Rotated Legend Component

[t1.shep]

I'm placing a face based component into a legend, but it is coming in rotated counterclockwise 90 degrees from the way the family is drawn. Any ideas about what is happening here?
The attached image shows the original component family on the left in plan view. The right side shows the family in a project legend view and you can see that it is rotated. You can't rotate objects in the legend view, so what is going on here?

[jsteinhauer]

I'm placing a face based component into a legend, but it is coming in rotated counterclockwise 90 degrees from the way the family is drawn. Any ideas about what is happening here?
The attached image shows the original component family on the left in plan view. The right side shows the family in a project legend view and you can see that it is rotated. You can't rotate objects in the legend view, so what is going on here?

I think I tunes is messing with Revit, J/K.
In a Legend View you should be able to select what face you want to see (Front, Back, Plan). Try selecting the Legend component and thumbing through the list of options available.

Hope this helps.
Jeff S.

[t1.shep]

It's not so much the face I want to see (although in this particular case it's not giving me all the views I'd like to see, but that's another matter), it's that it is rotated. In the image I previously attached, there are two separate files shown side-by-side. The left one is the component open in the family editor and shows how the component looks in plan. That is how I want it represented in the project. The image on the right is that same family placed into a project and placed as a legend component in a legend view. You can see that it shows the plan with the long axis vertical, whereas, the actual component view shows it correctly as a long horizontal axis.

As for the face options, I'm given a floor plan, and a front and back elevation. I also need to be able to show that it has a "left and right" elevation as well. I think it must have something to do with the family being a face-based model. It appears that I'll just end up drafting it...

[james.klatt]

Came across the same issue had no solution, I ended up just tracing things and rotating em. Unfortunately I would have to chalk this up to one of those things developers thought of, but didn't think of all the options needed for it to be functional.

[mruehr]

i have the same proplem here
seems to be a bug with face based families
this is bad

[twiceroadsfool]

Legends are quirky with how a lot of families get placed and can only show certain orientations.

I dont use them for that and a few other reasons... Make a Legend out of a Previous Phase Floor Plan, and demolishj everything before Existing. Takes about 3 minutes to set up, and has no limitations...

[clog boy]

I copy the content of the family (or it's sketch) to a generic annotation family and place it on sheet. Legends never worked that legendary. When I need to make a window legend I just make sections and callouts, since they can at least be properly dimensioned and tagged. Which is another major gripe: what use are legends if you cant tag them. It's so contrary to what a legend is expected to be in the first place: a reference for what everything on drawing means.

*huff... huff* [/rant]

[jsteinhauer]

I copy the content of the family (or it's sketch) to a generic annotation family and place it on sheet. Legends never worked that legendary. When I need to make a window legend I just make sections and callouts, since they can at least be properly dimensioned and tagged. Which is another major gripe: what use are legends if you cant tag them. It's so contrary to what a legend is expected to be in the first place: a reference for what everything on drawing means.

*huff... huff* [/rant]

I totally agree with Clog Boy,

I've been struggling with 'Legend Views' since I started using Revit. Autodesk just wasn't thinking very clearly when this turd was laid. I don't understand why they haven't taken this pile of mud and made a hikaru dorodango out of it. Just allow us to tag and, 2/3rd of my grips with LV's goes away.

My two cents worth,
Jeff S.

[Scott Womack]

I've been struggling with 'Legend Views' since I started using Revit. Autodesk just wasn't thinking very clearly when this turd was laid. I don't understand why they haven't taken this pile of mud and made a hikaru dorodango out of it. Just allow us to tag and, 2/3rd of my grips with LV's goes away.


Just an honest question. If you can tag an object in a legend, how would you ever create a graphic symbols legend? If you can tag an object, then you would not be able to get a tag onto a legend without an object being there to tag.

[jsteinhauer]

Just an honest question. If you can tag an object in a legend, how would you ever create a graphic symbols legend? If you can tag an object, then you would not be able to get a tag onto a legend without an object being there to tag.

Scott,

Yes, that's true an object needs to be in the model to be taggable. But, you can't tag in a legend view. If I were to start building a casework legend, I would layout all of my casework in front elevation and assign them to a style that relates back to what I'm showing in plan/elevation. Currently "Legend Component" displays a 2D representation of each family component, w/o access to any BIM. This means I would need to do my style tagging with stupid text. If I were to add or remove an item from my legend, I would need to manipulate each piece of text (not very BIM). If tagging was allowed I would just need to update the tag once, and everywhere the casework shows up and is tagged, the tag would update.

But, if I were to delete the family from the project browser w/o having any instances in the model, and one in the legend view. It would tell me there is an instance in use, do you really want to continue. So, there is an object in the legend view. It's just is a stupid object that doesn't really relate to anything...

I get you're point about a tag being able to be placed in a Legend View without needing to tag the element it was supposed to. But, I think those should be accessible under the Legend Components as well. I just see it as a huge shortcoming in Revit, I wish they (ADesk) would address.

Thanks,

Jeff S.

[t1.shep]

From this post, other threads, and my own experience, I'm glad I'm not the only one with gripes about legends. For my particular case, I've been using line based details to create the elevation and plan views that I need. Time consuming, when I've already modeled the component in 3d, but the only other quick way to do what I need.
I can partially understand why legends are buggy; the components in a legend don't want to be counted/scheduled, don't have to have model geometry to place, etc. However, it seems that in the process of doing that, they made it too difficult to be useful.
It would be nice if the legend views would function exactly like the real model, but have an "if" statement that recognized that the component/tag/annotation was in a legend view and wouldn't interfere with the main model. if: legend view then don't schedule.

[mruehr]

I do the same as twiceroadsfool for Doors and Windows
but did not think i would need it for Face based Lighting Symbols.I think the whole concept of legend could be done away with a dedicated hard-coded Phase call it "Sample Room" where you keep a sample of each Family used in the project since it knows it is in the sample room it will not schedule and interfere with the Build Project.
The Views generated from the sample room should behave like Legend Views means you can put them on many sheets without copying them. What you think?

[twiceroadsfool]

I totally agree. It should be an entire "modeled space" with every functioning piece of the regular model... Except it doesnt count, and the views can go on plenty of sheets...

Everything SHOULD be taggable. if you need a *symbols legend* than make it another kind of legend, that can only take symbols on it. Even then, we should be able to put whatever we want for values in the tags, on the symbols legend. i shouldnt be held to the default value inside the Family.

Especially since we dont have phase aware families. I will sometimes tag doors with the numerals NNNL (door L for room NNN, for a new room) and EXNNN (number NNN existing door) when theyre existing. if i want to show them both in an annotation symbol legend, its klunky. But i prefer that over having a door TYPE that is *existing*, but we cant have it both ways. :)