Disappearing dimensions

[barathd]

I have a very simple and annoying problem. I erase, add, replace a door or window - say in elevation well into the design. My floor plans where completely dimensioned. I reissue the drawings and then notice I forgot to re dimension the plan.

Yes - a person has to be thorough - perhaps when the change is made Revit should throw us into the floor plan and remind us to "add or correct dimensions". What I am saying is that Revit is smart and it should know that the door or window is incorrectly dimensioned and it should prompt us to correct it. I know this is not a real huge thing but I think it could be made to work much better.

Regards

Dick Barath

[aaronrumple]

That's a tough one. You delete it and Revit has nothing to dimension. So what's it to do? At least the dimensions shown are correct. In AutoCAD, the dimension would just sit there and be wrong pointing to nothing or the wrong object.

I have more of an issue with cut/paste and move with a disjoin. Both of these will zap associated dimensions - it would be nice if when doing a move with disjoin - the dimension wasn't disjoined.

[mmiles]

it is my understand that once you delete on object you lose the relationships you established with dimensions. So, erase a door, then the dimension no longer factors the door into its string. If, on the other hand, you select a door and change its type the associative dimension will remain in place.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is only the person inputing the data that should know if a dimension is correct. Revit can help maintain the correctness based on what is input by you.

[barathd]

Matthew:

What I am saying Revit should know if the window or door is centerline or edge dimensioned hence when altered it show know all windows and doors require these dimensions and it should maintain the dimension string.

Regards

Dick Barath

[chris.needham]

Matthew:

What I am saying Revit should know if the window or door is centerline or edge dimensioned hence when altered it show know all windows and doors require these dimensions and it should maintain the dimension string.

Regards

Dick Barath

Yeah, ADT has this with its dimensions, where you tell the string if it is dimensioning openings or wall intersections, or both, and if anything changes the dimensions update. Add another window or door, and the dimensions are modified to suit.
It would be nice to have Revit do something like that. But don't get me wrong, I used ADT extensively for about five or six years, and after a year of using Revit, I really dread having to go back and work on ADT projects.

[barathd]

Chris:

No need to worry I refuse any and all work in ADT or Autocad.

[twiceroadsfool]

Matthew:

What I am saying Revit should know if the window or door is centerline or edge dimensioned hence when altered it show know all windows and doors require these dimensions and it should maintain the dimension string.

Regards

Dick Barath

Revit does know this. I think youll find if you ALTER the door or window, the dimensions will, in fact, stay or updat eas necessary, unless there has been a disjoin. I move windows and doors all the time and have the dimensions update on the fly.

DELETING a door or window or any object, however, eliminates the relationship, and rightfully so. Semantically, how is Revit to know that you intend the next created window to be its replacement? What if i have col. lines A, B, and C. Theres a window on B. I delete it, and add windows on A and C instead. Which one is the replacement?

I see this very similarly to Mass families, updating their related hosts. If i ALTER the mass 9edit parameters, scale, stretch, etc) the walls and related hosts will update as well. If i go in the family and delete geometry, and recreate new geometry, in essence, the "related hosts" are gone, so the walls, etc, disappear when i Update.

[chris.needham]

DELETING a door or window or any object, however, eliminates the relationship, and rightfully so. Semantically, how is Revit to know that you intend the next created window to be its replacement? What if i have col. lines A, B, and C. Theres a window on B. I delete it, and add windows on A and C instead. Which one is the replacement?



If I have a wall with several openings, with the openings dimensioned, and then I add another opening, I don't see why Revit can't assume that I'd want the new opening to be dimensioned also?

[dbaldacchino]

At least currently, Revit doesn't work that way, but I don't see why that would be an unreasonable wish list item. Basically, if the dimension spans an opening, it would detect and dimension it. We could create different styles of dimensions with different properties so they behave like we want them to, so if I don't care to have my dims behave like this, then I'd use a different style.

I would like the dimensions to give me more options when using the "Pick Entire Walls" feature

a) dimension to the right reference of intersecting walls
b) dimension to the left reference of intersecting walls
c) choose between face of core or face of finish for your reference
d) choose between dimensioning to center, widths, left or right reference for openings

The reason for (d) is that if I'm scheduling a door or a window, I just care about telling the builder where I want one of the corners, since the schedule tells them the size (less drawing clutter). I want the builder to figure the rough opening based on what door/window is used (I have little to no control over that) so I'd rather not show a hard opening dimension, unless it's just an unscheduled non-cased opening.

[twiceroadsfool]

It might just be me, but the moment Revit starts making assumptions like those, i think i (for one) am ging to be a much more irritated and frustrated user. You think its bad now, that Dims disappear or dont magically appear on their own... I cant imagine how bad it will be when dimensions start to automatically appear on drawings.

Theyll have some set offset from the object, which means theyll cover things up, theyll sit on top of text notes, or not dim automatically to "office standards," the program will get confused by your intents and try Dimensioning things you really dont want dimensioned, and then when you try to fix it manually, itll keep redoing it (hello wall joins...).

David- I could see the dim styles thing working, very much the way you described... I just dont think id want the hassle of working with 30 dim styles again, everytime i find a quirk that one of them doesnt accomodate for.

[dbaldacchino]

Aaron, I'm not suggesting that Revit will automatically add new dims. I'm saying that if there is an existing long dim that I placed and something gets added in the dim span, if the dimstyle has an option to automatically dim openings etc. within it's span and I purposely check it, only then would it dim the opening. The last thing I want is for Revit to make decisions about what should be dimensioned :)

[barathd]

David:

Your picking up my train of thought - no, no ... Aaron this nothing like your imagining ... no dimensions styles just perhaps A Simple toggle.

Regards

Dick Barath

[twiceroadsfool]

I understand what it is youre describing... But just like Text and underlining currently, a simple toggle turns in to Dim styles.

Dim Style "standard" dims both sides of openings, but i want one to do the CL instead. So i grab the standard one, and hit edit new/dupe, and change the toggle to CL... And call it "standard opening to CL"... Then i want one that does all the hosted objects, and...

The simple toggles for trying to automate dimensions would necessitate a myriad of dimension styles, if we were to try it. What else would worry me, is how much processing power would it eat up for Revit to keep pondering dimensions, and IF they should be dimensioning something?

Domt get me wrong, i can appreciate the vision. At the same time, id love to just model the geometry and have the drawings be automatically done, lol...

[barathd]

Aaron:

Computing power?? Hardware is light years ahead of software - don't see this is much of an issue.

Regards

Dick Barath

[twiceroadsfool]

It doesnt matter to me which one is behind... The software or the hardware. More work for it to do is still more work, lol...

Just a simple thought... :)