dimensioning on child of dependant view
You are basically asking Revit not to do what it is meant to do. This is the designed behaviour of dependent duplicates. All the view settings and annotations are as in the parent. You use for example scope boxes in the child views to only show part of the parent view. So it is a way to split up your view in distinct parts.
If you do want separate view settings and separate annotations than do not use "dependent duplicates" but normal "duplicate" or "duplicate with detailing".
Louis
Please mention Revit version, especially when uploading Revit files.
Ok, see your thinking.
For what you want I always use the normal duplicate or duplicate with detailing function. So I first complete a view with all kinds of annotations, then duplicate with detailing and in the new view add/remove annotations. Or just use duplicate and add annotations where necessary.
I use duplicate as dependent only when I want to 'cut' my view in different pieces to fit them on a sheet.
.
You could fill out THIS form on the autodesk website and request for the functionality to be added to Revit
Louis
Please mention Revit version, especially when uploading Revit files.
Slight quibble with use of a word, dimensions are annotation in Revit's world but so are tags, text and detail items etc. To say you want annotation to do "x" is too generalized.
I think you are really asking for Revit to regard dimensions as different from other annotation. As mentioned in the earlier reply they created Dependent views to be exact copies of the parent view except for how much of the model is visible by altering each dependent view's crop boundary.
To minimize the repetition of the same dimensions in different dependent views I place dimensions outside the scope of other view's crop boundary. Part A and B share a common boundary marked by a matchline so I'd place dimensions along the boundaries they don't have in common. It gets a little harder when there are no boundaries that are not in common with another dependent view. In that situation, as you wrote, using hide element in view by element is the practical solution.
For continuous dimension strings that span across matchline boundaries it may help to create individual strings instead so there are fewer affected by the common boundary.
Good luck!
Steve Stafford
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
You wrote "All annotation", but you keep referring to examples of dimensions. What about tags, symbols, text and detail components? Those are annotation too and if you want them to only show up in the child view then you would be better off with independent views, don't use the dependent views option at all. You can have what you're asking for right now because that is precisely how regular views always worked and work now. Annotation (all kinds of them) appear only in the view(s) you place them in individually.
If you're concerned about being able to use the Matchline and View Reference features for the partial plans you still can. It isn't required to only use them with the Dependent views like it was originally.
Fwiw, they created the dependent view concept because people told them they wanted to be able to do model tasks and add annotation in an overall plan that has a scale that won't fit on paper and requires partial plans. They didn't want to have to model in partial plans and switch back and forth to apply annotation or vice versa. So the Parent View shows what the Children do and vice versa. The only thing we are allowed to alter is the cropy boundary. Slight exceptions exist because of the Hide in View feature. The way it works now is what customers were asking for.
Steve Stafford
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
I've read and reread your posts...a few times...because I kept thinking I must be missing something...
If you like being able to place tags in the parent view and not have to do that task over again in the child (dependent) view then they are working as intended. It isn't clear to me why you are using dependent views though.
My original reply was intended to stipulate that dimensions are not the only element that are called annotation in Revit. To want different behavior for all annotation, as you described it a few times, is too broad a claim because if you got your wish there is no need for dependent views. They'd work the same way independent views work now.
As such I'm not convinced you need to use dependent views, but you don't have to convince me. Using independent views would eliminate the problem though.
Steve Stafford
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
Deleting accounts is not possible. But I think Autodesk has the ability to 'combine' accounts. You could try to contact one of the @community admin and ask if he can do this for you.
Louis
Please mention Revit version, especially when uploading Revit files.
I am facing problem in showing this dimension in my sheet. As i am not able to see my dim in scope box. So please guide me how can i show dim with scope box in matcline.
Please Image below
I think you are going to have to fake it. There is no way to dimension to an item that is not inside the annotation crop box of that view. Revit dimensions are object based, so if that grid line does not appear in the view, either will the dimension. That even includes if you selected the grid and "hide in view".
Also why would you want to dimension to the match line. I have faked a dimension to the match line. The way that you are denoting this detail I would have 2 arrow heads on the side that points towards the match line, with out a witness line to show that it is 8000 between gird 9 and grid 8. You could also try breaking the plan and pulling grid 8 closer to grid 9 and it should dimension properly although this may not do what you want.
Cheers Peter.
