Dimension override

[bob.parker]

Ok... I usually read posts daily, but rarely contribute. I have to say I am very disappointed in being able to override dimensions now in 2009. What keeps me from typing in 20' - 6"., with that period that will not be seen in print? Were is the credibility of the model? Has Autodesk sold out?

[Mike Sealander]

The credibility is in the model, not the printed representation.

[iru69]

What keeps you from making the original dim text really small and pasting some other text over it? Or making the dim text white and pasting some other text over it? Or using a blank font and pasting some other text over it? Or printing it out, taking some whiteout and pasting some other text over it? Or getting on the phone with the contractor and telling them to cross out the dimension on their set of plans and write something else in its place? Or...

What I think is incredibly stupid is forcing me to put a period in there to get around Revit's moronic limitation of not letting me type whatever I want to for a dimension string.


Ok... I usually read posts daily, but rarely contribute. I have to say I am very disappointed in being able to override dimensions now in 2009. What keeps me from typing in 20' - 6"., with that period that will not be seen in print? Were is the credibility of the model? Has Autodesk sold out?

[PaperStreet SoapCO]

Exactly - I was overwriting dims to show stair tread and riser counts before 2009 by pasting text. This just make my life easier.

[bob.parker]

A hybrid set of documents compromises the integrity of the documents. I think this is a big mistake.

[bob.parker]

The credibility is in the model, not the printed representation.

Try issuing a model to the contractor. I think any numerical value types into the override field should be forced bold.

[Adam Mac]

Here we go again......

this discussion has been had (well & truly) on numerous occasions and to a great extent in the past. Thankfully Autodesk recognised that a large number of users felt that there should be the ability - for whatever reason - to override dimensions. I for one cannot thank them enough for at least giving me the choice. You don't personally have to use this feature if you don't wish, but now at least you have the choice to decide.

;) My 2c worth.

[cjneedham]

Part of the problem is, as I see it, is related to the format for presenting imperial units. You need the character support to show the feet and inches, hence why it allows you to use a period (or 'full stop' as it's known here in Oz) and get away with it. I use metric, and what's also weird, is that if I override a dimension in the same way as Bob, Revit won't allow this - it recognises my override value as a number. Yet, if I put two periods there (e.g. '5800..'), this IS permitted. I presume this is actually consistent when you think about it, as a period indicates a decimal point, which IS part of a metric (decimal) numeric value.

I think it is not possible for Autodesk to pick up and correct or prevent EVERY thing like this, but some sort of override warning (bold text, or whatever else that'll be obvious) would be a good idea. Establishing the conditions under which this override is displayed would be the hard part.

I think on the detail of this particular observation, to my way of thinking, this might fall into the category of "We can't have it both ways" - much like the thread dealing with Area measurements and calculated totals (see link - http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=70539)

[Gadget Man]

To me it is simply a matter of the honesty. Honesty and professionalism in your work and services to your clients.

If you are willing to cheat, no number of obstacles will stop you, If you want to be honest, nothing will make you to break the rules - no matter how easy or inviting it is.

As it was said before: the choice should be yours!!! And should you decide to go through the easy path of "cooking" the dimensions soon enough, as with most crooks and cut-throats, the public will learn and will be avoiding your practice. Not even to mention an unacceptable (in my opinion) litigation risk...

That's my view...

If somebody wants to be a fraud (with their work) let them!!! More clients for us in the future...

[Chad Smith]

This topic is such a non-issue. As Irusun has pointed out, if users want to override a dim, then there is no stopping them and there never has been.

I welcome the feature so that I can now finally and easily put some text in there instead of a numeric value.

The 'safeguards' that Autodesk have implemented won't stop the determined, but at least it acts as a warning to those who might be considering overriding a dim with another value, and make them think twice about it.

[bob.parker]

For the first 20 years of my life I built... I was raised by a builder. The drawings that we used sat in the truck because they were not credible. The second part of my life, thus far, I have been in the office and I hear "why don't they just build what I draw!". Revit, if used with the B.I.M methodolgy and not a 2D drafting tool, gives creditability to the drawings.

Currently people in the field are asking why are Revit drawings have just as many inconstancies as our previous, post Revit, drawings had. The reason is simple.... we are using Revit as we used ADT, which was 2D drafting. A hybrid of 3D wall, windows, doors, and now Roofs. I can't trust what I see on the plots because I don't know if it is the model or a series of 2D lines. I typically was able to trust dimensions, but not anymore.

Back in the day I wrote some code that made altered dimension text red and BOLD. This was a script I wrote for Autocad, but with a little effort might be altered for Revit. At least the checker can be informed what is fake and what is real.

My humble opinion.

[gwnelson]

The drawings that we used sat in the truck because they were not credible.

If they were in the truck you couldn't have used them. Sounds fundamentally misleading.

[patricks]

I think it's an issue of do you want to take the extra time and effort required to cheat the dimensions? Yes it's a little easier now than before, but I'm glad that you can't just replace the dimension value with another dimension value. You still have to add something extra.

Despite what you or anyone else may think, my Revit drawings do have credibility, because I have never cheated dimensions in Revit, that I can recall. The only time I might use the trick with the period at the end would be for a drafting view where I have break lines and need to show a dimension that's longer than the actual dimension I put in there (since we can't crop and break drafting views as we can with model views).

So I would say, keep doing what you're doing, which hopefully includes not going out of your way to cheat dimensions. Dimension things on your drawings with the actual dimensions that they are, with the knowledge that you know the dimensions are correct, and don't worry about what other people may or may not do.

[bob.parker]

The drawings were reviewed for the fundamental information and we referred back to them if needed. I am not saying it is the correct attitude to have, but it is typical. Communication, or lack of communication, is the enemy.

[bob.parker]

Nice portfolio Chad... Good way to get traffic to your site ;)

[Gadget Man]

... Currently people in the field are asking why are Revit drawings have just as many inconstancies as our previous, post Revit, drawings had (...) I typically was able to trust dimensions, but not anymore...

Hmmmm... how interesting...

You see, since I started using Revit (v.5) I've had nothing but a good feedback from the field.
One of my clients (a large builder - we don't deal with the public) tells me that in his 30+ years history of building he's NEVER seen drawings as good and as ACCURATE as ours.

A large concrete roof tiles manufacturer relies unquestionably on our figures (m² of the roof) rather than on their own after we corrected them on their quotes several times in the past. And they are supposed to be the experts...

Several independent building certifiers (from different offices) tell me, that although our name (as in our drafting office's name or logo) doesn't appear on any of the drawings, they recognize them immediately (regardless of what actual builder's name is on them) by their unique graphic style and ease to read and they deal with these drawings first, because they know that they will be easy and accurate and correct in every aspect.

We haven't advertised for the last six years and we are still flat-out with the orders, regularly including new clients (builders) who saw our drawings somewhere and want us to do their next job. At the same time supposedly there is a quiet time out there for other drafting offices...

Gee, you really must be working among some strange drafters there...

[Gadget Man]

... Currently people in the field are asking why are Revit drawings have just as many inconstancies as our previous, post (pre?) Revit, drawings had....

The quality of work only very little depends on a tool used. It mostly depends on the operator of the tool. Don't blame a hammer for the crooked nails...

[John Anderson]

The big problem is with managing and checking other users. One should be able to decide on their own if it's appropriate to override, but when managing less experienced staff it is Autobad horror revisited to have to worry about constantly rechecking dimensions. Back then a simple lisp routine could format the overridden dims for a quick check. Again, we must have that capability as mentioned. Hopefully someone can quickly spit out and share a routine using the API or macro editor.

[gwnelson]

I saw the override menu box yesterday but didn't need to use it. Today I simply want to add some text to a dim & IT'S GONE. Have rooted around for at least 30 minutes & find nothing. I can't add text from the good ol' properties menu. I don't want to have to add text manually - how un-programmable-like.

Any clues? Colonel Mustard in the Parlor?

[patricks]

When you select a dimension, the dimension value(s) turns blue. Click on it and the dimension text editor box pops up.

[gwnelson]

Thanks, patricks. I'm wondering how I saw that before & lost it today. And that's much easier than pounding away at the properties box.

[twiceroadsfool]

The big problem is with managing and checking other users. One should be able to decide on their own if it's appropriate to override, but when managing less experienced staff it is Autobad horror revisited to have to worry about constantly rechecking dimensions. Back then a simple lisp routine could format the overridden dims for a quick check. Again, we must have that capability as mentioned. Hopefully someone can quickly spit out and share a routine using the API or macro editor.

Its certainly not fool proof, but there is one way sort of) to make sure that isnt necessary.

Once we knew the tool was coming, we made it abundantly clear: use this tool if you need to repalce a dim with text, like "Varies" "Verify in field" or whatever.

But the moment we see one Dimension actually faked out using dimension overrides, someones headed out the door. Its inexcusable, its lazy, and its not professional. No firm ive worked at tolerated it in AutoCAD, and were certainly not about to start. We need to be accountable for our work.

I swear, ill spend my weekend at home digging through journal files if i find a faked out dim on one of my projects....

[bob.parker]

The thing I loved and still love about Revit is you have a lot less room for human error. We should have very little need for dimension overrides if we are modeling it as it will be built. You can take care of other needs with notes. If the numbers do not add up something is wrong with your model.

[PaperStreet SoapCO]

I just think its nice to be abel to put V.I.F. in the dimension string and be able to move it and the text move with it and not have the dimension string and the text pasted on top of it as a seperate element.

If there is a construction error due to faked dims, just take the overage/add out of the guilty party's paycheck - that'll make em think twice next time!

[twiceroadsfool]

The thing I loved and still love about Revit is you have a lot less room for human error. We should have very little need for dimension overrides if we are modeling it as it will be built. You can take care of other needs with notes. If the numbers do not add up something is wrong with your model.

No one is disagreeing with you in the theory of what the model should be and how it should work, but youre completely ignoring what everyone is saying:

***IF*** people (for WHATEVER reason) want to fake a dimension, theyre going to do it wether the tool lets them or not. Line based detail componenets with a parameter, text overrides, text styles with no characters, theyre GOING to do it.

SHOULD they have to do it? Nope. Youre right, but some do anyway. That said, the tool DOES have practical uses BESIDES faking dim: changing a dimension in section to say "Varies- see elevation" when youre dimensioning an arc in section, or writing "VIF" on something that you DONT want the dimension shown on (reason not to use prefix or suffix).

So they gave us the tool for the practical needs we have, and they put in a move or two to TRY stopping the cheaters. Its not worth the effort to try eliminating the possibility of cheating, as they can always just go back to a line based detail component that looks IDENTICAL to the dim style.

[dbaldacchino]

We just want to stop those that are not even bright enough to cheat this tool. That in itself is already successful as usually, these users are the ones that "don't have a clue", if you know what I mean ;) Those that are bright enough to know how and when to cheat....I'm not THAT worried about those. If due to that cheating there is a screw-up, they'll learn their lesson from that one mistake and that's not so bad. The first group though will never learn.

[bob.parker]

I still think it is a compromise. Do you thing the original developers forgot to allow dimension overrides? Have you ever read the history of the Edsel? It was a car built from a public wish list.

Anyway, happy computing!

[aaronrumple]

...these users are the ones that "don't have a clue", if you know what I mean ;)

Let me tell you about those users. I was director of a college architecture program. We had the computers as locked down and idiot proof as possible. Every time you started AutoCAD, it came up in its default configuration. No matter what. We had the 3DS dongles routed inside the case so they couldn't be stolen. And we disabled audio CD playing.

This same group that couldn't figure out how to draw a line from one point to another, figured out how to play CD's within 5 minutes. They only pretend to be clueless. When it benifits them - they figure it out. When knowing stuff puts them in a position someone might ask them to do something - they're dumb as a brick.

[dbaldacchino]

LOL! I guess I have the two categories mixed up :) The genuinely "dumb" (I don't mean to be mean) are few and far apart I guess. One way or another, someone will either stumble on a way or just figure out how to do it out of pure force of will.

Just thinking about this tool....someday we'll get the ability to have lots of text edit tools in Revit, one of which will be to change the color of text multiple times in one line. Then those users will override the dimension and type in "3'-6" bite me" and change "bite me" to white. There you go....can't win!

[zenomail105021]

Personally, I want every reasonable option I can get. I want to be the the "decider."


Bill Maddox

[twiceroadsfool]

Just thinking about this tool....someday we'll get the ability to have lots of text edit tools in Revit, one of which will be to change the color of text multiple times in one line. Then those users will override the dimension and type in "3'-6" bite me" and change "bite me" to white. There you go....can't win!

Ill laugh when they export to DWG and send that to a consultant, too...

[dbaldacchino]

but...but...it was in white! Ok, back on topic. I like the new tool personally. I think it has to boil down to personal responsibility. Trying to hammer "don'ts" into users doesn't really work. I choose the route to explain why you shouldn't and that's it. Once the user commits their first mistake, I reserve the right to do the I-told-you-so dance. And you don't want to see me do that! if the user keeps doing the sme thing over and over, then someone needs to show them the door.

[bob.parker]

Maybe we should just define what a dimension is. In common usage, a dimension (Latin, "measured out") is a measurable aspect of an object.

It is easier and faster to change a dimension then to fix the problem. This, to me, is why people want the ability to override dimensions. I would be surprised to find that people want it just for V.I.F notes.

[dbaldacchino]

It might be true that it's "easier" but there's no doubt it is very dangerous. It's something you want to do as a last resort and only if you know what the heck you're doing.

[iru69]

The most common reason I need to write in my own dimension is for permitting purposes. I have a legal survey that indicates some extremely specific dimension, e.g. 5.83' from property line to building that I need to replicate on a site plan, but for whatever the reason, my model just doesn't need to be that freaking accurate. It also often comes up in detailing.

If I were designing the dimension override feature, I would:
1. allow the user to enter whatever text or number they wanted. PERIOD.
2. if the user attempted to change the actual dimensional number, a warning dialog would pop up which the user would need to select OK to proceed.
3. if the dimensional number was changed, it's graphical appearance on screen would indicate that it had been changed.
4. there would be a function to search/check for dimensional numbers that had been changed within a project.

Software that treats users as though they're too stupid to think for themselves only encourages stupid users. The smart users will eventually find other software.

[dbaldacchino]

Those are good points. I think another approach I would like to see is as follows:

a) User overrides with whatever they want.
b) The original dimension displays underneath the new override (or above) with a format, font and color that the user specifies in the template.
c) We would get another option in the print dialog that gives a user control whether to print the original dimension value or not (similar to scope box and crop region control, unreferenced tags, etc). This would help in visual checking but can be turned off for final prints.
d) Add a subcategory so the original value that has been overriden can be turned off. This could be a substitute for c), although I prefer c) instead of this.

[bob.parker]

All good comments, which is why these forums are wonderful. Here is a good read:

http://modocrmadt.blogspot.com/2005/01/bim-what-is-it-why-do-i-care-and-how.html

[ford347]

The addition of the override tool is great. Just used it yesterday in some field drawings for some roof ledgers. The dimension override tool can be very useful to relay information, not the wrong dimension. Like stated previously, you want to show the min. and max. requirements for stairs. The stairs will be fabricated in the field based off of other correct dimensions; you would override the actual dimension of the stair rise and run to give them a min. or max., nothing more. I used it yesterday like I said, to relay to my field personnel where their material went. I dimensioned my ledger lengths, so they had the real dimension, the below that, I had another dimension string, all of which were overridden to show my personnel what length of stock to use for these particular ledgers, i.e. 20’ Stock, 16’ Stock. Very useful. Using the dimension tool was much easier than using a detail family that I previously made because this functionality was not available.

I don't think that it will be people’s intention to deliberately convey the wrong information. If it is, then they're crazy. It's there because it's another useful tool in an already accurate piece of software.

Josh

[Scott D Davis]

Those are good points. I think another approach I would like to see is as follows:

a) User overrides with whatever they want.
b) The original dimension displays underneath the new override (or above) with a format, font and color that the user specifies in the template.
c) We would get another option in the print dialog that gives a user control whether to print the original dimension value or not (similar to scope box and crop region control, unreferenced tags, etc). This would help in visual checking but can be turned off for final prints.
d) Add a subcategory so the original value that has been overriden can be turned off. This could be a substitute for c), although I prefer c) instead of this.

If they can figure out every other possible workaround, this one is just too easy: just put a white filled region over the text to blank out the "real" dimension.

[dbaldacchino]

Scott, I'm not suggesting a system to make it bullet-proof against user overrides. I'm acknowledging the fact that the user WILL override and fool the system, but I want all team members to see where this happened, what the original value was and then let them decide what to do. That's why I also suggested that Autodesk add a printing option to let the team decide wheter to print the original value or not, as during QC, you would want to see everything and once it's all said and done, then you print a final set that does not display the original overriden dimension value. Whay you suggested in your post is what most have done prior to the introduction of this tool! Seeing what the original dimension was can help in diagnosing whether the edit is legitimate or an act of laziness and sloppy modeling.

Right now when the system is fooled, there is no indication of that on screen or in print. That's the bad part. I think regardless of how smart the programmers get, someone will always find a way to override and make it look legitimate (and thus undetectable).