[2009] - Element Too Small (OPEN)

[schrodingerscat]

I want a line of 0.45mm dammit! Don't make me get AutoCAD out!

AutoCAD can draw lines as small as you like, Revit should be able to as well. There should be no need for me to change the look of my symbols because Revit doesn't like the size of the lines.

It won't even let me move something a short distance! To move a line into the right place I have to move it far away and then move it to the right place from there.

What's going on Autodesk?! You were doing so well!

[Dimitri Harvalias]

<Devil's advocate mode on>
What on earth requires you to draw a line .45mm long? (that's 0.0177" or 4.5/256" for our metricly challenged friends)
Surely the thickness of the plotted line used will make a line that short irrelevant.

(This is where you answer, get indignant and ask me not to call you Shirley :lol:)
<Devil's advocate mode off>

[mjdanowski]

Its a royal pain when dealing with annotation symbols. Remember, an symbol for a receptacle may only be 1/8" high and when trying to adjust it to the correct height it gets very, very irritating when you just want to "nudge" it to make it look right

[schrodingerscat]

<Devil's advocate mode on>
What on earth requires you to draw a line .45mm long? (that's 0.0177" or 4.5/256" for our metricly challenged friends)
Surely the thickness of the plotted line used will make a line that short irrelevant.

(This is where you answer, get indignant and ask me not to call you Shirley :lol:)
<Devil's advocate mode off>


"Striker? Striker? STRIKER!" *Slaps woman*

When we draw a symbol we draw it 1:1, then when it goes on a drawing it's usually scaled to 1:100. 0.45mm is fairly large when you scale it up 100X.

Another time is if you put a diffuser onto a ceiling grid and miss slightly, you can't just move it and line up the corner because the gap between where it is and the correct place is too small. You need to move it away and then move it into the right place thus doubling the work.

I've attached the symbol we use for isolators. Had issues drawing this because of it's size. You have to remember that this symbol is scaled up in the actual drawing so a circle with a radius of 0.3mm (which causes an error) would actually be 30mm on a drawing set to 1:100.

[schrodingerscat]

Just came across an example of the problem which is now preventing me from drawing up a symbol the way we need it.

The attached screenshot spans across 2 monitors. AutoCAD on 1 side with the exploded symbol I'm trying to copy, and Revit on the other side with the error caused by copying it.

What I would like to know is WHY IS IT TOO SHORT?! WHAT PROBLEMS COULD A SHORT LINE POSSIBLY CAUSE?!?! WHY DOES AUTODESK HATE SHORT LINES?!?!

[mespinoza]

I too am very frustrated. I thought by changing the rounding (UN dialouge box) that would help but no. Key plan lines can get very small.

Any Solutions Yet? Revit 2009.0.0

[schrodingerscat]

Nothing yet. I think the only fixes are to either draw it in AutoCAD and import, or to draw it scaled up 100 and then use scale to resize (though this doesn't work half the time)

[Simon.Whitbread]

Ok, I know this solution isn't elegant, but in cases where you get the 'element too small' error, try outside the box - or in this case... inside it.
Have a look at the attached, the filled region is in fact six lines, the perimeter and two wider lines.

does the job

[sschwartz85916]

The only way I have found that works when I get this HORRIBLY ANNOYING MESSAGE is to move the object much farther away then move it into the right place...

[Steve_Stafford]

There are two discussions going on here; one is moving something a tiny distance and the other is very small lines.

Moving something via dragging and being zoomed out quite a bit poses a problem for the Revit graphics engine, it doesn't detect "movement" until you move it a certain "distance". So the moving the element far and back is one way...you can also just zoom in closer so the distance doesn't seem so insignificant to Revit. You can also just use the nudge (arrow keys) if the distance isn't exact. The move tool will allow you to enter a value instead.

Revit does not allow you to draw a line less than 1/32" long...it is too short in Revit's opinion. In the example of drawing something "real" and scaling up...a symbol in Revit should be drawn real printed size. The symbol does not change in size, the model changes around it so to speak. Drawing such a line in AutoCAD and importing doesn't solve the problem because Revit will delete it (not create the line) when you import the file. In many cases as Dimitri implied you may not be able to tell because the line weight obscures the fact the there is not segment when it is printed.

[Simon.Whitbread]

Moving something via dragging and being zoomed out quite a bit poses a problem for the Revit graphics engine, it doesn't detect "movement" until you move it a certain "distance". So the moving the element far and back is one way...you can also just zoom in closer so the distance doesn't seem so insignificant to Revit. You can also just use the nudge (arrow keys) if the distance isn't exact. The move tool will allow you to enter a value instead.

Hi Steve,

I've found that this is related to the Project Units. I can only explain it in terms of metric (can do inches - if I must!), but anyway...

set the project units to 3 decimal places, when units are millimetres (the correct spelling)

You can then move an object 0.01mm, even if your view extents are 500m. If project units are set to 0 decimal places, you cannot do it.

I had some surprising results however when setting the decimal places to custom and then 0.000000000001

two aligned and locked lines / objeccts, can be dimensioned.

Its WELL within building tolerances though!

[schrodingerscat]

This is definitely causing me a lot of grief. Symbols are having to be changed to the point that they are noticeably different, and since there isn't really enough control of legends at the moment in Revit and so I'm having to do all legends in AutoCAD I'm having to edit the symbol we've been using in AutoCAD to match.

Not very fun.

[Simon.Whitbread]

This is definitely causing me a lot of grief. Symbols are having to be changed to the point that they are noticeably different, and since there isn't really enough control of legends at the moment in Revit and so I'm having to do all legends in AutoCAD I'm having to edit the symbol we've been using in AutoCAD to match.

Not very fun.

Hi Randy,

Can you post your worst example - as original dwg? Lets see what we can do with it.

Cheers

Simon

[schrodingerscat]

Hi Randy,

Can you post your worst example - as original dwg? Lets see what we can do with it.

Cheers

Simon

This should do the job. First one I came across. I'm not actually using Revit at the moment so it's a bit harder to say, and I don't think I should really give out company files (I know I'm being a bit paranoid) but this solid gives me trouble.

[Simon.Whitbread]

OK - Here it is, Quick and REALLY dirty so it only took 2-3 minutes to create.

Use as an example only - no guarantees,

BUT

It looks how you want

HTH

[schrodingerscat]

It is ROUGHLY the same symbol which I have also achieved, but I do my symbol legends in AutoCAD because I am yet to find a way of getting a legend in Revit that's even close to what we need to achieve to meet our drafting standards/op system requirements. The symbol in AutoCAD is different. We can change the symbol but then we're moving away from the company standard. I've been told "move away from how we make things look in AutoCAD as little as possible"

There are ways around it (annoying and horrible ways) but we shouldnt HAVE to find ways around it. No matter what scale it's happening on, it's still a restriction on what we can deliver to the end user, and how fast we can deliver it.

[Chad Smith]

This one also gets my vote.
I often wonder how many of the numerous Revit workarounds could be eliminated if we removed all the restrictions, like this one, that Revit places on our day-to-day workflow?
If after removing the restrictions other issues arise, surely what we have now can't be the better of two evils.

[Grumple]

Agree 100%

Seems a totally pointless annoyance

[Simon.Whitbread]

Personally, I don't give a sh*t.

These symbols are a result of MANUAL drawing standards. We (meaning I - I'm old enough to have started work when CAD didn't exist) used a template, tee square, set square, compass, stencil to achieve these with pens and pencils. When CAD arrived, all that happened was we duplicated that methodology electronically.

For whatever reason (and its not Autodesks fault - they didn't write the software), Revit is unable to do some things

MOVE ON

If you are still using CAD, as well as Revit - adjust your CAD standards to suit what you can get out of Revit.

[Steve_Stafford]

Not arguing the point of small lines...I've got no quarrel with that issue.

But as for it matching AutoCAD and "standards"...how different? Can you tell when printed or can you only tell when you line up the symbol in a cad file and zoom in on the intersection of two lines? Would a contractor care or even notice the difference. If you printed them out would the boss or the principals or the client notice or care? As for standards that doesn't look anything like a switch in the USA :smile: Everybody's got standards... :sad: Their own or their own trade associations or their locale or their government..."blech".

This "business" spends an awful lot of time "zoomed" in on details at tolerances that are quite often utterly irrelevant to the practitioner on site. Quite literally seeing trees instead of a forest.

Just being one other side of a polygonal "debate" :smile:

[Chad Smith]

The problem is that because Revit is a progression from 2D CAD, it means that most companies will likely have a huge library (100s if not 1000s) of legacy DWG files.
I don't know about others, but I certainly don't want to search out these elements which are too small in all these legacy CAD files and correct the graphics. Gaps in linework tends to be more noticable than a line that is short. Content regularly changes and they will be superceded or updated as we go. But until that happens, they need to look correct until such as time.

'Moving on' is actually being made harder than it should be.

Obviously, new content made in Revit will be made to conform to these rules.
I think the smallest length that can be drawn is 0.8mm. You can actually get rulers which have 0.5mm divisions. If a limit really needs to be set, it should at least be 0.5mm. I know this 0.3mm difference would solve a lot of issues for me.

[schrodingerscat]

Not arguing the point of small lines...I've got no quarrel with that issue.

But as for it matching AutoCAD and "standards"...how different? Can you tell when printed or can you only tell when you line up the symbol in a cad file and zoom in on the intersection of two lines? Would a contractor care or even notice the difference. If you printed them out would the boss or the principals or the client notice or care? As for standards that doesn't look anything like a switch in the USA :smile: Everybody's got standards... :sad: Their own or their own trade associations or their locale or their government..."blech".

This "business" spends an awful lot of time "zoomed" in on details at tolerances that are quite often utterly irrelevant to the practitioner on site. Quite literally seeing trees instead of a forest.

Just being one other side of a polygonal "debate" :smile:

If it was me running a company then yes, CHANGE THE STANDARDS!!!

I am just however, one employee in a company which by Feb next year will have around 6500+ employees.

The current CAD standards which NEED to be adhered to or we get in a bit of trouble took ages to write up. If I propose a change in standards and it isn't shot down straight away and it somehow made it through all the scrutiny and approvals, it may make it into the standards in time for RMEP 2012.

A lot of people are saying that nobody is going to notice. People with "it'll do" attitudes don't last very long here. Also, there have been heaps of times when I get markups with pieces of text circled and "check size" written on it. I check the size of the font and for some reason (usually bad block atts) it'll be 2.3 instead of 2.5. People DO notice.

Honestly I would prefer to use Revit than AutoCAD (even if it does make me miss the comfort of a command line) but until Revit allows us to achieve a final product the company would be happy to give to an end user it isn't going to happen for more than about 10% of our projects, and even then AutoCAD will be used a fair bit. I know AutoCAD = drafting, Revit = modelling but if we're not supposed to be able to produce results that adhere to standards, why put any drafting tools in Revit at all?

[Steve_Stafford]

I completely understand standards. But too often something exists in a standard and there is a vacuum around the original reason...because it happened so long ago. I also appreciate that you are a cog in a bigger wheel. We all are to some degree. We also have to pick our "fights". Revit should not start fights if at all possible.

That said when a so called leader of a firm notices a subtle difference in a switch symbol that would not cause a contractor to blink an eye...but in turn fails to notice serious design problems because they were too distracted by a switch symbol...I'd start looking for a different wheel to be a cog in. Things need to make sense even when I'm just doing what I'm told...at least for me. I find when I actually get to talk to a "decision" maker and explain the issues at hand they actually understand the perspective. They may still want what they want but at least they know what they need to know to make a new decision or apply pressure on Autodesk...or both.

Best of luck and here's to Revit not creating little battles for you and me and the rest.

[schrodingerscat]

Actually, little things and design issues get noticed. I don't think there are many firms that make a choice between design consistency and annotation.

All designs are checked by independent parties, someone in a senior position, as well as ourselves (drafters) and the engineer working on the project.

I guess I just don't like the idea of needing to acquire a "that'll do" attitude. What would happen if AutoCAD had a line size limit? All hell would break loose in my opinion. People won't want to leave AutoCAD for a program that can't deliver the same annotation they've been using for god knows how long.

[Liamnacuac]

Not arguing the point of small lines...I've got no quarrel with that issue.

But as for it matching AutoCAD and "standards"...how different? Can you tell when printed or can you only tell when you line up the symbol in a cad file and zoom in on the intersection of two lines? Would a contractor care or even notice the difference. If you printed them out would the boss or the principals or the client notice or care? As for standards that doesn't look anything like a switch in the USA :smile: Everybody's got standards... :sad: Their own or their own trade associations or their locale or their government..."blech".

This "business" spends an awful lot of time "zoomed" in on details at tolerances that are quite often utterly irrelevant to the practitioner on site. Quite literally seeing trees instead of a forest.

Just being one other side of a polygonal "debate" :smile:


You mean seeing branches for the forest!!?? Telescopic views of our work are a tough one to get around unless you work for a small company and you see a project from drafting/design to construction. I have gone to the contractors meetings, and I still haven't been able to ask how legible our drawings are to them. I haven't bothered with the architects because, honestly, I don't think they know what they are looking at half the time because it doesn't affect them at that moment. Good Architects are another story.

I haven't had to create symbols yet, so this discussion is of considerable interest to me.

BTW, what's this "metric" thing? Is this some new fangled European thing? sounds terribly complicated ;)

[schrodingerscat]

BTW, what's this "metric" thing? Is this some new fangled European thing? sounds terribly complicated ;)

Not at all! Us "European type" countries have this little thing called "SI Units" and they basically let us never have to say "... and a quarter". What the hell is "2 and a quarter inches"??

Also everything is divisible by ten. Ask any 6 year old to do their 10 times tables up to 30 and they'll do it. Ask them to do their 12 times tables up to 30 and they'll probably cry...

METRIC FTW!

[sschwartz85916]

METRIC FTW!

:lol: Gotta love it

[schrodingerscat]

:lol: Gotta love it

Damn straight!

[Beancud]

I wish more Revit developers realise rest of the world use Metric system.

[schrodingerscat]

I wish more Revit developers realise rest of the world use Metric system.


According to the US CIA World Factbook as recently as 2006, the International System of Units is the primary or sole system of measurement for all nations except for Myanmar, Liberia and the United States.[1]


In 1999 NASA lost a $125 million Mars orbiter because one engineering team used metric units while another used US customary units for a calculation.

If Myanmar is doing it it must be right!

Quite a funny little image on the page showing which countries use metric. Everything is green except the US and 2 other little spots.

[Beancud]

If Myanmar is doing it it must be right!

Quite a funny little image on the page showing which countries use metric. Everything is green except the US and 2 other little spots.

Do you mean this?! =0>

I wonder when Revit will be rolled out in Liberia and Myanmar.

[Liamnacuac]

Well, the US might not be completely metric yet, but I'm doing my part- "I'd like a litre of stout please,,,,"

[schrodingerscat]

Well, the US might not be completely metric yet, but I'm doing my part- "I'd like a litre of stout please,,,,"

You even used the non-screwed-up spelling of the rest of the world!

American spelling is:
meter instead of metre
liter instead of litre

Liter is one I hate, just looks like lighter to me...

[eglover]

There are two discussions going on here; one is moving something a tiny distance and the other is very small lines. . .

. . . In many cases as Dimitri implied you may not be able to tell because the line weight obscures the fact the there is not segment when it is printed.

While trying to move something a small distance is annoying, at least there is a way to get it done. What is a real problem for me is the "Line is too short" error. I recently translated our legend sheets from AutoCad to Revit, and this caused more problems than you might expect. One place where it was especially noticeable is the symbol below. It is a circle that is half shaded. Would be simple, but the line dividing the circle in half was too short, so the entire filled region was deleted. So instead of just changing the line and fill types to our Revit standards, I spent hours redrawing symbols that already existed because when I exploded them Revit decided half the lines were too short and deleted them.

[schrodingerscat]

And it's all very well to say "draw it this way and you get basically the same thing" but "Same thing" and "Basically the same thing" are completely different when it comes to the fact that we have to do our legends in AutoCAD still because Revit legends are too painful to even think about.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

Eglover.
Just how small is this object? I created the attached filled region at 2mm diameter and it works fine.

[eglover]

The image I posted is from after I had changed the size (obviously, or it wouldn't be there) so off the top of my head, I'm not sure. . .

I went into an AutoCad legend sheet to check, and 31/256" was the size of most of the circles. (Or at least the ones w/o text in them.) I don't know why it is 31/256" or whether it should be 31/256". My concern is the difficulty of converting files.

[peter.florack632985]

O.K., so what I gather here is that Revit is not a good tool for drawing something detailed, a drawer glide, for example, as opposed to the drawer itself. So if I want this small component to appear in my revit drawing/family do I create it in a different program and import it? Does this mean Revit is not a really good tool for interior designers and casework manufacturers?

[Steve_Stafford]

Revit is designed to design, model and documents buildings. Inventor, for example, is designed to design, model and document pieces and parts...manufactured items. Two capable applications with slightly different focus and tolerance for physical size.

Assuming a casework manufacturer doesn't necessarily need a drawer glide to be accurate to .001 inch, unless they also manufacture the drawer glide too, the holes for its mounting do need to be accurately located. For the detailed interior section of a cabinet the rail in an architectural set of drawings does not need to be dimensionally correct to a manufacturer's tolerance. Typically we are just conveying the idea that we need a rail. A cabinet manufacturer may feel differently and certainly the drawer glide manufacturer will.

Very generally...(Jeffrey McGrew may take issue with this :smile: )
If you are a manufacturer you are probably more likely to want to use Inventor.
If you are are an Interiors designer in the context of buildings then Revit should do well.
If you do both then you may really want both.

[schrodingerscat]

O.K., so what I gather here is that Revit is not a good tool for drawing something detailed, a drawer glide, for example, as opposed to the drawer itself. So if I want this small component to appear in my revit drawing/family do I create it in a different program and import it? Does this mean Revit is not a really good tool for interior designers and casework manufacturers?

Though that's not really what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about modelling up each little screw in a piece of equipment. I'm talking about annotation symbols. Don't remember that being a big part of Inventor.

[t1.shep]

Revit is designed to design, model and documents buildings. Inventor, for example, is designed to design, model and document pieces and parts...manufactured items. Two capable applications with slightly different focus and tolerance for physical size.

Assuming a casework manufacturer doesn't necessarily need a drawer glide to be accurate to .001 inch, unless they also manufacture the drawer glide too, the holes for its mounting do need to be accurately located. For the detailed interior section of a cabinet the rail in an architectural set of drawings does not need to be dimensionally correct to a manufacturer's tolerance. Typically we are just conveying the idea that we need a rail. A cabinet manufacturer may feel differently and certainly the drawer glide manufacturer will.

Very generally...(Jeffrey McGrew may take issue with this :smile: )
If you are a manufacturer you are probably more likely to want to use Inventor.
If you are are an Interiors designer in the context of buildings then Revit should do well.
If you do both then you may really want both.

Using both sounds like it defeats the purpose of Revit to me. I'm working on rainscreen systems which are obviously part of the building. However, we aslo manufacture the parts so we need to be able to detail the aluminum tracks and connections. Revit can't draw the tight radii and grooves that we need to show. Maybe I don't know enough about inventor, but I want to be able to use the architects Revit (CAD if I have to) drawings and add our products to their drawings for the architects, contractors and installers to use. I don't feel that Revit (as an architectural solution) should have to utilize outside software to complete this task.
The line too small restriction is a joke.

[Steve_Stafford]

...The line too small restriction is a joke...Sure, it seems like a joke to me too, but my math skills are a joke. The two founders of Revit have serious math skills, and those that they hired to make Revit. They were also part of the Pro/E product that Parametric Technology Corporation makes, the product that Inventor competes with in its "market". They must have had a reason, other than making Revit users mad, to decide this was important enough to do. If the element is "too small" then it probably can't be detected in 99% of the views of the project. They opted to reserve this sort of accuracy for other systems.

Seems to me...remember my maths skills...that the rule about line length ought to be removed for detail views so that highly accurate representation could be created at appropriate scales but "ignored" at coarser scales.

Fwiw, Inventor recently announced a "shrinkwrap" concept which permits a simplified version of a product for use in other software or for other purposes. Apparently manufacturers aren't thrilled about the idea of releasing a manufacturing ready model that someone with the willingness to take their product engineering as their own might actually do. The notion of a simplified representation makes sense for them and for an architectural model that isn't concerned with fabrication. I'm making a bunch of assumptions here that may or may not apply.

[t1.shep]

Seems to me...remember my maths skills...that the rule about line length ought to be removed for detail views so that highly accurate representation could be created at appropriate scales but "ignored" at coarser scales.

Fwiw, Inventor recently announced a "shrinkwrap" concept which permits a simplified version of a product for use in other software or for other purposes. Apparently manufacturers aren't thrilled about the idea of releasing a manufacturing ready model that someone with the willingness to take their product engineering as their own might actually do. The notion of a simplified representation makes sense for them and for an architectural model that isn't concerned with fabrication. I'm making a bunch of assumptions here that may or may not apply.

I totally agree that there should be dicferent levels of detail available between 3d objects and 2d drafting. I can understand that a super detailed 3D element isn't practical as project size could quickly get out of hand. And I have noticed that you can get slightly more detailed when you're not In Sketch mode, but still not to the detail level you get in cad.
The shrinkwrap is an interesting concept. I can see for proprietary sake why some MFGR's don't want to share their complete drawings.
Other than keeping file size and 3d complexity down, I'd like to hear another reason.

[schrodingerscat]

If the element is "too small" then it probably can't be detected in 99% of the views of the project.

I'll put it another way then. Get rid of "Element is too small on screen" in Annotation Symbol Family editor.

All my annotation symbols get scaled up 100X which means that the "element is too small on screen" error refers to lines 50mm and less. Yes, they are scaled back to 0.5mm on the sheet, but sometimes we need to show that. Saying that other products are meant for that just brings us back to the debate about still needing to produce end results which means a model AS WELL AS documentation not INSTEAD of documentation. I know there are other products that do lines less than 0.5mm but that basically means that we would need to issue an extra drawing from AutoCAD so we can show a 0.5mm line.... not likely to happen.

[jmc73]

Old thread, but still an issue. I am laughing because so many people are saying "Why on God's green earth do you need a line that small?!"

Is that really a valid question? We're perfectionists (well, most of us) and we like to draw it how it LOOKS, not how the program will let us.

The whole point is I do need a line that small, and Revit doesn't let me draw one. What gives with this? It's 2010 and STILL the element is too small on the screen! Revit is great for 3D, but I still need AutoCAD for my details, and until this issue (this ONE SMALL ISSUE) is fixed, it's going to stay that way.

Just fix the problem AutoDESK. Is it really a BIG thing to let us draw small lines?

Sorry about the puns. Trying to make light of it cuz it's just frustrating!

[mjdanowski]

I also get this error when I try to move something a very small amount. Many times the revit snap doesn't land directly on where I want it and have to move it to the correct grid location. Many times it won't let you because you get this error.

[JoelLondenberg]

This is definitely causing me a lot of grief. Symbols are having to be changed to the point that they are noticeably different, and since there isn't really enough control of legends at the moment in Revit and so I'm having to do all legends in AutoCAD I'm having to edit the symbol we've been using in AutoCAD to match.

Not very fun.

Double emphasis - "Symbols are having to be changed to the point that they are noticeably different"

Why add this arbitrary limitation on short line length when it is noticeable and causes frequent frustration and arguments over "drafting" standards?

In the attached image you can see my most recent frustration - working on the company logo at different scales. You can see the differences in tails of the A and H and the lack of internal radii on the C.

Maybe these differences are not meaningful in the sense that my "ACH logo" is still recognizable as the "ACH logo", but they are meaningful when measured in the frustration of the drafter and arguements with the boss who wants it to look just like it does in ACAD!

[JoelLondenberg]

Ok, I know this solution isn't elegant, but in cases where you get the 'element too small' error, try outside the box - or in this case... inside it.
Have a look at the attached, the filled region is in fact six lines, the perimeter and two wider lines.

does the job

I disagree - that is and elegant solution.

[Jrobker]

For a small solid square or rectangular shape, another
solution is to use text, in this case an I
You can make it as long and wide as you like.