace the dimension numbers, no. revit doesn't let you do that. However, there are a few ways to go around. Make your text on the one dimension exceptionally small, overlay another dimension over an existing one, or what I use is an invisible font.

[twiceroadsfool]

There are work arounds, but i see little value in defeating an intelligent model. Whats the point of making one then?

[Chad Smith]

While I don't agree with manually adjusting a dimension value, I do wish we had the option to override the value so that I can put text in to add a description between two points.

[twiceroadsfool]

Im pretty happy with the way it is currently. I can add text to the dim, before or after the dimension. In theory, if something is 13', and i want it to say varies, i can have it read "12'-0" (varies)". While upper management may disagree with me, i find that completely sufficient, as at the point the value IS in fact, 12'

If its a dim youre trying to hold past a limit, id write it as "12'-0" (hold 11'+) or something.

But im young, and not much for standards, lol.

I think the moment we let people back in to overwriting dimensions, thats the moment every ounce of these models stands to lose their integrity in accuracy. We have the Blankserif font here, for such an occasion, and we wont load it in any projects for that very reason.

[cphubb]

While I don't agree with manually adjusting a dimension value, I do wish we had the option to override the value so that I can put text in to add a description between two points.

Chad,

I too wished for that feature. I never used fake dimensions in AutoCad either, I just drew correctly.

I created a dimension annotation that had a place to type the information in and used reference planes to set the ends. It looks just like my normal dimensions and took 10 minutes to create.

Now with the 2 pick annotation I am thinking of modifying the family to be that type I just have not had the time.

My opining is that using a separate family is a better alternative to opening the dimension to all the cheaters

[psanoor]

Thankyou for all your answers.

[ron.sanpedro]

Im pretty happy with the way it is currently. I can add text to the dim, before or after the dimension. In theory, if something is 13', and i want it to say varies, i can have it read "12'-0" (varies)". While upper management may disagree with me, i find that completely sufficient, as at the point the value IS in fact, 12'

If its a dim youre trying to hold past a limit, id write it as "12'-0" (hold 11'+) or something.

But im young, and not much for standards, lol.

I think the moment we let people back in to overwriting dimensions, thats the moment every ounce of these models stands to lose their integrity in accuracy. We have the Blankserif font here, for such an occasion, and we wont load it in any projects for that very reason.

The main issue is when you have a number of conditions and you want a dimension to say Varies. For example, you normally show counter height in a sectional casework detail. You don't want to NOT show a dimension there, because it looks like it is simply missing. But you also don't want to show one specific dimension, because 2 or 3 actually apply. So what you want is a dimension that says "Varies, see Interior Elevations." Then, when the contractor looks where they would expect the information, they find a dim that points them at another drawing that shows the correct and complete info. Yes, you could have a note, but because someone is normally looking for that information in a dimension, it is better to give them the pointer to the correct information in the form of a dimension. They are much more likely to see it when it looks like what they expect.
Another example is a dimension that you have estimated, and the contractor is responsible for verifying. You don't want to show a real number. yes, you used a real number to model the thing, but you are not responsible for a number so you don't want to show one. you want a dimension that say "Contractor to Verify in Field" or something. probably wouldn't be so much of a problem if we didn't have so many lawyers, but that is not the Amurica we live in ;)

Gordon

[aaronrumple]

Another example is a dimension that you have estimated, and the contractor is responsible for verifying. You don't want to show a real number. yes, you used a real number to model the thing, but you are not responsible for a number so you don't want to show one. you want a dimension that say "Contractor to Verify in Field" or something. probably wouldn't be so much of a problem if we didn't have so many lawyers, but that is not the Amurica we live in ;)

Gordon
The architect is responsible for all the numbers on the drawings. And the contractor is responsible for all the site conditions and verification of dimensions (typically stated in general conditions of the specification.) Even when the architect gives a dimension - the contractor is responsible for verifying any construction tolerances and existing conditions as he is responsible fro coordination of the work.

Personally I think "Contractor to Field Verify" does little to protect liability. If it really did protect the architect - it would be placed on all the dimensions. I think a general note for the existing conditions drawings is cleaner and simpler.

[ron.sanpedro]

The architect is responsible for all the numbers on the drawings. And the contractor is responsible for all the site conditions and verification of dimensions (typically stated in general conditions of the specification.) Even when the architect gives a dimension - the contractor is responsible for verifying any construction tolerances and existing conditions as he is responsible fro coordination of the work.

Personally I think "Contractor to Field Verify" does little to protect liability. If it really did protect the architect - it would be placed on all the dimensions. I think a general note for the existing conditions drawings is cleaner and simpler.

Agreed, if there is a number the Architect put there, then the Architect is responsible. Which is why, when presented with existing conditions and no budget to field measure ahead of time, I will draw/model based on whatever I have, usually the previous Architect's drawings, and I will refuse to put their numbers in a drawing that I am held responsible for, thus the need for a dimension that isn't. Personally, I like the idea of a totally separate dimension style, rather than an override. Or at least the override makes the dimension show up red or something. Should still plot black, but red on screen. But if it is a seperate style, you still have to manage the two styles if you change anything. True, it shouldn't be a problem if you get your standards right, and even if you do change something, you change it twice and all the views and sheets update, so maybe my reaction is an old AutoCAD holdover, where switching from 3/32" to 1/8" text was a couple days work ;)
As for the examples, the casework seems like a better example. The other one I just threw in so I would have two arguments for my position. ;)

Best,
Gordon

[whittendesigns]

As someone who has been more of a framer than a building designer, I always hated seeing that "verify in field" or similar. I always thought, "gee, they got all these nice CAD programs that tell them what it is, and they still put that there."

Granted now that I have seen the other side(partially) I do see where the liability can concern people. You always have to try to second guess what someone can come up with for an excuse to sue you.

This is why I love Revit so much. You draw it as it is. There are no errors (in theory)

[jeff.95551]

I'm all for letting the software manage the dims - however there have been cases where I'm dimensioning to something existing in the field that I don't know where it is, or that I want to have take up the slack if things change. My vote, for what it is worth, would be to have a blank line in the property of the dimension string for an override, just like there is for a sheet name, and maybe a way to do a suffix or something. Anything in that box and the text turns blue on screen so everybody knows it's been manipulated and you can more easily find an error and then sack the offender if it is incorrect. Right now we use short thin lines to dimension to where the regular dims don't work (I've got a property line that is 2" off of horizontal over 350', but I can't dimension to it because it's not parallel), which defeats the dimension scheme just as much but is very hard to audit.

Jeff

[twiceroadsfool]

The main issue is when you have a number of conditions and you want a dimension to say Varies. For example, you normally show counter height in a sectional casework detail. You don't want to NOT show a dimension there, because it looks like it is simply missing. But you also don't want to show one specific dimension, because 2 or 3 actually apply. So what you want is a dimension that says "Varies, see Interior Elevations." Then, when the contractor looks where they would expect the information, they find a dim that points them at another drawing that shows the correct and complete info. Yes, you could have a note, but because someone is normally looking for that information in a dimension, it is better to give them the pointer to the correct information in the form of a dimension. They are much more likely to see it when it looks like what they expect.
Another example is a dimension that you have estimated, and the contractor is responsible for verifying. You don't want to show a real number. yes, you used a real number to model the thing, but you are not responsible for a number so you don't want to show one. you want a dimension that say "Contractor to Verify in Field" or something. probably wouldn't be so much of a problem if we didn't have so many lawyers, but that is not the Amurica we live in ;)

Gordon

I understand the reason for people wanting it, but i still (just my humble opinion) hold that in that situation, you shouldnt have to override the dimension. Even if there are three different counter heights, the fact remains that you ACTUALLY cut the section somewhere. At that location, there IS a counter height. You cna add a suffix in the dimension so it reads 3'-6" (varies- see elevation), and the same note you want to put there is there. All they've eliminated is the capability to blatantly misrepresent what the dimension is.

As i said, im young, and dont have a standard that i cling to, but even back in my autocad days overwriting a Dim was grounds for some serious trouble in the office. ::shrug::

[cphubb]

I agree and find that I use my family less and less.

The one area I use it every time is with corridors. We always have to put notes regarding the width of the corridor and the egress width and the standard dimension cannot do that correctly. We tried a schedule but the plan reviewers are too stupid here in the city who shall remain nameless so we use the fake dimension. I would never like to see the standard dimensions opened to "Fudging" or the parametric nature will fly out the window.

I agree with the counter item. We would dimension the counter and if it is a negotiated project use the varies see elevation as a suffix. If it is public work we would section all the different conditions and would not need the note.

[DaveP]

Not sure how I missed this one a few weeks ago.

I had posted something in the Wish List a while ago suggesting that you be allowed to over-write the text in a dimension as long as there was no way that text could be translated into a dimension. That way, you could replace a dimension with "Varies" or "See Structural", but you couldn't change it to 13'-0". If you wanted to change it to "thirteen feet zero inches", well then, that would be your problem.

[brd]

The problem I have with the dimension prefixes and suffixes is that it graphically STINKS! Quite often, the dimension alone takes up enough space as it is on the drawing, adding all the letters it takes to spell "VARIES or "V.I.F." to the beginning or end of the dimension makes it too long to fit in the space provided on the drawing. It would be more convenient if there were some kind of option to switch it to two lines instead of one when it gets to a certain number of characters. So on those, I just use an opaque text and write "VARIES" and place it on top of the dimension, or write "V.I.F." and place it directly underneath the number. I think that's more graphically pleasing.

[patricks]

I would say the only time that I really NEED a dimension that could be overridden is when I'm drawing a drafting view with a break in the drawing (with break lines). So in my drafting view I might draw something as 4 ft. tall, but it's really 8 ft. tall, and I stick break lines in the middle of the object. But then to dimension it I have to use my dimension type with tiny text and then add a text object saying 8' - 0" over it.

[twiceroadsfool]

I dont disagree with you on the text wrapping issue, but realize a few things:

Your current work around of covering up the text works in Revit, becuae Revit has opaque text. Ive tried that as well, and when i export our drawings to DWG for consultants, it looks sloppy and horrible with a tiny piece of text in the background, especially with how fast AutoCAD zooms in (lol).

Ive gone the route of the "blankserif" text too, and thats also great..... As long as you always send that text type with those files, and the receiver always installs it. The moment they click that "cancel" button when ACAD prompts them to load that font, its getting reset to system font, and the dim is back.

Again, i agree with you on the graphically pleasing thing... Id liove to put the suffix under the dim line. BUT, i dont want graphically pleasing just for the sake of graphically pleasing, if it compromises the Building Model and documents, the way a dim override does. The end result is a building, and the model helps with that. A pretty drawing thats wrong still makes a lousy building...

[kim.74445]

Sometime I have a need for a dimension line with no numerical value...such to distinguish flooring materials, etc. Right now what I have to do is create a dimension with extremely small text and then type over it to say "Carpet" or "Tile" and the move that text over the small text to cover it up. The problem with this is that when I move the dimension, the text does not move with it. There should be a dimension style with just a text box that can be used for situations like this or for others to use when they do want to alter a dimension...there are a lot of times a need for this and it's frustrating that there is no easy solution for it.

[Scott D Davis]

Sometime I have a need for a dimension line with no numerical value...such to distinguish flooring materials, etc. Right now what I have to do is create a dimension with extremely small text and then type over it to say "Carpet" or "Tile" and the move that text over the small text to cover it up. The problem with this is that when I move the dimension, the text does not move with it. There should be a dimension style with just a text box that can be used for situations like this or for others to use when they do want to alter a dimension...there are a lot of times a need for this and it's frustrating that there is no easy solution for it.
So you don't need a dimension. A dimension reports the length between two points. You need a note that looks like a dimension, that stays locked to the objects it points to. Let the Factory know, through a support request, what you need and how you will use it.

[ejburrell67787]

You can also use an annotation with 2 leader arrows that create a very similiar representation to a dim line with a note instead of a dimension figure. Then you can write whatever you want, at whatever size you want, and at whatever angle you want...

[charliep]

What I do when I want to fake a dimension (and believe me, I'm sure there are times when under pressure we find this is the most expedient) is to draw a model line and dimension to it then adjust the model line to the tick size. If its just a few millimeters at 1:50 or 1:20 it doesn't show.