Grid Bubble Alignment.

[Dave F.]

Hi

When you click on a grid there's sometimes a thin blue dashed line where the bubbles join to the line which indicates that if the bubble dragged, the others will follow.

Sometimes, especially on when slanted, this functionality disappears. Is there an easy way to 'glue' them together?

I have a large grid & dragging them all one by one to avoid the structure is monotonously boring.

Hope you can help.

[nole]

Hi there!
Can You show us some images of Your problem? Do You know that there is 2D and 3D working mode of grid line ends? Thin green dashed line apears only when grid line ends are in the same mode.

[luigi]

2D Grids will snap to 2D parallel grids,
3D Grids will snap to 3D parallel grids,
You can also propogate (found on your option bar, when you have grids selected) grid bubbles from 1 plan to another....it saves time...there are some conditions that it won't allow you to propogate the grids....but for the most part it works like a charm in plan

Hi

When you click on a grid there's sometimes a thin blue dashed line where the bubbles join to the line which indicates that if the bubble dragged, the others will follow.

Sometimes, especially on when slanted, this functionality disappears. Is there an easy way to 'glue' them together?

I have a large grid & dragging them all one by one to avoid the structure is monotonously boring.

Hope you can help.

[Dave F.]

Thanks for the replies.

Please see attached.

These grids were created by using Copy/Mointor from a clients revit model.

Grids 11-21 are snapped to gether. Grids 1-9 are not even through they're parallel. They are all 3d. i would like them to be 'joined' together.

Grids 22-41 are parallel so I guess I'll have to live with stretching those manually.

[Andre Carvalho]

Thanks for the replies.

Please see attached.

These grids were created by using Copy/Mointor from a clients revit model.

Grids 11-21 are snapped to gether. Grids 1-9 are not even through they're parallel. They are all 3d. i would like them to be 'joined' together.

Grids 22-41 are parallel so I guess I'll have to live with stretching those manually.

Have you tried to drag, let's say grid 9 alone to the same alignement of grid 11? Sometimes you have to do it one by one to have the dashed blue line and the lock... Sorry I can't check your file now sine I'm not in front of Revit right now.

Andre Carvalho

[aaronrumple]

Have you tried to drag, let's say grid 9 alone to the same alignement of grid 11? Sometimes you have to do it one by one to have the dashed blue line and the lock... Sorry I can't check your file now sine I'm not in front of Revit right now.

Andre Carvalho

For 1-9 I just had to zoom in a bit and grip edit to get the bubbles all lined up and they locked just fine. Except for 1, 2. For those I had to delete them and then copied 3 back to make a new 1, 2. I'm guesing you had some grids off angle by a very, very small amount or something like that. If you start with one grid and copy it, they will automatically lock.

[luigi]

I'm at home(sick), and all I have available is an expired trial version, so I can't save the file and send it...but I have found out that grids will snap to other non-parallel grid heads...but unless they are parallel, they won't lock...

That means that some of those grids, although they seem to be parallel (to a certain precision) they aren't.... when I used the tool "Align" to align the grids, they then did snap and lock.

I have had this problem in one project....where in plan the elements (for me it was walls) seem to be parallel, or perpendicular, but in elevation/section when we would dimension them, we couldn't get a dimension to show because it would say they aren't orthogonal to view...

Try it yourself, cut a section through a few of the grids that don't lock....try dimensioning them in this section...you will see that some of the grids aren't orthogonal to the view...meaning that they aren't parallel...

You have been given faulty grids....whoever gave them to you should fix them....they will have problems as well....especially when walls, and other elements, will try to be parallel and perpendicular to these grids....or when they cut sections, or show elevations....dimensions won't work....it's only going to be trouble...

Good luck!

Thanks for the replies.

Please see attached.

These grids were created by using Copy/Mointor from a clients revit model.

Grids 11-21 are snapped to gether. Grids 1-9 are not even through they're parallel. They are all 3d. i would like them to be 'joined' together.

Grids 22-41 are parallel so I guess I'll have to live with stretching those manually.

[Andre Carvalho]

Yeah, now I could open the file and notice the same thing. Adding more decimal places to the angle dimension, you can easily see that the angle between grids A and 3 is 90.0004280° and between grids A and 2 is 89.9999864°. And that's the reason why they don't align and lock.

Andre Carvalho

[Dave F.]

Thanks to all for replies.

I'm not convinced they are slightly out of parallel.
Wouldn't they fail to dimensiion in plan if they were?
I've succesfully dimed all the grids.

[luigi]

It's an anomoly...try for yourself...in plan they dimension fine....figuring they are close enough to parallel...but in section (try cutting the section) if you dimension them, they won't dimension...not orthogonal to view....

I guess they graphically allow you to get away from many decimals off axis, but no mercy in section/elevation.

Anyways, I opened your file and spent time trying to help, and found out what is wrong...now it is up to you!

Good luck!

Thanks to all for replies.

I'm not convinced they are slightly out of parallel.
Wouldn't they fail to dimensiion in plan if they were?
I've succesfully dimed all the grids.

[aaronrumple]

Thanks to all for replies.

I'm not convinced they are slightly out of parallel.
Wouldn't they fail to dimensiion in plan if they were?
I've succesfully dimed all the grids.

I think Revit has changed its tolerance for what is "parallel" in the past couple of releases. In the past things had to be perfect. Now if you are offf a billionth of a degree, it will still dimension. A quick test shows that this tollerance is now around 0.00181 degrees.

[Dave F.]

luigi is correct.

They will dim in plan but not in section!!!
This is a pain in the arse.
These inconsistencies are unacceptable.

Surely we should expect them to get their rules for tolerneces the same throughout the product?

[Dave F.]

OK I've calmed a bit now.

As the model came form the client how do I politely tell him he messed up?
Have you any ideas what he did to achieve such a miniscule error?

[luigi]

All I can think about is that they were drawing grid after grid, rather than copying a good grid. When Revit tries to align elements, it looks at the whole screen, so maybe there was 1 bad grid, and then the others followed...

Nonetheless....the client (I am assuming architects?) will thank you...because if they haven't already, they are going to have TONS of issues later on....it's better for them to fix the grids ASAP, to not cause other issues....and if they have walls already drawn, which I would suspect, the walls will have similar problems....and that is much harder to fix....we had 1 large multifamily residential building, 3/4 of the building was orthogonal to Project North, 1/4 was on a kink...basically grids were correctly placed, but interior walls were slightly off...and it wasn't noticed until CDs, when in elevation/sections the team was trying to dimension them....a pain...especially since some of those walls were Load Bearing and the Structural Engineer was Copy/Monitoring them....

Tell them...and in the long run they will thank you!

OK I've calmed a bit now.

As the model came form the client how do I politely tell him he messed up?
Have you any ideas what he did to achieve such a miniscule error?

[Andre Carvalho]

Usually these problems of lines (grids or any other Revit line) looking right, but when you go further to add dimensions with more decimals you notice that they are not exactly parallel, are a sign that they may have been created by picking the lines or grids from a linked CAD file... And if that's the case, you should tell them to avoid doing this way.

As Luigi mentioned, creating the first grid right and then copying it will help to prevent these errors.

Andre Carvalho

[Calvn_Swing]

This problem is from picking linked CAD files 90% of the time. The rest of the time it is just plain old user error in Revit.

A good practice we follow is to dimension all grids ahead of time in a constraints plan. (We will frequently dimension both distances between grids and the angle of each grid if we're working of a CAD file.) Then, set your unit tolerances for the project to 1/256", .0000001 degrees, whatever the finest you can go is. Model with these tolerances, and don't change them to 1/8" until the day you print. Then, once you start the next phase, go back to the exact dimensions again. This will help you catch all those little screw-ups, and you can still hide your ungainly dimensions in your prints. (Though, I'm starting to print those too on my projects if I can talk the PM into it.)

[cliff collins]

Another trick for lining up grid bubbles is to use a Scope Box.

Give it a try: draw a Scope box around the model, name it "Grids" or something.

Select all grids and under properties check box for Scope Box--select
the "Grids" scope box.

All grids should now stay attached to the Scope Box in all views.

cheers.....

[Dave F.]

Hi

I recieved a revised model & did & 'Reload From' witihn Manage Links.

I still couldn't get it to work. Tried recreating the sections. Asked the Arch if he could do it. He said it was working on his model. I was going mad.

So as a last option I comletely Removed the Link & loaded it afresh. & it worked!!

So it seems that Reload From doesn't completely reload all the info from a revised model!!

The problem with having to do this is I think it looses conncection any elements that are monitored :-(

Thanks to all for your help.

[twiceroadsfool]

You do NOT want to remove and then link the project when you get a new model.

Not only will it break the monitoring associations, you will loose any and all dimensions to the model, any graphical overrides, and lineweight adjustments, any linked view or view template settings affecting that link, etc.

Reload From works perfectly to reload all of the updated contents of the new model. Check the directories (depending on your file structure) and make certain you are Reloading From > the new model you have just received. Everything will update...

[luigi]

hmm...did you do more than just reload from? like check the coordination review?

Just because the architects grids changed, it won't automatically change the grids you copied;/monitored...you need to do that manually...

After reloading the link, you needed to select the link, and in the option bar there is an icon to coordinate review...in that window, you would need to "Move Grid" to align with Architectural's Grid....that's how Copy/Monitor works...

Take care,
Luigi

Hi

I recieved a revised model & did & 'Reload From' witihn Manage Links.

I still couldn't get it to work. Tried recreating the sections. Asked the Arch if he could do it. He said it was working on his model. I was going mad.

So as a last option I comletely Removed the Link & loaded it afresh. & it worked!!

So it seems that Reload From doesn't completely reload all the info from a revised model!!

The problem with having to do this is I think it looses conncection any elements that are monitored :-(

Thanks to all for your help.

[Dave F.]

Hi

To clarify, I was near the beginning of my project so I almost started again & was not that concerned about monitoring, but twiceroadsfool, I will take your advice on board.

Definitely the correct model - it was date named & in a separate folder.

I deleted MY grids that I had previously copied. I 'reloaded from' the link & recopied the grids.
I created a new section so that it would be parallel. It didn't dim up.

I tried twice more - no luck. So I removed & reloaded.
Maybe I’m doing something wrong, but what, I don't know.

Thanks