Rotatable Section Heads

[smbrennan]

Our company's sheet naming standard is too long to use the OOTB section head. We have a triangular section head, but I had to create different visibility parameters for each rotation since the text is relative to the section head itself.

I would like to be able to have a single section head that keeps the view reference/label relative when the section is rotated in any direction.

[ViviNyehuusAndersen]

Please make text in sections work properly.

Since Revit 2007, the text has not been able to follow the section.

See attached pic.

Section.jpg

[lionel.kai]

When you're talking about text not following the section, do you mean text (and inner geometry) in the Section Heads not rotating with the outer geometry to align with the section cuts (see attached)? Because regular text in sections can just be rotated.

[ViviNyehuusAndersen]

Yes i mean text in Section head/tails. They stay readable, even do you remove this. It wont rotate with component even do you tell it to. The section you shov looks fine, but in Denmark sections can´t look like that. thay must look like the picture ive attached.

[lionel.kai]

We also have a client that requires oval-shaped section bubbles. We still do their stuff in CAD (because they require Microstation), but we'd come across the same problem if we had to do it in Revit. Hopefully you don't have too many non-orthogonal section cuts, because the only workaround at the moment would be to hide the live section cut and use a View Reference instead (which you can rotate).

[Anonymous]

Please add an option (parameter?) to rotate labels in sections (or in genaral) or make them align with the sectionline

[Scott_D_]

Nothing wrong with how it works, change your sheet numbers.

I have often seen company's use 25 characters in a sheet number and still use the OOTB section header symbol. Amateurs!!!!!!

Detail [1] on sheet [(53)309], its not hard.

[ViviNyehuusAndersen]

The request goes on rotating the text so that follows the section head and tail.

not an unreasonable request, if you ask me.

if its not a problem, be happy about it and save your anger to something else😊

In Denmark we are bound by government regulations that require sheet numbers that long.

And sorry that some of us want things so be perfect, not just work.

[smbrennan]

Scott - To tell companies to change their standards is an absurd response. Companies should not change their methods simply because the software doesn't currently support it. The reason why myself and many others are requesting this feature to be fixed is because we don't like sections that look like this:

Instead, we want sections that may look more like the 'working' sections shown here (where it says 'working' it references the sheet number and detail number):

If you have seen companies doing something that works with with the OOTB families, then sharing that information is much more conducive for the community rather than calling everyone amateurs. 

[lionel.kai]

@Scott_D_ I believe the request is to have the ABILITY to have section cuts look like those below (from our CAD - just rotated blocks). Compare the text in the bubbles on the right (below-CAD) with those that I've posted previously (above-Revit):

[lionel.kai]

@Scott_D_ I believe the request is to have the ABILITY to have section cuts look like those below (from our CAD - just rotated blocks). Compare the text in the bubbles on the right (below-CAD) with those that I've posted previously (above-Revit):

The length of the Sheet Number and whether the Section head has a circle or not (or a filled triangle or not), are completely irrelevant to the request (it can currently be customized by the end user). The section heads are blocks in CAD, so they can simply be rotated. What can NOT currently be done in Revit is the rotated text & internal line (without creating separate types - but then it would be rotated in ALL views where the section is seen** - including perpendicular sections, which is NOT desired). THAT is the wish. There is a similar problem with the foundation tags (and other categories) - you can see related wishes:

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/tags-and-text-part-8/idi-p/6509350

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/tag-rotate-with-component/idi-p/6398416

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/tagging/idi-p/6454004

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/fix-tag-label-text-not-aligning-well-with-quot-rotate-wit...

Also, I was wondering about your comment: "Detail [1] on sheet [(53)309]" Why do you have two sheet numbers? Is one the "drawing number" (like "S105"?) and the other the "page" (like "sheet 73 of 305")?

@smbrennan "To tell companies to change their standards is an absurd response." While I completely agree that the software SHOULD be customizable to show things the ways WE want to show them, unfortunately "change your company standards" is EXACTLY what Autodesk told us when "selling us" Revit. The sales guy said that he talked to a company with a big fat cad-standards manual/binder and told them that they need to decide: "How important is that manual? How important is it that your drawings look exactly right? If it's really important, Revit isn't for you. But if you want all the great features that Revit has, you have to chuck that drafting manual and make some compromises." We made the choice to accept messy-looking drawings (as opposed to clean cad drawings) - mainly because our clients were using Revit, but now we use Revit even when our client's still using cad. However, we'd still like to see some improvements down the road... if only Autodesk would be willing to listen. 😞

And yes, you could use View References (which DO rotate) instead of actual section bubbles, but then you'd have to draw the line as a Detail Line (or make a bunch of different types for different line lengths) - all of which is a PITA and EITHER WAY it wouldn't be linked to the live section! Why go through that - just because the original architect on the Revit development team didn't believe in non-orthogonal section-bubble text?

Sorry, I'm in a bit of a rant-y mood this morning. 🙂 Don't anyone get me started on Beam System justification options...

Footnote:

** This is he same reason why we use Text instead of the built-in Reference Label for "SIM" and "TYP" (they're Type parameters linked to the View instead of Instance parameters that can vary with each "Reference Other View" instance ).

[Scott_D_]

Let me explain, the number in brackets is the drawing series - 63 for lighting, 64 for small power and so on.

The number after that is the specific sheet number, every one of which has to be unique in Revit. xx1 for zone 01, xx2 for zone 02 etc

The full sheet number can be made up of any length text string you want but being as the sheet number needs to be unique and doesn't have to be the entire sheet number you can use the short form.

As far as Revit is concerned "PO500146-IMT-AU-00-01-DR-E(61)001-C3 Distribution & Containment in Zone 01 " is exactly the same as (61)001.

You don't need to add  "PO500146-IMT-AU-00-01-DR-E" for it to be a unique reference so your request to have a massive long reference on the drawing doesn't make sense, there wouldn't be room for it and it would look daft.

If your sheet number is an enormous text string rather than being built up of multiple shared parameters which can be used to create schedules, manage schedules and be used as the basis for printing documents without having a bunch of unreadable gibberish in the Sheet section of the Project Browser you are not working in the most expedient manner.

The arrow on the section header symbol always points in the direction of the section, the text is always readable in the orientation of the printed page, I don't see the issue.

I don't understand your footnote, are you manually typing in the detail and sheet number?

Are you aware that Revit will allow the use of Reference Other View with Sections, Callouts etc?

I'm sure I sound like I'm after an argument (which is not my intention) but none of what anybody in this thread is saying makes any sense.

Of all the things the devs could be working on, why would you waste their time with this (almost) pointless request? There are quite a few things in Revit that are firmly in the "its not the way we have always done it" category but work perfectly fine, on the flip side of the coin there are things that are horribly broken and need to be fixed. This is definitely not in the second category as far as I see it.

To the people above who want 'working' sections, why don't you create new symbols? Its easy enough to do, well actually its a PITA to find the right category in the project browser but it can be done.

[smbrennan]

Scott, thank you for explaining all of that. I know you're not trying to be argumentative, it was your initial comment calling people amateurs that prompted my response. Let me explain our company's situation, hopefully it'll shine some light on the unknown. 

• The numbering sequence in your example, certainly works. I work for an electrical contractor, and our field guys are often working with 2 sets of prints; the engineer's electrical set and our shop drawing set, which is far more elaborate that theirs. We need a way to distinguish our drawings from theirs. Not only do we need to do that, but we've come up with a standard naming convention to be used on every job because we don't have the luxury of time to plan that stuff out on a per-project basis. We can get a job today (Tuesday) and have guys on the jobsite by Monday that are waiting for drawings, and the following Monday they need drawings that we didn't anticipate up front.

• One of the indicators on our drawings is our company's abbreviation before the sheet number "CE-". Yes it adds 3 characters, but everything else beyond that is standard "E01.01", E01 indicates Power Plan, .01 indicates 1st Floor, (.02A would indicate 2nd Floor Zone A, and we have predefined plans that are typical, plus VDC-related plans that are in the range of E10 through E19. So our string is CE-E01.01.

• As I'm typing this, maybe I could consider dropping the prefix on the sections. But what if the engineer's drawing also has E01.01, and they've designated that as a lighting drawing? Would our guys in the field know that our drawings reference our drawings only (unless clearly indicated elsewhere)? Maybe ... but we haven't had that discussion with them. It's an easy discussion, and maybe I should have it with them. Thanks for the idea!

Finally, I do agree that there are many other improvements that can be made, some which may be far more important. However, that shouldn't stop us from expecting the same usability in custom section heads that we see in every other tag and text element in Revit. 

[Scott_D_]

I apologise to all for the 'amateurs' comment, it was unprofessional. Just to clarify, i am an Electrical Engineer but i also on occasion work on plumbing, mechanical, architectural and structural model content, mostly M&E though.

If I understand your point correctly I would drop the "CE-" as a prefix and add this to the sheet titleblock as a shared parameter.

This can be set by project so it will be added to all your sheets at the same time with one parameter setting in Project Information, we do this for architects drawing revisions. As an example- every time we load in a new architects model we put the revision number and date in a couple of parameters in Project Information and it updates every sheet in the project (all our A1 and A0 sheets use the same shared parameters). Saves time, lots of time (and avoids errors).

Using BS1192 as a guide we have adopted the sheet naming convention that uses the following parameters to build up the sheet number from Shared Parameters with a dash in between each one:

Project No.-Originator-Building Ref.-Building Level-Zone-File Type-Discipline-Sheet Reference

Project Number, Originator (our company initials) and Building Reference are all set as parameters which affect every sheet, only the others are custom per sheet.

Your company's Revit file can only setup a link between a section and a sheet in that particular project and your company's name and logo are on each sheet. If you want to direct the reader to a completely different set of drawings by another company it would have a different 'originator' code so it could have the exact same "E01.01" code but would be a completely different sheet. Even if the drawings from both company's are put in the same folder and are exactly the same they would still be different as they have different Originator codes.

Your drawing register should list all sheets in the project, each company should issue one for the install staff to use.

If the engineering company is a regular partner it would be wise to agree which numbers will be used by which company. Likewise, if you are using E.01 for Power there is no reason they should not also use E.01 for Power drawings.

We don't use ".01" for the floor as we already have a parameter for that, the Level parameter. This can be set for multiple sheets at the same time using a Sheet Schedule as it is a Shared Parameter. We use Zones to differentiate between the areas of a building served. If a building has 567 zones the lighting drawings would be from 001 to 567, it doesn't matter what floor they are on. As we are M&E we use exactly the same zones for all disciplines, lighting, small power, HVAC, domestic services etc using Scope Boxes, all in the same central model.

Ideally your shop drawings and the engineers drawings should reference the same building zones so that your drawing (53)001 Zone 1 small power and data matches the area of the building in their (53)001.

Regarding your first paragraph about per-project numbering conventions, we use a template project that all projects are started from which is pre-loaded with sheets, views, view templates, levels, text styles, dimension styles and suchlike with the numbering systems already in place.

Regarding your second paragraph, you need to tell your gaffer to stop using AutoCAD practises on Revit jobs. It's a tough battle that needs to be fought over and over and over again but you'll get there in the end. Adding an A or similar is adding text string length and complexity that doesn't need to be there, numeric zoning (with an appropriate zoning plan on each drawing) is much easier to manage and leads to less errors. Detailed early planning is the key.

Regarding your third paragraph, you should drop the prefix as it is unnecessary and is duplicated in the full-format sheet number.  Unless you specifically add text that states they should be looking at another company's drawings why would they, common sense should surely apply. That can only be done longhand with plain text as far as I know and I am all about automation. Work smart, not hard. 🙂

[schlueter]

We need "Rotatable Section Heads"

"To tell companies to change their standards is an absurd response."

Yes. Its so true. I know there is no product that fits 100% the office standard but this is so **** anyoing. And yes there are alot of other things that needs a bit of work but this is a problem too.

[arjanpol]

Last week I posted an idea for moveable section heads. Maybe it would be a good addition to this post.

This is the link.

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/moveable-viewnamep-label-in-section-heads/idc-p/6953146

[Keith_Wilkinson]

I think there needs to be a full review by @autodesk of section heads and how they operate - there have been issues with these since Revit started and we need to see some of these day to day issues and annoyances being addressed.  It would be very useful if the section head was able to reference specific parameters within the sheet or failing that just have access to a custom parameter field.

@Scott_D_ Unfortunately if you follow BS1192 to the letter (which if you are using a standard correctly you should) the format would be (with the Class field be optional but advisable IMO);

<Project>-<Originator>-<Volume>-<Level>-<Type>-<Role>-<Class>-<Number>

The number field only changes if the fields prior to it haven't - for this reason you would end up with multiple drawings where the last 2 fields are identical.  Granted you could ignore this and make the number on the end unique but it's not how the BS is intended to work.  In your version I noticed you have added in additional fields and changed the order which I think is a bad idea as it just caused confusion a project where BS1192 is being implemented.  I should add though that I think this particular BS is far from perfect and needs to be reviewed from the ground up!

[troels.olsen]

@Scott_D_ while I a few years ago have tried to implement sheet numbers created from a string of shared parameters, harvesting all the features you mention, it is not possible to link that string into the "Sheet Number" field. So what do you do when printing pdf's and dwg's? Type in the sheet number manually?

[Scott_D_]

We use a plug-in called Xrev Transmit. This prints to DWG, DWF and PDF with a string of parameter values as the output file name. You can use shared parameters, sheet parameters, project information parameters, the whole lot.

You can add prefixes, suffixes and custom text to make the file name say whatever you want.

It saves enormous amounts of time and is always accurate as there is no human error possible once the sheet naming is setup.

It's probably like the Autodesk batch print tool but I have never used that as I don't need it, not sure if that does automatic file naming.

For the small cost its amazing, couldn't be without it.

[troels.olsen]

Great, Scott. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

I want to rotate just the text  (A5.06 | 3) & (A5.01 | 2)  90° cw within the elevation symbol so the text reads across.
Instead, one is forced to delete then re-elevate.

This is a hassle when multiple elevations are detailed fully and added to sheets.