"it was more important to have the software work in a predictable way than
to have it try to guess the user's intentions and change settings invisibly"
and This, my fellow Americans, is one of the Many things i love about
Revit - Predictable! - Refreshing! I no longer need to say when using
software that rhymes with ADP, "setvar? What setvar? - why is it different
now?" or "i wonder if all the windows will mirror to that wall this time?"
"provide more help when a user is trying to figure out why something is
invisible"
this statement is true for all software.
The bigger question is "why didn't AutoCAD/ADT/?ACA? have great Revit
commands like i never knew i loved" Revit Align is great! AutoCAD align?
just so,so...
View Templates should make visibility more predictable, no?
--
Brian Earsley
www.arete3.com
18645 South West Creek Drive
Tinley Park, Illinois 60477
708.342.1250 x.225
New to DWF? Check it out!
http://www.arete3.com/services/communication.html
select "ARCHITECTURE" - "File Formats"
"Irwin Jungreis" wrote in message
news:5532236@discussion.autodesk.com...
While there is no reason that you'd draw something that you wouldn't want to
view, it can be equally or more confusing for the
software to automatically change settings behind the scene. If the view had
toposurfaces turned off there was probably a reason for
it. Turning it on could have other, unintended effects, such as making other
surfaces visible that were intended to be invisible, or
changing the outline of a view that is already placed on a sheet. If the
user created the surface in that view, it could be that he
intended to turn on toposurface visibility in that view but forgot, but it
could also be that he thought he was working in a
different view. While we are at it, should Revit automatically change
visibility settings when other kinds of element are created in
a view in which they would be invisible, or should it be a special case just
for toposurfaces? Since visibility settings are
intended to control the final printed output of the drawing, changing them
behind the scenes would be dangerous.
This issue was considered early in Revit's development and the consensus was
that it was more important to have the software work in
a predictable way than to have it try to guess the user's intentions and
change settings invisibly.
That's not to say that the software couldn't provide more help when a user
is trying to figure out why something is invisible...
"Dave F." wrote in message
news:5530572@discussion.autodesk.com...
Scott,
You have a point, but logic is definitely missing from some of the
basics of Revit.
Visibility, for instance. When creating a Toposurface, why doesn't it
automatically turn it on. Unless I'm missing something, I can think of
no reason why you'd draw something that you wouldn't want to view it.
Scott Davis wrote:
> You think Autocad's interface is not clumsy? HA!
>
> wrote in message news:5529187@discussion.autodesk.com...
> I agree. I've been using Revit for a little over a month and find the
> logic
> behind some of the basic commands to be totally backward. It is as if the
> developer hasn't spent time to think through smoothing out the workflow of
> moving simple elements. It also seems like the developer is unfamiliar
> with
> simple windows based commands like renaming items in the Project Browser
> by
> using a delayed right click on the item to invoke the rename command
> (instead of a right click and choosing rename from the drop down menu).
>
> At this point in Revit's development (version 9.1) I would have to agree
> word for word with you that, "Revit is highly advanced in some areas and
> is
> very unrefined, simplistic and immature when it comes to useful and
> efficient commands."
>
> Can't we just bring some of the page creation and automatic numbering and
> tracking into AutoCAD and forget this clumsy interface? Or re-engineer
> ACAD
> into a BIM interface?
