Elevation tags

[Anonymous]

is there any way to create an elevation tage family?

[Anonymous]

No. Circle/Square - that's all we have to pick from.

"AlmightySR" wrote in message
news:4978546@discussion.autodesk.com...
is there any way to create an elevation tage family?

[Anonymous]

super lame...

Anyone know other ways to dig into the line work of those?

"Aaron Rumple" wrote in message
news:4978772@discussion.autodesk.com...
No. Circle/Square - that's all we have to pick from.

"AlmightySR" wrote in message
news:4978546@discussion.autodesk.com...
is there any way to create an elevation tage family?

[Anonymous]

I'm curious. Why does it make that much difference what the elevation tag,
or any other tag for that matter, looks like as long as the information is
conveyed effectively?

--

Matt Dillon
Autodesk Architectural Desktop Certified Expert

View my ADT Blog "Breaking Down the Walls" at
http://www.modocrmadt.blogspot.com

"AlmightySR" wrote in message
news:4978808@discussion.autodesk.com...
super lame...

Anyone know other ways to dig into the line work of those?

"Aaron Rumple" wrote in message
news:4978772@discussion.autodesk.com...
No. Circle/Square - that's all we have to pick from.

"AlmightySR" wrote in message
news:4978546@discussion.autodesk.com...
is there any way to create an elevation tage family?

[Anonymous]

Because we are used to customise, customise,
customise....................until we drop dead.


"Matt Dillon" wrote in message
news:4979252@discussion.autodesk.com...
I'm curious. Why does it make that much difference what the elevation tag,
or any other tag for that matter, looks like as long as the information is
conveyed effectively?

--

Matt Dillon
Autodesk Architectural Desktop Certified Expert

View my ADT Blog "Breaking Down the Walls" at
http://www.modocrmadt.blogspot.com

"AlmightySR" wrote in message
news:4978808@discussion.autodesk.com...
super lame...

Anyone know other ways to dig into the line work of those?

"Aaron Rumple" wrote in message
news:4978772@discussion.autodesk.com...
No. Circle/Square - that's all we have to pick from.

"AlmightySR" wrote in message
news:4978546@discussion.autodesk.com...
is there any way to create an elevation tage family?

[Anonymous]

Good point, Matt. We struggle with that in our office, as the "CAD
Standards" guys say "The Elevation
Tag isn't the one we use." I say, "So what! This is the one we use now!"


I feel that Revit (and other BIMs) are going to start challenging the
"typical" set of drawings, and will cahnge what we display and where.
Schedules, for instance, are so freakin' simple in Revit, that we have begun
to show schuedules for things we never scheduled before. Our old ACAD "Room
Finish Schedule" used to show floor finish, wall finish for N,S,E and W,
ceiling finish, ceiling height, and more. Why? Because we had this one
sheet that was the Room Finish Schedule, and we packed as much information
into that one sheet, because when a CAD Jockey was editing it, he could go
line by line and pick up red marks.

Now, we show a floor finish schedule on the floor plans, a wall finish
schedule on the floor plans, a ceiling finish schedule on the ceiling plan.
We've begun to put the information where it makes sense for the contractor
to find it. We have a separate Door and Window plan, now, which has the
door and window schedule on it. Door and Window tags are right there, and
it just makes sense to have the schedule right there instead of on some
other sheet at the back of the set.

All of these things, and more, are challenging our old "cad standards" and
how we put drawings together. Things are definately changing!

"Matt Dillon" wrote in message
news:4979252@discussion.autodesk.com...
I'm curious. Why does it make that much difference what the elevation tag,
or any other tag for that matter, looks like as long as the information is
conveyed effectively?

--

Matt Dillon
Autodesk Architectural Desktop Certified Expert

View my ADT Blog "Breaking Down the Walls" at
http://www.modocrmadt.blogspot.com

"AlmightySR" wrote in message
news:4978808@discussion.autodesk.com...
super lame...

Anyone know other ways to dig into the line work of those?

"Aaron Rumple" wrote in message
news:4978772@discussion.autodesk.com...
No. Circle/Square - that's all we have to pick from.

"AlmightySR" wrote in message
news:4978546@discussion.autodesk.com...
is there any way to create an elevation tage family?

[jwieronski84]

How can I show a circle elevation tag. I now only have an option for a square elevation tag.

Joe

[Anonymous]

edit the properties of the elevation tag, and there's a type property to
make it circular.

wrote in message news:4979407@discussion.autodesk.com...
How can I show a circle elevation tag. I now only have an option for a
square elevation tag.

Joe

[jwieronski84]

I did that in another file but the current file I have open will only give me one option of the square type. Could this option have been purged out?

[RevitIt]

I have to disagree with you on that guys.
Drawings are work of art, like any artist an architect have it's own preferences. When you know firm very well you can distinguish drawings from one another. So having to ability to "customize" everything is as important as the information that it carries.
Drawing are an architect signature

[Anonymous]

Drawings *were* a work of art when they were hand drawn. I don't feel any
longer that they are. In fact, I feel that we are moving away from
"drawings" as we know them into more electronic delivery of documents.
Since a true BIM model is an accurate representation of the actual built
structure, I think were are coming to a time when the contractor gets the
"model" and they dissect the model to understand how to build the project.

For now, since we still require 2D printed black on white drawings, they
have become simply a set of instructions. We no longer waste time in this
increasingly high-paced profession to worry about the "little things": what
the north arrow looks like, what the section tag looks like, how to get my
own letterring style converted to a TTF to use in my drawings, etc. Our new
mantra is "Do the drawings "read" well, and can the contractor build it?"
Whether we use Arial or "Scott Custom hand letter font" makes no difference.

Our works of art and our "signature" are now the actual building once
constructed, and the 3D renderings and representations prepared as we
produced the rather "boring" instruction set to get the project built. Once
the building is done and is successful (or not), no one is going to say "The
building is nice, but did you see those drawings???!"

Just my opinion...

wrote in message news:4979524@discussion.autodesk.com...
I have to disagree with you on that guys.
Drawings are work of art, like any artist an architect have it's own
preferences. When you know firm very well you can distinguish drawings from
one another. So having to ability to "customize" everything is as important
as the information that it carries.
Drawing are an architect signature

[Anonymous]

Amen!


"Scott Davis" wrote in message
news:4979542@discussion.autodesk.com...
Drawings *were* a work of art when they were hand drawn. I don't feel any
longer that they are. In fact, I feel that we are moving away from
"drawings" as we know them into more electronic delivery of documents.
Since a true BIM model is an accurate representation of the actual built
structure, I think were are coming to a time when the contractor gets the
"model" and they dissect the model to understand how to build the project.

For now, since we still require 2D printed black on white drawings, they
have become simply a set of instructions. We no longer waste time in this
increasingly high-paced profession to worry about the "little things": what
the north arrow looks like, what the section tag looks like, how to get my
own letterring style converted to a TTF to use in my drawings, etc. Our new
mantra is "Do the drawings "read" well, and can the contractor build it?"
Whether we use Arial or "Scott Custom hand letter font" makes no difference.

Our works of art and our "signature" are now the actual building once
constructed, and the 3D renderings and representations prepared as we
produced the rather "boring" instruction set to get the project built. Once
the building is done and is successful (or not), no one is going to say "The
building is nice, but did you see those drawings???!"

Just my opinion...

wrote in message news:4979524@discussion.autodesk.com...
I have to disagree with you on that guys.
Drawings are work of art, like any artist an architect have it's own
preferences. When you know firm very well you can distinguish drawings from
one another. So having to ability to "customize" everything is as important
as the information that it carries.
Drawing are an architect signature

[Anonymous]

An architect's signature? Who's signature?...The senior partner? The project managers? The cadd manager's? A set of drawings is usually a collaboration of many people working in and around an office standard. We all know an office standard is a compromise, except for one person firms. Who is going to appreciate or even recognize this signature?

According to our contracts, drawings are "instruments of service". Beautifully prepared construction drawings will buy you no advantage in court, the construction trailer or the clients office. Notice I said, construction drawings. I think it can be argued fairly that the same is not true of concept or schematic design phases with regard to clients.

I've never heard a contractor critique a set of drawings because of the style of an elevation symbol, font or arrowhead. More likely if they even notice the beauty they'll say something like, "Yeah, they look good, but they are still wrong!" *-( (less likely with Revit, right?)

Is it wrong to strive to make drawings beautiful? No, just interpreting their beauty as being equal to a quality set of documents. Who are we trying to please with beautiful drawings? As in writing, who is our audience? Is this effort recognized, appreciated or increasing our compensation? What makes a set beautiful anyway? What does this beauty cost us? Hard to define? Easy to know it when we see it? 8-)

I appreciate the sentiment behind making drawings beautiful and consider it a worthy goal but not THE goal of preparing a set of documents.

[Anonymous]

Take a look at the properties of the elevation symbol via Settings > View Types > choose Elevations. Notice that you can define which shape to use. Create a new type and make the necessary adjustments to the settings.

[Anonymous]

I agree. The elevation tag is lame for lots of reasons - not just
appearance.

As far as the graphics go - the choices are all BIG. Our tag is much more
compact and doesn't interfear with the rest of the drawings.

[Anonymous]

Our firm takes a sorta... 'mad' pride in how we make our CDs look compaired
to other firms. So I know this is something that will be blow up into a big
deal for at least acouple weeks till they are satifide all options have been
explored. Then they will be fine with the revit tags.

But like I said... I need to explore all options.


"Matt Dillon" wrote in message
news:4979252@discussion.autodesk.com...
I'm curious. Why does it make that much difference what the elevation tag,
or any other tag for that matter, looks like as long as the information is
conveyed effectively?

--

Matt Dillon
Autodesk Architectural Desktop Certified Expert

View my ADT Blog "Breaking Down the Walls" at
http://www.modocrmadt.blogspot.com

"AlmightySR" wrote in message
news:4978808@discussion.autodesk.com...
super lame...

Anyone know other ways to dig into the line work of those?

"Aaron Rumple" wrote in message
news:4978772@discussion.autodesk.com...
No. Circle/Square - that's all we have to pick from.

"AlmightySR" wrote in message
news:4978546@discussion.autodesk.com...
is there any way to create an elevation tage family?

[Anonymous]

Nice!! I like that one!

"Scott Davis" wrote in message
news:4979402@discussion.autodesk.com...

..."The Elevation Tag isn't the one we use." I say, "So what! This is the
one we use now!"

[RevitIt]

Sorry Scott i have to disagree. I'm also sorry to see that god looking drawings shouldn't matter anymore since we are in the electronic era.
Does that mean a car shouldnt be looking good 'cause we are in the gaz saving era ?

[Anonymous]

I have heard of law suits won and lost over a font. "This L looks like an I
How can I know what its sapposed to be"


wrote in message news:4979591@discussion.autodesk.com...
An architect's signature? Who's signature?...The senior partner? The
project managers? The cadd manager's? A set of drawings is usually a
collaboration of many people working in and around an office standard. We
all know an office standard is a compromise, except for one person firms.
Who is going to appreciate or even recognize this signature?

According to our contracts, drawings are "instruments of service".
Beautifully prepared construction drawings will buy you no advantage in
court, the construction trailer or the clients office. Notice I said,
construction drawings. I think it can be argued fairly that the same is not
true of concept or schematic design phases with regard to clients.

I've never heard a contractor critique a set of drawings because of the
style of an elevation symbol, font or arrowhead. More likely if they even
notice the beauty they'll say something like, "Yeah, they look good, but
they are still wrong!" *-( (less likely with Revit, right?)

Is it wrong to strive to make drawings beautiful? No, just interpreting
their beauty as being equal to a quality set of documents. Who are we
trying to please with beautiful drawings? As in writing, who is our
audience? Is this effort recognized, appreciated or increasing our
compensation? What makes a set beautiful anyway? What does this beauty
cost us? Hard to define? Easy to know it when we see it? 8-)

I appreciate the sentiment behind making drawings beautiful and consider it
a worthy goal but not THE goal of preparing a set of documents.

[Anonymous]

It's okay to disagree.....it's constructive!

For the car analogy...no, the car should look good, but the drawings to
build the car don't have to be works-of-art. 🙂

wrote in message news:4986134@discussion.autodesk.com...
Sorry Scott i have to disagree. I'm also sorry to see that god looking
drawings shouldn't matter anymore since we are in the electronic era.
Does that mean a car shouldnt be looking good 'cause we are in the gaz
saving era ?