dimension text location setting

[andrewsdraftingservice]

hello i would like some help editing the settings for dimension lines.

when i dimension, the text appears above the dimension line (example A). what i would like is to have the text appear in the dimension line (example B) what setting do i have to adjust to have example B as the default dimension type? thank

[barthbradley]

Centered? Can't be done natively.  

[sharmayne_lim]

hello there! thanks for the reference but i cant find springs.doc.activeview, dimension.getcurve and dimension.settextlocation 😞 

only managed to get these... would appreciate some help! if possible, could you send over the file or enlighten me where to download packages for the missing nodes? thank you so much!

[alaraJ3LSY]

See Dynamo Ribbon.
Click Packages 

Search

Rythm

spring nodes

[William_SpierSQB2E]

Thank goodness Autodesk allows you to launch Revit, model building elements and even delete, all natively! Otherwise we'd have to customize those too with Dynamo or the API - can you imagine??🙄 Thanks Autodesk!! 😀

[GHASEM_ARIYANI]

Hi,

Unfortunately, Revit does not currently support placing the dimension text inline or centered on the dimension line itself, like in AutoCAD.

By default, the text appears above or with a leader (if there's not enough space). There is no built-in setting that allows the text to sit exactly in the center of the line.

You can try adjusting the text position manually by:

• Selecting the dimension

• Dragging the blue text grip downward to move it closer to the dimension line
  But it won't snap exactly to the line and can't be applied as a default behavior.

• or Use Dynamo 

If this feature is important to you, I recommend submitting it as a feature request on the Revit Ideas forum.

-------------------

✅ Here’s why Revit does not support "inline" dimension text:

1. Model-Based Clarity Over Visual Styling
   Revit prioritizes clear and legible information across all views. Placing dimension text on the line itself could reduce readability — especially in busy plans or sections.

2. Avoiding Visual Clutter & Line Overlap
   Centered text might overlap with other geometry or lines, which can confuse contractors reading printed drawings or digital PDFs.

3. No Risk of Misinterpretation
   By keeping the dimension text above or offset from the line, Revit ensures that measurements are easily visible and never mistaken for part of the model.

4. Supports Automation and Consistency
   Revit automatically adjusts text placement, adds leaders when space is tight, and maintains consistency across views.
   Centered inline text would break this automated behavior.

---

💡 Summary:

This is not a missing feature, but rather a deliberate design choice for professional clarity in BIM workflows. While AutoCAD gives more graphic control, Revit emphasizes data integrity and drawing reliability.

If inline text is essential for your standards, I’d recommend submitting a feature request — but also consider the readability and BIM-related impact before doing so.

[William_SpierSQB2E]

The one thing we consider most important is user friendliness, especially with adaptability.

We end users are all adults and so need to be afforded the privilege to exercise our professional judgement and decide for ourselves - make design and drafting decisions based on our discipline specific, professional opinions, on those occasions when we need to deliberately do something to convey design intent - a decision that a software manufacturer could disagree with and could overrule, but does not overrule because it realizes that so doing is overreach.

It's no different than when car manufacturers install non-overridable auto-features like auto-braking or auto-shutoff when stopped, etc. in an effort to be good stewards of the environment, or provide uncontrollable safety measures. There are situations in which those features can cause an accident, and so drivers who are adroit enough drivers, are hobbled by those features. The Airbus that crashed into the Hudson, physically had roughly 10% available thrust in both engines after the bird strikes, but Airbus' programming determined those engines were "unavailable" and thus the onboard software (FCS) denied their use, so the pilots had no choice but to ditch in the river. Had it been a Boeing AC, where the manufacturer "does not assume to know all circumstances/presume to know better than the AC operators," the little bit of engine thrust available would have been useable by the crew - not denied by the FCS, even if it meant completely destroying what was left of the engines, and thus the pilots would have had the discretion to opt whether to make a land based landing at Teterborough.

How would Autodesk view its end users if we denied you the ability to code software in certain ways for whatever reason we deem reasonable? It's not our profession and thus would be quite hubristic of us. So nice try to reason away why you hobble end users, but you're just BS'g yourselves, so your smarter-than-your-client-base community of know-it-alls can feel justified defining end user drafting and modeling restrictions. Even Steve Blum knows better than everyone - knows why AU should not be in Las Vegas, despite admitting the feedback he received was unanimous to never hold AU anywhere else again. The only thing assured and consistent at Autodesk is, Autodesk always knows better and will never listen.

[GHASEM_ARIYANI]

I completely agree with your point — and I’m also a user.

That said, in some situations, strict control over outputs is necessary, especially when compliance with standards or coordination between disciplines is critical.

Still, I fully support your idea that users should have more control and flexibility in how they manage their modeling and drafting — especially when the goal is to convey design intent clearly and professionally.

It’s all about balancing freedom with responsibility, and I believe Revit (and Autodesk tools in general) should trust experienced users more, while still offering safe defaults for less experienced ones.