Element is too small on screen

[ajk-cad]

This is a message I get often when attempting to trace existing detail information from some of our existing AutoCAD details and add it to a family as a symbolic view... I understand that some of these little radius lines... or other details may not show up on larger plans... but they are the purest version usually of items... this also slows down our job of transferring standards from AutoCAD to Revit...

Is there a way around this error... It really causes extra work when we attempt to use the TAB key to select the joining lines... it shows like it will work... then it doesn't due to this error... What a pain...

So if there is a quick fix... that would be great... if not... we will just have to keep working around it...

Thanks..

[Anonymous]

Revit just doesn't draw lines less than 1/256". Just make sure your AutoCAD
file doesn't have lines this short....

wrote in message news:5871290@discussion.autodesk.com...
This is a message I get often when attempting to trace existing detail
information from some of our existing AutoCAD details and add it to a family
as a symbolic view... I understand that some of these little radius
lines... or other details may not show up on larger plans... but they are
the purest version usually of items... this also slows down our job of
transferring standards from AutoCAD to Revit...

Is there a way around this error... It really causes extra work when we
attempt to use the TAB key to select the joining lines... it shows like it
will work... then it doesn't due to this error... What a pain...

So if there is a quick fix... that would be great... if not... we will just
have to keep working around it...

Thanks..

[CraigGorsuch]

Unfortunately, you'll have to "simplify" the details to not have any lines or arcs of less than 1/32". That is the only "workaround'. Besides, if we're drawing lines that are less then 1/32" of an inch, where would they be visible? Even on a full size (1:1) detail, 1/32" can be obliterated by a line weight.

This is one of the ways where Revit forces our hand to work the way it does; there is no alternative.

[ajk-cad]

I just was in one of the families that I was working on that was having this problem... Thought I would test the line drawing theory... I tried sizes until it worked starting at your 1/256"... the first line drawn was 1/32"... 7/256" did not draw...

as for ensuring that my existing blocks do not have lines smaller then these sizes... I can't really do that without redrawing them... So it is the work around them if they do not work... If they do not work it means they really have small little lines we should clean up anyway's... why bring the trash into the new software I suppose...

Out with the old in with the new... just means a little more work on the transfer...

[Scott_Womack]

In your families/projects, see what the Project units is set to. The typical default is to have the smallest units set to 1/32" If the project units is set to this, then typically, the shortest line drawn will be 1/32". This is NOT documented, but based upon personal experience. When zoomed in extreme, then sometimes a shorter line may be drawn, but not always. I have not tried quantifying the lengths as you have.

Scott Womack

[ajk-cad]

Scott,

I tried your thought... Although I thought I had tried this before... better to try again an be sure...

but I had the same results as above... this also confirms Craig Gorsuch notes below... He is correct that you would not see these elements at any normal scale...

Now I have done some work before were detailing was done 2x actual scale... in other words twice full size... in a case like that I would want this ability to draw fine details...

I do work over and above architectural... I get into furniture and custom millwork design... in this work I get to work with a client who like his documents drawn to an accuracy of 1/2mm which is about 5/256" I was thinking Revit would be cool for this work... I did do some rendering work with Revit on one of these items and saw how cool it would be to create the working drawings for the millwork from this... not your every day use for Revit, but possible...

but this little line issue causes grief here as well as for the transferring in of existing fine detail items...

I understand the attempt to force the hand to not draw things that the Revit developers think you would never see... it is true most would not see the detail... Some like to stretch the limits... I am one who like to...

So some day this would be one item I would love to see change if there is no way around it currently...

[ajk-cad]

One more note to note on this issue...

For the purist.. and for the pure accuracy... I notice you have the same problem with moving objects small increments... The way around it is to more the object way out then move it into it's true position... but it would be nicer if you could have just moved it the small little adjustment to clean it up...

I know this is all the tiny insignificant level of detail for the average building user... but it would have been nice to kept the ability for fine detailing...

[john.kinder]

OMG... Revit is just so stupid.  This was not a problem in AutoCad.  If ever an issue regen.  Oh yeah, that's not how Revit works.  WE ARE NOT SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS AUTODESK.  Get it through you heads please.  Pick up the slack or at least fix 1 known issue (and not one that you came up with for marketing appeal but one that the users actually requested).

[mpwuzhere]

@john.kinder  What do you have to create that is less than 7/256"??  My guess like everyone that freaks out about this is curtain wall details.  Since I know curtain wall detailers personally, the 7/256" hasn't been an issue, they just nest the dwg into detail item. Problem solved.

Way to go stiring up an 8 year old thread just to vent. Those of us that have been using the program since before the original post have long learned it's actually not that big of a deal.

If you don't like Revit, go back to Autocad.  Nobody here is forcing you to use it, we are users here, just like you.

[ttonsing]

I don't understand this "if you don't like it you can get out of the software" mentality.  If there wasn't a clear problem caused by this software shortcoming, none of us would be complaining.  But when it won't let you draw small circular filled regions, you have no real option.  You cannot just make the filled dots bigger (example:  engineering seals often have a circle of dots).  It is not enough to say you've gotten used to the problem, or that it has always been a problem so just move on.  Revit should FIX THIS PROBLEM.  Typically, however, they don't fix anything for years.  Their typically response is "why would you want to do it differently than we permit?"

[john.kinder]

Wow, mpwuzhere.  What did that have to do with anything I mentioned?  No one cares about your friend designing curtain walls.  The rest of us now live in the 64 bit, high computing, more power and memory in my phone than was used in the moon landing, digital age now - Not Tetris-land.  AutoCAD Archictecture served as a prototype for Revit which is why we are so frustrated that they would ignored so many lessons learned.  Do you love the Revit Annotation tools as well?

But getting back to your 7/256" comment:

Ever work with point clouds?  Or a site plan?  Or any real world element?  For that matter, have you ever moved an object diagonally?  Try playing with the formula for the hypotenuse (pronounced, /hīˈpätnˌ(y)o͞os/) and things will start to make more sense for you.  Try making one leg (a) = 2 and the other leg (b) = 3 and see what the hypotenuse (c) length will equal.  Even if you're using all round numbers the chances of nailing a whole number every time (or even a rounded decimal of 0.5 or 0.25) is astronomically low.

What are you doing in this 8 year old thread anyway?  Just telling people to get used to things?  Or did you have an issue like the rest of the users here?

[ttonsing]

.....and I think the key fact to note is that this thread originated EIGHT YEARS AGO and they haven't addressed the problem.  They think that 5/256" is as small as anyone should ever want to go.  Luckily, they finally got around to fixing the text that would completely reformat itself based on how far in you are zoomed.  In true Revit fashion, however, the text in Revit 2017 all grew just a little, so adjacent notes that were supposed to be right next to each other will often be on top of each other.

[john.kinder]

ttonsing,

That's exactly right!  Now all of my Title blocks are screwed up because of this font/text box issue. With all of the petty problems of Revit, I hadn't had time to look into that yet.  Thanks for answering a question that's been on my mind from the 2017 release.

[mpwuzhere]

My issue is people telling Autodesk to fix something that just because it works in Autocad or Autocad Architecture is that it should work in Revit.

Quote "OMG... Revit is just so stupid.  This was not a problem in AutoCad"

Revit was NOT programmed by Autodesk. Yeah, it was based on Architectural Desktop (Pre-ACA) and also ArchiCAD, but AUTODESK had nothing to do with it!.  So stop expecting something from a program just because Autocad could do it. It's kinda like "Oh, Autocad supports PDF's, Revit should too!"  Newsflash, once upon a time Autocad didn't support PDF's.  Once upon at time we had a text editor that sucked in Autocad too.  Both issues that come up in the "Works in Autocad List".

Yes, I have worked on site plans, yes I have worked on real world elements, and yes I have added trigonometry to my familes.  Yeah, I have gotten past basic Geometry....all without worrying about a 7/256" drawback. Geez, it is half a mm.  Nothing I have ever done requires me to model something to 7/256" precision. Now detailing, yes, it would be nice to have as I am not fond of entering a DWG into a detail item and into my families, but it beats loading it directly into my project with all the gunk.  

Revit was designed for building buildings...not for precision fabrication.  People try to make Revit the "Do everything" program, and it's not.  That is why we still export out to Navisworks for clashing, or 3DMax for rendering, or Inventor for finer detail modeling (well, I don't, someone else does)

As for replying to a 8 year thread....shows up as New Posts...

So keep questioning program drawbacks instead of just working around them and producing awesome content.  But if you want to do something about an issue, join the Feedback Community https://beta.autodesk.com instead of posting in a public forum.  Here you get support folk...there you get the programmers. 

[ttonsing]

Here's your problem......your response is "it is never a problem for me" and "just working around them". It is silly to assume a program has no problem (though other people complaining negates that assumption) because it isn't a problem for you, or to suggest we just ignore the drawback. I have had a number of items (most often in family creation) where this has caused an issue. Most often, it would be a formula calling for a dimension (that needs to be, for example) 1/4 of another dimension, and attempting to use that family type fails because the other (required) dimension gets shorter. I shouldn't have to spend ten times as long designing a family because Revit has an arbitrary limit. We aren't talking about shortening line lengths to 8 nanometers - we just want it to be an order of magnitude better. Even twice as small would fix 95% of the problems I've had.

So it is a problem to "keep questioning program drawbacks instead of just working around them". Sounds almost like you work for AutoRevit. People are complaining about this (on other forums as well) because it is an aggravating shortcoming. I understand using a program for what it is designed for, but I will never be somebody who supports leaving something mis-designed. This has no connection with a preference for AutoCAD - I have used both and I usually prefer Revit.

Anthony (Tony) Tonsing, PE
S. A. MIRO, INC.
4582 S. Ulster St. Pkwy., Ste. 750
Denver, Colorado 80237
Ph 303-741-3737
Direct 720-407-1024

[cid:image001.png@01D1574F.37AC59D0]

[ttonsing]

Here's your problem......your response is "it is never a problem for me" and "just working around them". It is silly to assume a program has no problem (though other people complaining negates that assumption) because it isn't a problem for you, or to suggest we just ignore the drawback. I have had a number of items (most often in family creation) where this has caused an issue. Most often, it would be a formula calling for a dimension (that needs to be, for example) 1/4 of another dimension, and attempting to use that family type fails because the other (required) dimension gets shorter. I shouldn't have to spend ten times as long designing a family because Revit has an arbitrary limit. We aren't talking about shortening line lengths to 8 nanometers - we just want it to be an order of magnitude better. Even twice as small would fix 95% of the problems I've had.

So it is a problem to "keep questioning program drawbacks instead of just working around them". Sounds almost like you work for AutoRevit. People are complaining about this (on other forums as well) because it is an aggravating shortcoming. I understand using a program for what it is designed for, but I will never be somebody who supports leaving something mis-designed. This has no connection with a preference for AutoCAD - I have used both and I usually prefer Revit.

Anthony (Tony) Tonsing, PE
S. A. MIRO, INC.
4582 S. Ulster St. Pkwy., Ste. 750
Denver, Colorado 80237
Ph 303-741-3737
Direct 720-407-1024

[cid:image001.png@01D1574F.37AC59D0]

[Andy6640]

I have news for anyone who can't see outside their own small box...

This is an issue for structural people. It's not just pedantic adherence to too much detail.

Just one example: If you have a profile that is to form the basis of an element with structural properties, you cannot model it properly as some shapes will not close where there is a short line! This is only one of possibly several examples.

Please, let us decide what's good for us and put some kind of setting in that we can choose to suit our work.

[gustavoauad]

Try drawing the line with the minimum allowed length (something around 0.8mm) and then use Trim/Extend to corner command with another intersecting line making it whatever size you want. It worked perfectly to me. Hope I could help.

[chau.npt]

It's still not allowed to draw directly a small line or circle in Revit 2020. But I have found that we can archive the small size we want by drawing them in an allowed size firstly, selecting that object and some temporary dimensions will appear, enter the actual number and the line/circle will become as small as we want. 😎