How do you dimension a non orthogonal wall

[Wagurto]

Maybe this is a silly question but how do i dimension angular wall?

[sbrown]

pick dimension, then pick on the endpoint of the wall by using tab to select it. If you have a window or a door in the wall you can pick that first and that gets you parallel to the wall.

[CCI Design]

Another thing you can do is sketch some detail lines on top of the wall to give you a point that is easier to control than a wall join point.

[rodneyf]

I think this area needs to be addressed immediately by the Revit team. Our office is now using Revit on all our new projects and I have been bombarded by this very same question. We are using actual dimensions and when you try to dimension to a wall that has finishes on it the dimensions go to the finish not the core and that is a big problem. I have checked, double checked, triple checked and I just can not get it to dimension from the corner of the core to a vertical or horizontal wall. Okay sorry for that, I am just tired of people in my office saying we should stay with AutoCad r14 with Softdesk 8. Well if I am wrong about this please point me in the right direction and I will apologize here to everyone.

[adegnan]

Rodney, for now you will need to draw two detail lines from the core that you want to dimension to, and then dimension to those detail lines. Sorry that I have no better news!

[J. Grouchy]

I am just tired of people in my office saying we should stay with AutoCad r14 with Softdesk 8

Whoa...flashback to 1997. It is such a simpler time now...

[mlgatzke]

I think this area needs to be addressed immediately by the Revit team.
Rodney, I agree. We, as Architects and designers, deal with frame dimensions. We do not dimension to finish (typically). Therefore, Revit (as a tool for Architects and designers) should take this into account. Please don't get me wrong, as those who've been in this group a long time know - I'm absolutely PRO Revit. I think Revit is the absolute BEST application that has come around for Architects and architectural staff. This problem (not being able to select framing on a non-parallel wall) is a pretty big one - as far and the "cleanliness" of Revit use. Before much effort is expended to add new capabilities to Revit, I think, efforts should be made to "clean up" what we already have.

[rodneyf]

Mike, I wholeheartedly agree with Revit being the Best application and I also agree that efforts should be made to "clean up" what we already have. Don't get me wrong I will never go back to AutoCAD. My life is much less complicated with Revit and I will not go back.

Thanks,

[David]

We are working on two projects with many angles, complicated by the circumstance that many as-built walls are not parallel. Dimensioning is a nightmare. Dimensioning to finish is not a professional solution. The inability to efficiently answer the most basic information on a drawing, i.e.'How long is it from here to there', is not accepable. I spend more time making thin detail lines than layout--then adjusting with modification. My don-digital colleagues do not understand what takes so long to dimension.

[dg]

I wrestled for hours trying to dimension my first angular wall, and I could not believe it was a problem with the software - I thought it must be me being a bit thick.

I recall a demo of Allplan, and the guy drew a selection box around a floor plan, left clicked, and everything was dimensioned! Damn cool

[stuntmonkee]

This is one of the reasons I started an internal argument about project set up a while ago, and still have not decided, so opinions are welcome.

I understand what Revit is for. And I do value the ability to create a wall as it is built, and not as it is drawn. But you have to remember (and i think this is something that has been lost) that construction documents are used to represent what you want built. In all reality, when you show a rock wall, you could show it as a crosshatch, and as long as you call out what that hatch "represents" it will (should) be build that way.

The same goes for walls. We all know that a wall isn't 4, 6, or 8 inches. its 3 5/8" with 2 layers of 5/8" gyp, and a finish. . .or what ever. That's great, but in our drawings, we need to know what the dim is from stud to stud. Now I know that some of you out there will draw your CMU walls at 7 5/8", but I draw Mine at 8". How many times have we nailed a rookie for having some 1/8" dimension on there. . .because they wont actually measure to the nearest 1/4", almost always the nearest 1" is the case.

So in my Revit construction drawings, I don't add on materials, nor do I draw a metal stud wall a 3 5/8", its 4", easy to dim. IF, and only IF i feel its really worth it to add all the materials, then I add them at the end of a project. I know it can be nice for sections, and details, but in my opinion, its not worth the headache of missed and off the mark dims. Besides, like I said, if you wait till the end to do wall sections and details, and get the plan set, then you can add it in on the end. It can cause some problems, but thats up to you.

As for rendering, I either create a new wall type with a diff material, or I paint it.

I know I said it was an internal argument, and haven't decided, and it sounds like I have made my decision. . . .but I haven't totally. I wish I could still build the wall as it is, and especially for clearances it would be great, and for some reason i see it as the "right" thing to do. But before Revit this was the way it was drawn, and before Cad it was even further off, and the dimension text was right.

I'll keep brainstorming this one, but maybe it stirs some ideas with you guys.

Thanks
Stunts

BTW
Spellcheck Rocks!!!!!!
thanks AUGI team.

[beegee]

We draw the majority of our walls as the "core only wall", ie studs are 70 mm or 90 mm ( not 10 mm plasterboard + 70/90 mm stud + 10 mm plasterboard = 90 /110 mm wall oa ) That overcomes any problems caused by picking up finished dimensions by accident. The exception is fire/acoustic walls where the finished fire rated sheeting must remain integral, so in that case, we draw and dimension to include the finishes. We also draw concrete masonry walls as 140 and 190 mm, ( actual size ) not the generic 150/200 mm, otherwise the accumulated 10mm can cause some big headaches in large projects.

[pwmsmith]

The decision of how much detail to put into walls is one that I am still fighting. I'm trying to complete my first complete REVIT project, a four story school building. Although I'm working thru structural systems, curtail walls, stairs, and floor systems, I keep changing my wall from simple to complex and back again. My understanding is to model the building and extract the info with minimal drafting, however I seem to be doing more drafting and filled regions to accomplish my construction documents and changing walls back to simple generic walls with nominal dimensions.

[sbrown]

It comes down to this, Revit needs the ability to display and dimension only to the core, for framing plans. I don't think it is satisfactory to not model accurately and not model finishes. It may be easier, but not in the long run. I've gotten to the point where my models are very accurate and it decreases my wall sections and details time imensely. So we need a wishlist item or two.

1. Be able to dimension to the core points at any intersection(without adding any detail lines)
2. Be able to graphically "turn off" all but the core layers of the walls, roofs, floors, ceilings. for framing plans.

Lets hope we get it, in 7.0, these are not new requests, so hopefully this thread has been discussed at the factory many moons ago.

[rodneyf]

Scott,
I agree with both of your wish list items 100% and then some. So put me down as a yes to these two items a thousand times over that should give it high priority.

Thanks,

[muttlieb]

1. Be able to dimension to the core points at any intersection(without adding any detail lines)
2. Be able to graphically "turn off" all but the core layers of the walls, roofs, floors, ceilings. for framing plans.

I've only just started using Revit, but these two items immediately became wishes of mine.

[juggergnat]

Well the workaround solution to dimensioning to non parallel walls is this: Click the dimension to your first linear element, and then dimension not to the other linear element, but instead to a point (yes, a point), like the edge of a window, or wall, or whatever. There are points within your objects if you tab to them. If you tab through the options while dimensioning you will realize that Revit can easily dimension to points, that is, once the first linear element has been established and the alignment of the dimension has been defined. This little workaround will get you through 95% of the potential dimensioning problems. You can also draw a drafting line if you absolutely must, and then dimension to that in some very weird condition. The reason Revit will not dimension sometimes to elements that are parallel, is because those elements have in effect stopped becoming parallel by an invisible, numerical margin.

Revit has the nasty tendency that when you drag walls around in a model, Revit will sometimes jog your wall to .00009 degrees off its original orientation. So you THINK your walls are parallel, but they are not. That will kill your ability to dimension to them easily, in fact whenever you CANT dimension to parallel elements this is exactly what is going on. This can be solved somewhat by altering your angular snap settings before you start a project. But that's a small consolation when you have 40 walls that are supposed to be parallel, and somehow one wasn't, and this has become the basis for countless other elements.

Revit should immediately implement a solution to this one. Perhaps an option to the alignment tool that allows you to align objects parallel while preserving their origin. Or better yet, a global tool that will instantly change all angular dimensions to be rounded up to the next unit. Then you won't have perpendicular elements that are 89.8789 degrees, and which show in your views as 90 degrees.

This is a big issue, one that will kill the enthusiasm of new Revit users like you trying to get work out.

JG

[stuntmonkee]

2. Be able to graphically "turn off" all but the core layers of the walls, roofs, floors, ceilings. for framing plans.

Lets hope we get it, in 7.0, these are not new requests, so hopefully this thread has been discussed at the factory many moons ago.

Good call. As of now when you change from "FINE" to "COURSE" it eliminates from the finish in, when in reality, it should be from the core out.

show that stunts raised his hand on this vote as well.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

Revit has the nasty tendency that when you drag walls around in a model, Revit will sometimes jog your wall to .00009 degrees off its original orientation.

Then you won't have perpendicular elements that are 89.8789 degrees, and which show in your views as 90 degrees.

JG
Is this a problem for others? I've never come across this issue. When I can't dimension walls, property lines or whatever because they come up as non-parallel it is because they aren't parallel, not through some editing action.
Chime in on this folks because, if this is the case, then I agree, it's a huge issue.

If you can't trust your CAD package to 14 decimal places then who can you trust?

[beegee]

Is this a problem for others? I've never come across this issue. When I can't dimension walls, property lines or whatever because they come up as non-parallel it is because they aren't parallel, not through some editing action.
Chime in on this folks because, if this is the case, then I agree, it's a huge issue.

If you can't trust your CAD package to 14 decimal places then who can you trust?
Not a problem we've ever seen either.

[Steve_Stafford]

I suspect he's referring to using the grips to drag a wall. It is very easy to grab, drag and stop at a point not parallel if you aren't careful.

[Kirky]

I simply split the wall to give myself a point to dimension to then change the split line to invisible. Although against drafting convention I think it is important to include finished materials (especially with detailed fitout e.g. tiles layouts etc.) I found builders can cope with such things, however the danger is where there is inconsitancies in dimensioning and having, for exmaple the same wall with two different dimensions due to differnt dimension settings. One possible solution would be a gobal setting for dimensioning e.g. all dimesions from core face or vice sa versa.

[rodneyf]

Hey All,
Don't know if anyone else has found this but I have found something that works for this condition and it does not involve drawing separate lines. Go to an area of your drawing where the walls are non orthogonal and then select the "Edit Wall Joins" toolbar button, then select the area in question and then choose the miter option in the option bar area. Now when you dimension these type of walls with finishes on them the dimensions will go to the core.

[adegnan]

Hey All,
Don't know if anyone else has found this but I have found something that works for this condition and it does not involve drawing separate lines. Go to an area of your drawing where the walls are non orthogonal and then select the "Edit Wall Joins" toolbar button, then select the area in question and then choose the miter option in the option bar area. Now when you dimension these type of walls with finishes on them the dimensions will go to the core.AHA! We have a winner!

Now this gets us back to one of my long-time wishlist items: I would like a setting to choose that walls would be mitered by default!

[muttlieb]

Hey All,
Don't know if anyone else has found this but I have found something that works for this condition and it does not involve drawing separate lines. Go to an area of your drawing where the walls are non orthogonal and then select the "Edit Wall Joins" toolbar button, then select the area in question and then choose the miter option in the option bar area. Now when you dimension these type of walls with finishes on them the dimensions will go to the core.

I tried this but I still can't get it to dimension to the end point of the core face. I can only pick the end point of the finish surface. What could I be missing? I cannot believe it is so difficult to dimension angular walls. I sure hope this is addressed in 7.0.

[rodneyf]

Muttlieb,
You may have to use the tab key to get to the core also I noticed that if you try to start from the intersection of the angular walls sometimes it works sometimes it does not and that I have no idea what is causing that. Hope that helps.

p.s. One other thing to check is make sure your wall finish is outside of the core boundary. I just had a user here make that very same mistake.

[muttlieb]

Rodney,

Can you dimension the 45 degree wall (to the core) in the attached file using the method you posted? I can't make it happen and it's driving me nuts. I used the default residential template. The walls are wood siding over wood stud drawn with exterior face of core selected and I mitered the joins. Thanks for the help.

[rodneyf]

Muttlieb,
I opened your file and then I opened a new project based on our office template and I was unable to dimension to the core in both your and mine using a stud core, but if I switched to masonry with just one exterior finish then it would dimension, also if the masonry wall has an air space before the finish (like brick) then it would not work. So you are not going crazing it just does not right. Well I guess I have to stand by my original statement that Revit needs this to be fixed ASAP.

[muttlieb]

Rodney,

Thanks for taking the time to check that out. I agree that this needs to be fixed ASAP. I think it goes hand in hand with the ability to display the outside faces of core in course view rather than, or instead of, the outside faces of finish. I do residential design, and for me this is a must have.