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
Guide Grids are not the most easy to use and useful tool in Revit. It would be much better if view titles and views could snap to reference planes, or some other "non plot" element within a sheet border. I hate to say it, but AutoCAD does this better. Are you going to let AutoCAD be better than you, Revit?!
@marcelludwigNO (please). I'm open to adding more categories (maybe), but if you put too many, it will make it hard to pick what you want. Usually Grids/Levels/Ref.Planes are enough (although if I remember correctly, it doesn't handle diagonal Grids? or maybe just their intersections? - I remember having to add a random Ref. Plane in a partial plan for a diagonal wing - that would be good to fix).
There have been some times when I've wanted to line up walls on 3/4"=1' details (interior walls that weren't on a grid), but that's rare and not important. If walls were being snapped to on 1/8" or 1/4" plans, it would probably mess stuff up.
@lionel.kai I think it depends on the type of views you put on the sheet. We often make presentation sheets which have no reference planes and grids. So when we lay them out on sheets we have to temporarily enable them to lay them out. Its a bit tedious and it seems there should be a faster way.
But maybe guide grids are the wrong approach anyway. It's not exactly intuitive and it requires setup. I'd love to see a method that's both intuitive to find/learn and requires no setup.
What about named Sheet Alignment Points that sort of act like Project Base Points? You could create and place one for all of the overall plans, other ones for enlarged plans and details. You would then be able to use an Align Views on Sheets tool to choose which alignment point to apply to which sheets.
Just trying to spur discussion towards something that works better than what we have available now. Most 3rd party solutions are using a corner of a view to align on sheets, but that sort of forces you to use scope boxes for consistency.
@marcelludwigLOL. But I model piles of sand all the time! 😉
@pieterschiettecatteDo you mean 3D views? Perspective? I'm not understanding your workflow - how does enabling the views help line them up? - but then we're structural. The only time I've placed 3D views on a sheet was to (temporarily) show the contractor a complex renovation at multiple floor slices (with a "hippie 3D" color scheme to show beams vs cols vs floors, etc.).
@eblackburnEFFVJI saw a demo of one of those 3rd party tools, and when they mentioned how they were doing it - and that you need to manually ensure you were using the same crop in each view first - I was shocked. Isn't the point of automation to eliminate/reduce tedious tasks? LOL. It seems like the API is capable of setting the crop region (Create a ViewPlan and Crop it), so they could just take the first crop and make sure the others match (if even just temporarily, though I think if you're lining up views, you'd want the crops to be the same - at least at first, since there can be variations at floors).
@lionel.kai You wrote "Usually Grids/Levels/Ref.Planes are enough", to which I was saying: watch out because not every type of views shows these elements. When an architect makes a presentation plan, they often don't show grids/ref planes, so there's nothing to snap the guide grids to. Therefor, grids/levels/ref planes are not enough for everyone. Adding walls, floors, roofs, ceilings and lines would be a nice start.
And that's just talking about 2d views, for 3d views it becomes even trickier. For example making a multi-page presentation set where if you flip through the deck, you see different alternative furniture layouts for the same space. That would require the views to be in the exact same spot, but the guide grids aren't going to help much with that (how to snap them?). For our office (arch), 3d views have become common place in both drawing sets and presentation sets.
But in the end, I think the guide grid would be better replaced with a more user-friendly tool.
Our Ideate Align Revit viewport alignment tool allows automatic alignment of any plan-based view via the model coordinates. For non-plan based views such as elevations, sections, details, schedules; we then use the upper left crop region. (As many have commented on this thread.) We are exploring other ideas of alignment such as viewport centroid, upper right, lower right, or lower left. Considering the Revit API constraints, what would you like to see?
@rwtaylor_revitI assume that means that you can use a grid intersection, etc. to line up plans regardless of view crop. I'd want to see the same thing for elevations - at least for the level. For example, we usually have 3 rows of sections/elevations (and we use lines to separate them) and we want the levels to be at the same position in each row. Can you determine the position of each level relative to the crop so that the levels will ultimately line up even though elevations are cropped differently?
As I mentioned, I'd most likely want crops to be the same, so if the add-in first compares the crops and asks the user "Do you want to make the crops identical?", I'd be fine with that (for building sections/elevations, it should probably just fix locations of top and bottom). It should also check to see how different they are - even showing the difference graphically before committing to the change, if possible (or having some kind of tolerance/threshold to determine if they're essentially the same, vs. partial views of different areas, etc.). Then you could use lower-left, etc. to align the section views even though widths of the crop and locations of the cuts vary.
NOTE: For our detail views, we try to do the same thing (align the level) within each row, but those are most likely to vary due to deeper footings, or framing above/below the level, so we're less likely to align views between sheets, since views on different rows aren't always aligned (relative to the grid).
@pieterschiettecatteFor me, I'm just concerned about snapping to the right element without extra effort by the drafters. If it prioritizes datum elements so that we have confidence (without having to zoom in) that we're snapping to the grid intersection and not the architect's face of sheathing, that would probably be enough for us. But if it was too easy to snap to "the wrong thing", I know we'd get a bunch of views that were lined up "close enough" to avoid the extra effort by others in the office (and that would annoy me). 😛
Using ALL categories to snap to (as suggested above) is not a feasible option, as too many snapping points would create chaos in with complex views, and make it impossible to ensure the correct lines aligned.
Using a Grid & Level works in most elevations and sections, except where you have to vertically align facing views; Grids & Levels work on plan views, but only if you have grids in your project at that stage of the documentation.
Reference Planes may work in some cases, but only if you don't use a lot of them for other purposes -- in our firm, we use 100s of them in every project, and there's no simple way to ensure you have the right one when aligning things on a sheet; Reference Planes aren't available for 2D views or images, however.
Sheet Setout of views should be a function of Guide Grids, as appears to be intended -- it is just a very underdeveloped and poorly thought out tool (IIRC, Archicad 4.5 had a better sheet setout than Revit 2021) -- Revit's Guides should be more flexible in terms of defined spacing / setout, and allow for Align as well as Snapping to view edges, Grids/Levels/etc.
Can't crop region boundaries be snapped to and used to align views between sheets? The more annoying thing is View Titles. Why can't view titles be snapped to?
Ideate Align now supports aligning View Titles in Revit 2022! It's something that has been asked by many people on this Forum. We've also introduced other plan alignments besides the model coordinates.
keeping a consistent and professional look when flicking through sheets on a pdf to see view title alignment precision for different floor plan would be great
@kimberly_fuhrman-jones what version of Revit is it going to be implemented in? I would very much like to snap my view titles to certain places on the title block.
@curtisridenour , we are unable to answer "when" something will be release in the product for legal reasons. Feel free to follow the Revit Public Roadmap or join the Revit Preview Release project to stay updated on items currently in development (note that newly Accepted Ideas may not yet be available on either site immediately).
@curtisridenour , in addition to what you see in the Revit Public Roadmap, our teams also have a more intensive internal roadmap. Not all items on the internal roadmap will show on the public roadmap, depending on several reasons, such as development timeline (which is not instantaneous...believe me if we had a magic wand we would use it!) or level of development. If an Idea has been accepted, it is a planned (but not always guaranteed) improvement. Again, if you would like to have more direct involvement in providing constructive feedback to our teams, I would encourage you to join the Revit Preview Release.
If anyone's struggling with view alignment between sheets - snapping to crop borders and reference planes within views is a life saver. Still no great native solution for aligning view titles other than the "eyeball" method, unfortunately. I wish view titles were treated more like a tag family which you could manually place and copy/paste between sheets, rather than having to toggle them on and off or toggle between them through properties. Now that I think about it, might post that as a separate idea...
I am sorry you feel that way. If I could pull back the curtain so that you could see the entire development process, I would, but unfortunately it is nearly impossible (not to mention our legal obligations) to reveal everything that is happening behind the scenes. We do try our best to be as transparent as we can and offer ways to engage with our product teams within the realm of our abilities. As of now, the current status of this feature is Accepted, and if anything changes we will modify the status.
If you would prefer to have an offline discussion with one of our product managers, I am happy to set that up for you.
