Placing a drawing in a sheet is not flexible,

[JamaL9722060]

Placing a drawing in a sheet is not flexible,

I’m wondering about the best practices to place a drawing in the title block/sheet.

For example, in the AuotCAD, I’m used to have a title block, say appropriate for A3, for my drawing to make sure that it will fit well inside the intended paper with the aimed scale.

Here in the Revit, I was struggling to place my drawing in the sheet as there is no snaping or tools that help performing this issue the same way we have it in the AutoCAD.

Thank you,

Best

Jamal

[CoreyDaun]

You must use the View's Crop Region to properly set the "frame" of a Viewport. I would strongly recommend looking into Scope Boxes so that you can define the boundary once (via Scope Box) and assign it to your Views to create a consistent Crop Region. This is especially useful with partial (or "Zone", "Area", "Unit", etc.) plans, but can be employ for overall plans as well.

Additionally, if you place a View onto a Sheet and realize that the Crop Region is too large, you can right-click on the Viewport and select "Activate View". This will allow you to edit the View through the Viewport (you cannot accidentally screw up the zoom like you can in AutoCAD) including the View's Crop Region. Adjust as necessary, right-click and select "Deactivate View" when satisfied.

[JamaL9722060]

Thank you very much for the elaboration.

Indeed, I’m still a bit confused about printing in the Revit.

I tried to follow your recommendations that you have kindly provided but don’t feel that I control printing yet

1. I don’t know exactly which part is going to be printed as I don’t know where is my lay out (my A4 paper) in which I drop the stuff in need to print (like in the AutoCAD)
2. The there is no snap working as we working with “crop view” such that we can fix exactly my drawing to fit into the title bock (in autoCAD the snaps still working in the lay out mode)

[CoreyDaun]

---

JamaL9722060 wrote:

"1.  I don’t know exactly which part is going to be printed as I don’t know where is my lay out (my A4 paper) in which I drop the stuff in need to print (like in the AutoCAD)"

---

There no designated "paper background" like there is in AutoCAD. This is another one of those cases in which you must remember that Revit is a different program. In your screen capture, you have a Viewport located far away from the Title Block (I don't know why). Revit determines the plot area based off of the extents of the visible elements, so if you plot that Sheet to scale, you will get the center of the Sheet, which will be blank. (See image below). Move the Viewport onto the Title Block and there will be no more problems. There is no "Plot Window" like in AutoCAD, so there is no way to manually designate a plot area.

---

JamaL9722060 wrote:

"2.  The there is no snap working as we working with “crop view” such that we can fix exactly my drawing to fit into the title bock (in autoCAD the snaps still working in the lay out mode"

---

A lot of users have reported such, that there are no Snaps to many elements which makes laying out a sheet very tedious. But, in this case, why do you need to extend the Crop Region to perfectly fit the extents of the drawing area of the Title Block? Size the Crop Region as needed and then turn it off under the View's Properties ("Crop Region Visible"). Or just select it and type "EH" (Hide Element) as a shortcut.

[JamaL9722060]

I feel that we are losing many features which are already available in the AutoCAD to better manage our work. Yes, it is another software but I’m talking about features that makes working with Revit much efficient.

In printing, I don’t where am I!

• No boundary for the paper size (lay out)! And thus we don’t know where to fix our drawing!
• No preview is available! And thus we don’t know how our drawing will be plot!

Also, how could the software originally recognize our title block and consider it to be the lay out (paper) in which the drawing is fixed?

Apologies but this is what I’m still struggling with

[Alfredo_Medina]

Revit is not AutoCAD. Revit is not AutoCAD. Revit is not AutoCAD!

With all due respect, please do yourself a favor, attend some basic training, and you'll see that all this confusion and constant comparison with AutoCAD will go away very quickly.

[JamaL9722060]

Sure, I did!

I got a training of 30 hours and still have a bunch of inquiries! The more I work with Revit the more inquiries rise!

[CoreyDaun]

A lot of the features aren't applicable in Revit, as the workflow is different. Apples and oranges. But I agree with you that AutoCAD does have some abilities that Revit would benefit from.

---

When one creates a new Sheet View, a dialog box will appear prompting the user to select a Title Block to be used. If no Title Block is selected, any Title Block can be inserted into the Sheet View quite easily though the use of the 'Title Block' command on the View tab, or by dragging and dropping from the Project Browser. Of course, the desired Title Block Family must be loaded into the Project.

It doesn't matter where in the View that the Title Block is placed. It's irrelevant. There is no real 0,0 origin position like AutoCAD has. Revit determines the area to plot based upon the elements that are on the Sheet View. There should be no extraneous elements cluttering up the View, as these will affect printing. Thus, there is no need for a paper background - the boundaries should be defined by the Title Block.

Revit will not automatically detect what size your Title Block is. You must define that (as well as all other options) under Print Setup. See attached image.

Now, you will not be able to use Print Preview with multiple sheets queued. It may be nice to have, but it shouldn't be necessary. If you preview the first sheet (as explained in another post) you'll get a good preview. Revit is not capable of printing multiple Sheet at different sizes, so you should be OK with just previewing the first Sheet.

---

I'm not intending to be rude with this, but if these issues are causing you to struggle, then the larger problems you will face in the future will be maddening. I strongly recommend looking into some kind of instructional course. Hands-on training will get you much farther much faster than posting here. You need a live instructor who can efficiently guide you, I think. Again, not trying to be rude. Many many people struggle in the beginning, especially when transitioning from AutoCAD.

Edit: I just saw that you stated that you did have training. Was this with an instructor? If so, was he able to answer any of these queries?

[JamaL9722060]

Thank you very much for the very informative answer. This is what I have been looking for.

Then our lay out is the extent for of elements drawn in the sheet. This is the key word in the printing then.

Yes, it was with instructor. But as you know 30 hours are not enough to get established with all topics of the Revit. And at the time of training, I didn’t face problems that I'm facing now in the actual work.

Also, they are very few who knows Revit. It is not like AutoCAD! The language of everybody. This another barrier to get help from colleague.

Again thank you and appreciated.

[Alfredo_Medina]

This opens an interesting debate about training.

Let me ask you this: did you pay for a 30-hour training course, and after all that, you did not know how to place a level or a grid? It might not have anything to do with you, then, but with the training itself.

Was it one of those courses delivered 8 hours a day, 3 or 4 days in a row, not based on a project but just a series of isolated demonstrations of tools?, and then, at the 3rd or 4th day, they give you a certficate, in exchange for $900 dollars, and then, "good bye"?

It's not the number of hours what matters. It could have been 60 hours, and the academic result would have been the same, or worse.

If all the above is true, this just confirms what I have said several times in other forums about that kind of training. I have a different idea about training, but I will not expand on that, because sometimes that has been interpreted in the wrong way.

[JamaL9722060]

I assume that you necessarily attend a couple of training courses through your professional life. Which impression you got about them? Do they, in general, deliver results?

In most case, these training miss integrity as you have indicated.

My standpoint is that training courses build awareness rather than solid skills sufficient for the actual practical.

Best

Jamal

[Alfredo_Medina]

---

@JamaL9722060 wrote:
(...)

My standpoint is that training courses build awareness rather than solid skills sufficient for the actual practical.

Jamal

---

My standpoint is that training courses can, and should, give you the necessary skills to start a project. Not also skills but also confidence. And the course should be personalized. There is a big difference between "a grid", and "my grid", between "a column" and "my column". That makes a lot of difference. Also, the format is important; so many hours in too short a time is tiring and counter-productive. Extended support after the classroom is essential, (usually inexistent in the usual academic offerings). The instructor must have earned his daily bread doing projects, or models, or families, or whatever topic he is teaching, (professional experience) and should have experience and passion for training, as well.

If you paid for a 30-hour training, and you came back to the office not even knowing how to place a level or a grid, you have been another victim of poor training.

---

Note to "Cadastrophe" = it is not possible to send you private messages today. The system says that there are several users with the same username.

[JamaL9722060]

Correct. i do agree with you.

many thanks for the elaboration

best

Jamal