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
Allow more than one sheet to contain the same view
Whenever I want to create an overall plot of my project, and provide a different set of A3 copies for the building site, I have to duplicate all my views and rename them. Why not just a warning that could be ignored? Now it's forced on us.
This is one of the few restrictions in Revit that is actually a good thing. Just imagine how all your view references would be screwed up if you could place a view on more than one sheet.
Why not just plot the existing sheets out at A3 for site? OK, maybe they might not be readable if reduced too much from the originals - in which case, create some dependant views from the original views, and those can be placed on new sheets - and you can even crop them differently.
I do not want to abandon the current behavior. I want you let me choose! If an insert is seen in several presentations, free to me not to assign reference or assign the reference "general detail" or "common detail."
I like the concept. There would need to be limits on what it could do, In my opinion a view that can be placed on multiple sheets would not be assigned a detail number, and could not be referenced. It would be similar to a legend view, but show model elements (and hopefully allow copy/paste in place!). I think the way to do it would be to have an additional variation of "duplicate as dependent". "Duplicate as Unreferenced" (or "Convert to Unreferenced - unconverting would provide a waning and then delete all placed views) would be able to have templates applied, and ideally, when selected on a sheet, allow unreferenced views to be swaped (like referenced views can be now). This feature would allow for multiple opportunities that legend views can't:
Key plans - a constant problem to keep updated, since neither legend views nor families stay updated to building changes. No one wants to make individual duplicate views for each sheet. A series of area plans converted to unreferenced would be ideal, could be placed in the correct location and then copy/pasted and swapped to be plan appropriate
Legends - The legend view doesn't allow a lot of things, among them application of view templates and tagging. I use duplicate plans in another phase, which works, but is more time consuming than an unreferenced view. Legends need to be able to share the view template of the views they represent, so if I change demolished walls to show up purple the legend updates with the view.
JKidder has the right of it, the detail should be unreferenced if this were to be included. I can't think of a scenario where a detail would need to be on multiple sheets and referenced differently on each sheet where it wasn't a unique detail to begin with.
The issue of view references could be dealt with by making it so that the second (and further) instances of this view would not be referenced (and of course tell the user that).
For example:
A-101 has a floor plan with a SECTION mark referencing Detail 1, Sheet A-201. Then this section is also added to sheet X-101 for some reason. No sheet will be able to reference the section as shown on X-101. All view references for this section view would point to A-201.
I can see how this could be beneficial in limited situations. But it would take some error checking to handle it appropriately.
@jkidder You can already set the View Template for a Legend to the same as other Views. We don't use this functionality (though we probably should) as our Legends are usually just Text, Detail Lines, and Filled Regions (w/ an occasional Annotation Symbol or Detail Component) - does it not work as desired? BTW, there are several ideas related to Legends (including having Tags in them) that you should search for and vote on (if you haven't already).
As for Key Plans, I use dependent views - usually because I'm using as a key plan to show wall elevation locations, so I hide the section cuts that aren't on the same sheet (so I don't want the same view). When it's to show partial or building plans in a larger site context, it's usually a "simplified" plan that's included on the border w/ instance parameters to control visibility of a Filled Region. In that case it's not a live view (and so needs to be updated manually with any changes), but the overriding desire is simplicity and clarity. Even if we were to use live views for that type of a key plan, you'd still want to use dependent views as you want to be able to control visibility of the selected area being shown.
When I first started using Revit, I was also frustrated with the inability to place views on multiple sheets. However, I've since discovered that I don't need to (or even want to) have that functionality. I realize our Revit needs are rather limited, so maybe you could provide a specific use case example?
@lionel.kai Sure, you can add any view template to a legend, but since you can't phase legend components legends become worthless for anything but basic symbols or text that is repeated on every page. For example, my demo plans have a "legend" created in documentation phases where I can show what a demolished and what an existing to remain element will look like.
Our key plans don't show wall sections, instead identifying areas of the building. A simple building that is split across three pages will have a key plan locating the area on each plan sheet (easily 4-5 plan views per area. Combine that with some sheets having more than one view and it would mean 20+ key plans to manage, with ~ 6 different color schemes. Without the ability to easily switch between the locations highlighted and the need to share the key plans with consultants dependent views just don't make sense (for us) yet.
Dependent views allow a view to be placed on several sheets. If a normal view could be placed on multiple sheets then how would the view callout make sense?
Thanks for your submission and votes on this idea! We are evaluating where this request falls into our roadmap and will provide an update when we have made a decision.
Thanks for your submission and for voting on this idea and thanks to everyone for the comments as well. After evaluating this idea, we have decided not to add this to our roadmap and to archive this idea. This idea currently does not fit into our plans. Please feel free to resubmit the idea with additional use cases or information and we will be happy to consider it again.
Thank goodness sanity has prevailed. Thank you Harlan - a very wise decision on your part, as it would have opened a huge can of worms. I notice that the original request came from a Revit LT user - are dependant views available in LT?
This request is simple: Allow placement of a single viewport on multiple sheets. This is a needed feature. The workaround now is to duplicate views, but that is silly and error prone
I would not like this featuere. More planes is more work and why would you show the exact same thing on more than one plan? That means more revisions and more sheets on the sheet list that need to be up to date.
Yes, I'm aware of dependent views and use them extensively. They do something different. I shouldn't have to copy/fork my views to show on multiple sheets. That's bad practice.
I can see how some might consider what I'm suggesting bad practice, but sometimes there have been situations where I've needed it.
Here's a couple of examples mostly involving situations where I've got a couple of sets of documents with different titleblocks:
I need to show the same site plan in two sets
I need to show the same typical room layout in two sets of plans.
The main reason I want this feature is so I can copy sheets without Revit blocking me.
As an aside Revit needs to get off it's high horse sometimes and just add features to do what we need. Like the perpetual papal dictate banning linking in schedules from excel or linking in PDFs. Come on!
