Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
I have just noticed that some dimensions are reporting inaccurately in revit, and I can't think why this would be. Please see example below - the smaller dimensions are exactly as I would expect them, as this is what I have drawn. But when I go to do an overall dimension of the wall (using the exact same dimension type), it does not add up correctly? I have also tied using other dimension types, same problem.
I am using Revit 2020, and am on the latest update. any advice gratefully received.
I have just noticed that some dimensions are reporting inaccurately in revit, and I can't think why this would be. Please see example below - the smaller dimensions are exactly as I would expect them, as this is what I have drawn. But when I go to do an overall dimension of the wall (using the exact same dimension type), it does not add up correctly? I have also tied using other dimension types, same problem.
I am using Revit 2020, and am on the latest update. any advice gratefully received.
Most likely caused by cumulative error. Check the accuracy of your dimensions and set them to the smallest increment you can. Your actual dimension may be "13.005673" and only shows as "13". If you have enough error in the file, it will start affecting the overall dimension.
Pete
>Please Accept as Solution and give Kudos as appropriate to further enhance these forums. Thank you!
Most likely caused by cumulative error. Check the accuracy of your dimensions and set them to the smallest increment you can. Your actual dimension may be "13.005673" and only shows as "13". If you have enough error in the file, it will start affecting the overall dimension.
Pete
>Please Accept as Solution and give Kudos as appropriate to further enhance these forums. Thank you!
That is a bit strange as 3+3+13+13+10+100+70 = 212 and even if all those numbers were 0.5 lower (2.5+2.5+12.5+12.5+9.5+99.5+69.5) it would total to 208.5 which is quite a bit different than your 201 shown.
If you draw detail lines aligned to the all the places you are measuring to and then dimensioning those lines does it get the same result?
Also I can see that your top dimension reading 13 is using a different dimension type as it has diagonal ticks instead of the small arrow ones that all the others have.
That is a bit strange as 3+3+13+13+10+100+70 = 212 and even if all those numbers were 0.5 lower (2.5+2.5+12.5+12.5+9.5+99.5+69.5) it would total to 208.5 which is quite a bit different than your 201 shown.
If you draw detail lines aligned to the all the places you are measuring to and then dimensioning those lines does it get the same result?
Also I can see that your top dimension reading 13 is using a different dimension type as it has diagonal ticks instead of the small arrow ones that all the others have.
The other issue might be that one or more of your dimensions is overridden using the insert unicode control character trick (Unit Separator) and then typing the dimension so that you get around the requirement to have text if you use the Replace with Text option.
The other issue might be that one or more of your dimensions is overridden using the insert unicode control character trick (Unit Separator) and then typing the dimension so that you get around the requirement to have text if you use the Replace with Text option.
