Generic Annotations have lower graphic quality?

[ron.sanpedro]

The tag on the left is a true Interior Elevation tag, which uses 3/32" Arial as the font.
The tag on the right is a fake interior elevation, which also uses 3/32" Arial as the font.

We need this because the client requires interior elevation callouts in plan details that point to elevational casework details. But this actually makes sense, and it would be nice if there was an Elevation Detail Callout, that could be pointed at an existing view, that could address this issue with BIMie coordination.

But in the mean time, is the fatter and graphically grainy character of the Generic Annotation a bug? It sure seems like it. Even the linework looks less smooth to me, but it really shows up in the text.

Anyone have any ideas?

Thanks,
Gordon

[dbaldacchino]

You seem to have a lot of time on your hands, why don't you come help us? ;)

[muttlieb]

That looks like the display difference between opaque & transparent text. I'd guess your generic annotation text background parameter is set to transparent.

[DaveP]

...generic annotation text background parameter is set to transparent.

I think Wes had a post in here a month or two ago about being able to use Overlay Planes & thus making the Transparent Text look better.
Do these Tags plot the same or is it just on the screen?

[muttlieb]

I think Wes had a post in here a month or two ago about being able to use Overlay Planes & thus making the Transparent Text look better.
Do these Tags plot the same or is it just on the screen?
I have overlay planes checked and I get the fat & jaggy transparent text. I think it's just a display issue, they plot the same for me.

[ron.sanpedro]

You seem to have a lot of time on your hands, why don't you come help us? ;)

I am trying to get designers to use the tool, and this kind of stuff actually matters to them. It matters to me too, actually. I expect consistency at 5000 flippin bucks! ;) That, and sometimes these little things are symptoms of larger systemic problems, which cause other (real?) ;) issues. So I bring it up when I see it, but I have not posted it as an SR or a Wish.

Now curved masking regions that don't degrade to chords, that I really want to see fixed.

Best,
Gordon

[sbrown]

We show real elevation symbols on our casework plans, why do you need the fake ones, We do a plan of the casework(callout) then put an elevation symbol in it creating the elevaion, place that on the sheet above the plan, then cut the section in plan and it shows on the elevations. No need to fake anything.

[dbaldacchino]

Hey np Gordon, just messing with ya!

I guess maybe Gordon's using detail callouts, which don't permit elevations. I personally would use a floor plan callout like Scott suggested. I refuse to do fake callouots. Leads to problems typically associated with good ol' CAD.

[robert.manna]

Even though this discussion seems pretty well wrapped up, I wanted to add that I have noticed the same issue Gordon on the diplay quality of "auto text" versus "real text" in a number of situations. This includes, tags, titleblocks, schedules. It raised my eyebrowns too, but a quick print to PDF and to the physical printer showed that it was merely a display issue, versus an actual output issue. I always assumed that this was intentional on the developers part in order to help highlight when working in Revit, what textual information was being generated automatically, versus information placed by a user in the form of text, or even an annotation symbol.

-R