Dependent Views - Can't create one based on a Drafting View?!

[Anonymous]

Dependent Views - Can't create one based on a Drafting View?!

Is this for real?

I use dependent views to split things that are too large on two separate sheets. Some flow charts and other data has to be split... but the option is greyed out.

[CoreyDaun]

Yep, it's for real. Currently (as of Revit 2014), one cannot create Dependent Views from a Drafting View, nor can one even crop a Drafting View. I'm afraid that the best you can do may be to Duplicate with Detailing and manually modify the linework as necessary.

On a similar note, on some previous projects, we have imported our 'master details' in the form of a DWG file. The method I used to break up the various details in the single CAD import was to:

1. Create a new Floor Plan View.

2. Turn off all Model and Annotation Categories.

3. Import/Link the DWG file with the option "This View Only".

4. Create Dependent Views and Crop Regions as needed.

Although this is geared towards CAD Imports, perhaps this technique could be slightly altered for use with native-Revit details & diagrams.

[rosskirby]

Just out of curiousity, what exactly are you putting in a drafting view that needs to be split up over multiple sub-details?  Could you post an image of a sample desired result?

I'm thinking you could create an annotation phase (set either before "Existing" or after "New Construction") and detail your elements in a plan view there, then you could use dependent views.  Just a thought.

[IMCornish]

Out of interest how do you assign a 'Drafting View' to a phase?

[Anonymous]

We have some flow charts and a lot of diagrams... They are large and we usually split them in multiple sheets. But the person working on them has to see the big picture all the time.

[Anonymous]

We regard phasing in Revit as broken, it just doesn't fit our scenario. We use parameters to manually assign each sheet to a phase and other means to organize content.

Revit seems to want to manage everything, but Autodesk does not realize that some offices will never open their IP to them so they can build the tools so everyone can build something similar. We only use Revit because of the parametric engine and the seamless worksharing capabilities. I can't begin to list all the "features" it's missing to do all our work. We have some luck with some of the tools but others are just plain impossible to use in a big team without major problems down the road.

[rosskirby]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
We regard phasing in Revit as broken, it just doesn't fit our scenario. We use parameters to manually assign each sheet to a phase and other means to organize content.

Revit seems to want to manage everything, but Autodesk does not realize that some offices will never open their IP to them so they can build the tools so everyone can build something similar. We only use Revit because of the parametric engine and the seamless worksharing capabilities. I can't begin to list all the "features" it's missing to do all our work. We have some luck with some of the tools but others are just plain impossible to use in a big team without major problems down the road.

---

It's difficult to be of more help without knowing what it is you do.  Is this for an architectural project, or some other field?  It sounds like you're using Revit for a non-architectural type of project, and if so, you're probably going to run into problems, because it's geared specifically towards how architects, structural engineers, and MEP engineers work.

Also, what does "open their IP" mean?  Are you talking about the API and writing your own add-ins to run on top of Revit?

[CoreyDaun]

---

basilmir wrote:
"We have some flow charts and a lot of diagrams... They are large and we usually split them in multiple sheets. But the person working on them has to see the big picture all the time."

---

So, using the Plan View with Dependent Views method as I explained previously should work, then. The author will be able to see and work on the diagram in its entirety in the 'Master' Plan View, while the Dependent Views are cropped and placed on Sheets.

[Anonymous]

We have tried the Plan View method but a plan view is tied to a level. You either have to choose an existing level and crop the view drawing outside the model or create a bogus level. Both methods fail in the long run, imagine someone overviewing the project two years from now, we would have to leave a note inside the project detailing this workaround. This can't become standard practice, you can't teach it to everyone because it's wrong and any person can see it. So we have abandoned this method.

Instead we opted for drafting views already split apart and added to a sheet, in which one deletes the sheet family, in precise order to see the whole thing. From there you can activate the view you want to draw in and do your job. This can become standard practice as it is more in tune with the tools it uses and what they were meant to do in the first place.

[Anonymous]

The concepts behind Revit have changed very little since Autodesk opted to change the UI. This was probably the most visible change since they bought Revit.

However the process behind adding new features in each release leaves much room to improvement. If Revit was all about changing core concepts in traditional CAD the "new" Autodesk Revit is all about incomplete features fragmenting the coherence of Revit. Dependent views is one example, instead of adding and developing Dependent views that could be used on all types of Views they are only added to certain types. Groups are another such feature, the building editor also and so on.

They keep adding stuff in but the integration is incomplete, you are left imagining how things might work only to find, this and that don't apply because of whatever reason. We have left behind a lot of "latest" Revit features because of this. There is just no natural way to explain and develop longlasting experience and practice... "find a workaround" should never pick up as a serious practice in an office. Imagine having to document these workarounds... support them... develop these into nee ones or use them together somehow.

I can't even begin to describe the grief we had with the sun simulation "feature" a couple of years ago. The menus are so cryptic i could not explain to an employee how to do it. Instead i created a document of how this should be done manually and then just enumerated the steps on how to achive less than a fraction of that in Revit. Autodesk might think the feature is complete and have stopped adding to it, so as a result we realized they are not actually going to support this method continually and support its development and we stopped using it. You can't rely on automatic some of the time and then manual the rest of the time... waiting for Autodesk to pick up where it left off whenever it feels like it.

I find myself teaching less architecture and more menu and button pushing.

PS. By IP i mean Intellectual Property, not the kind that is owned by patents but the kind that is never patented because you would reveal the secret by describing it. This kind of IP is the lifeblood of true architectural practice, much like the haute couture industry, being able to produce a certain weave has tremendeous implications. Imagine a precise way of detailing wood or a way to assemble stone slabs structurally without glueing them together. There is much to be said even ob walls alone, Revit seems to suppot a type of wall that is so simple i can't imagine how this would differentiates one office from another. If this kind of automation becomes prevalent architecture would collapse, simply having the same capacity to produce architectural solutions means we have to fight on price, and that is a terrible struggle leading to lower and lower prices over time with certain bankruptcy at the end.