Annotation for Showing the setback of a plane relative to another plane

[libengan]

I'm working on interior elevations.  Sometimes cabinets are projected or setback from one another, but it can be difficult to tell in elevation.  I would like to have an annotation family that references two planes and shows the setback of one plane to another.  I can do this with a generic annotation family and a custom instance parameter input, but is there a way to create a smart annotation that reads the offset in geometry and will get auto-updated if the planes move?

[RDAOU]

@libengan 

The offset can be a shared parameter in the family which you can add as well to the Tag that you use in the model. Hence, instead of using a generic annotation as you described or a dimension, you would simply tag it

ex: an offset between the cabinet and the next or the cabinet and the host (if face or wall based)…etc

[libengan]

I think I see what you're suggesting, but it would require the cabinets to be face-based and the offset parameter to be baked into the cabinet family, and then my tag would only work relative to the cabinet and it's host.  However, our cabinet families are floor based because we often use them in locations without walls (I supposed a reference plane could be used in that instance), and having to rebuild them is a daunting task.  I was also hoping to use this annotation/tag indicating depth of offset on other geometry other than cabinets...

Thanks for your reply!

[mhiserZFHXS]

Is this a typical thing to annotate? I don't think I've ever seen it. Casework sections are usually what shows this.

[libengan]

Haha, around here we definitely push the boundaries of what's "typical" or "normal".  There have been a number of conditions on our projects where showing the depth offset from one face to another is simpler to tag on an elevation rather creating new detail sections for each instance.  This is also useful outside of cabinetry, but I am using cabinets as an example here. 

In the attached screenshot you can see how I am currently using tags to do this.  Each tag has an instance parameter for the  offset depth that I set manually.  I was just wondering if there was a way to have revit read that dimension between two faces regardless of what those faces are so that it's done automatically.  Based on what I know, I don't think there is, but I figured I'd ask in case someone out there knows something that I dont.

[RDAOU]

You can still e cooperate it to the floor based cabinet by adding a reference plane at the back set it as origin and use it to align and lock to the wall.

The offset between that plane and the cabinet would be labeled by an instance parameter shared that slowed u to align the cabinet with different components while the ref plane mentioned above is locked to wall. Being a shared parameter you would be able to also add it to tag or schedule

[mhiserZFHXS]

Interesting.

I don't think there would be a way to do this currently. This could be an added functionality with the new ability to tag multiple objects with one tag though. Something along the lines of being able to use a value from Object 1 and add, subtract, multiple, or divide it by a value in Object 2. So for this, take the depth of Object 1 - the depth of object 2.

That seems like it'd be the most doable on Autodesk's part. But it wouldn't help with your general depth offset, like if you're comparing the distance between the face of a wall and the face of a cabinet. That'd probably require something similar to the Spot Elevation tool, but repurposed to read to different planes and then provide the distance between them.

[libengan]

That's a good thought for cabinets.  It starts to fall apart though when a single cabinet needs to show multiple offsets from various surfaces like cabinet T:14 in my screenshot above.  That cabinet shows offset references for a wall on the right, and two cabinets at the left, all at different depths.  If I understand your suggestion correctly, it would not accomodate this condition.  That tag would also be limited to use with cabinets, and I'm looking for it to be of use with pretty much any geometry that is parallel.

[libengan]

Yeah, if there was the ability to use the spot elevation tool to measure vertical surfaces in relation to other surfaces, that would do the trick.  Currently the spot elevation tool only measures vertical distances, not horizontal ones.

[mhiserZFHXS · Accepted solution]

This setup also isn't all that dissimilar from what you are doing now, just with more steps... Its still not reading any actual geometry in the model other than the depth of the tagged cabinet. The offset still has to input manually, and wouldn't automatically update if changes are made.

I think the way you're doing it now is best, and just hope for some improved functionality for tags.

[mhiserZFHXS]

And only a single point, not a comparison between two points.

[RDAOU]

---

@libengan wrote:

That's a good thought for cabinets.  It starts to fall apart though when a single cabinet needs to show multiple offsets from various surfaces like cabinet T:14 in my screenshot above.  That cabinet shows offset references for a wall on the right, and two cabinets at the left, all at different depths.  

---

You can add as many referance planes to aline with side elements as you need (all 4 sides, top and bottom) and can label each with a shared parameter that is addable to a tag. And this, is still within the normal/beginner skillset of a Revit user...no boundaries stretching is required. A data entry level Revit user at our office do similar families on regular bases

---

@libengan wrote:

... If I understand your suggestion correctly, it would not accomodate this condition.  That tag would also be limited to use with cabinets, and I'm looking for it to be of use with pretty much any geometry that is parallel.

---

I believe you neither understand what I am suggesting nor how tagging and labeling work. To tag a geometry, it generally needs to be parametric and must have the specific parameter to be reported added as a shared parameter. If such a geometry does not include this property/parameter, then it is not taggable (at least not with a tag that reports a non existing parameter). This has nothing to do with the functionality of a tag but rather with the principles of parametric modeling. If you are truly looking for a solution and that was the reason behind the original post, I suggest you look into an in-depth Revit course or training. 

[mhiserZFHXS]

I feel like you've locked onto the aspect of being able to get a parametric tag to show a value without considering why OP wants the tag in the first place. The process your explaining will result in being able to tag an element, but it is so wildly complicated and effectively has no further value than just using a dumb annotation as OP already is.

[libengan]

I understand how to create custom tags and report shared parameters.  In this use-case however, this isn't useful as it doesn't accomplish anything more than what my simple annotation symbol already does, and it would make my families more complex and slower too.  It's not a smart solution because if I move an adjacent surface outside the cabinet family, the tag doesn't update until I go to the cabinet family and manually update that shared parameter.  I might as well go update the annotation instead.

My original question had to do with having a annotation family that can read the offset between two vertical surfaces - to be clear, ANY two surfaces in the model whether it is walls, cabinets, panels, etc.  I didn't think there was, but I'd figured I asked in case someone knows something I don't.

Thank you for taking the time to consider the problem, and consider solutions!  That's what I came here for, and I think I got what I was looking for.  If anyone has any other ideas, I'll consider those too!

Kind Regards.

[RDAOU]

---

@mhiserZFHXS wrote:

…The process your explaining will result in being able to tag an element, but it is so wildly complicated and effectively has no further value than just using a dumb annotation as OP already is.

---

@mhiserZFHXS I am ot sure what your definition of dumb is but please do watch closely the GIF below and tell us how dumb is this tag

Note to @libengan

To the right (Offset R) is the wall you mentioned, and to the back (Offset B) is another wall, while to the left (Offset L) is another cabinet. You may add the same for top and bottom offsets, and it still won’t fall apart. Simple basics...no stretched boundaries or anything beyong the ordinary involved.

Edit: Apologies, I just noticed that I used "nudge/drag/move" and forgot to demonstrate the tag reading by changing parameter values. But I'm sure if you can put the tag together, you can test that on your own.

[ToanDN]

Create it as a detail family with actual depth and a label reporting it.  Place the family in your floor plan at each location, stretch it to match the depth difference and the label will change to the actual depth value, select all then create a detail group.  Place the detail group in the elevation view.

[yes_and_no]

I saw a "accepted solution" to this but there is no solution just yet.

I imagine myself as a designer to work on this cabinetry driven project (probably a Hardware Restoration store job). All I wd care is which cabinet has deeper profile than the next. I would care less the exact amount (that s just me). Yet my tedious and ridiculous supervisor wants to see the exact numbers in the elevations. I would despite the idea but have no choice, either do it manually one by one or automatically by Rv hopefully some magical function.

How about using Rv provided light/shadow in elevation to suggest the difference ? The actual depth will be in the schedule (for carpenters and cost manager to see).

I have quit such a job where supervisors are dumb and tedious. Hopefully this is not a "solution".

[RDAOU]

---

@yes_and_no wrote:

I have quit such a job where supervisors are dumb and tedious. Hopefully this is not a "solution".

---

Quitting is certainly one solution… firing someone is another. Designers capable of creating intuitive solutions are becoming increasingly rare.

[Sleepingfish_Kuo]

The similar questions' answer is always create another view (or 3D view) and put them together.

The two most obvious reasons are:

1. I want to showcase the feeling of "Wow, this is a 3D software!"
2. Human 3D imagination is limited, and most cannot understand excessive annotations (sometimes including the designer themself).

[mhiserZFHXS]

1) "Dumb" is a pretty universally accepted term for tags/annotations that aren't linked to any parameters, as OP has been doing. I'm not referring to what you're suggesting.

2) I understand what you've been saying the whole time. My point was that implementing your idea would be extremely time consuming while adding little additional functionality. For one, OP has explicitly stated multiple times that while cabinets were their example, it is not the only use they are looking for. But ignoring that, all of these parameters would need to be added to EVERY casework family they have. And even then, you need to manually drag all of those reference planes to the adjacent elements for it to work properly. And looking at OPs posted drawings, this isn't something that would be in a single tag type. They have the offset tagged at each offset point. Meaning the appropriate type would need to be selected for each of those offset points, leaving room for error.

Sure, you can lock it so if things are nudged, it still reads correctly. I suppose that's one step above a dumb annotation, but just one.

OP was wanting a way to be able to tag the offset distance between any elements, and the answer to that is that it is not possible. I think it could be a handy feature to be implemented though.