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
Title Block Scale or Font and Image parameter, API
Ability to scale font and images or have parameters for font and image in title block so you would have one title block instead of having a separate file of title block for each page size.
Options
Fonts can be scalable
The font has a type or instance parameter where you can change the font
Image can be scalable
The image has a size type or instance parameter that you can change
It is way easier to maintain one Title block instead a lot of them.
One file of the Title block has a minimum of 4 images(logos) from page size A1 to A4. So much manual work to maintain four or more types rather than one. Also, font size also must be adjusted depending on the Page size.
What if you have more logos, different types of titles because some clients want their way to do and so on, what if you want to add more features?
I would use types for general annotation (General notes, subcontractor logo and so on ) there is no point in using Page Sizes as family types.
"Fonts can be scalable, The font has a type or instance parameter where you can change the font, Image can be scalable, The image has a size type or instance parameter that you can change" is not only would work very well with Tille blocks but it also with TAG, Annotations and so on. At the moment I have to make tags and annotations for different scales of the drawings.
We have a single family for Landscape paper shape, titleblock info along the bottom. We have a single family for Landscape paper shape, titleblock info along the side. etc
Each of these families has everything the same size, other than the size of the extent of the titleblock. I can have an A3 Titleblock instance next to an A1 and they are the exact same size, only thing different is the size of the linework overall.
From what I can gather, you believe the titleblock will require scaling but in sheet views, it's all 1:1 and the views you place on sheets scale themselves.
Hopefully this/the below clarifies. Either I'm not understanding you, or you're not quite using Revit right.
If we use the exact sizes of the font on A1 and on A4, same with the image then on A4 and A3 we don't have much space for views. Second, we don't have much space left for General Notes, Project Specific Notes, and Current Revision notes (which cover more details about changes). The second drawing looks unprofessional and space-wise inefficient.
The example below is if I use the same text size and logo size. I only compared A1 to A2. But if it was A3 or A4 format then it looks horrible and less space is left. This type of drawing in my experience is unprofessional.
In A1 format text must be bigger than in A4 format to make a user-friendly readable experience.
Yeah so I would argue you're doing it wrong compared to how we do it.
With the way we do it, when you print a drawing at the correct paper size, the titleblock text will all be exactly the same size.
When you print your drawings, the text will be different sizes.
Yes it means our A3 doesn't have a ton of room. Fortunately we don't use it very often and in this day and age, computers are used more and more often so zooming in is fine.
I completely disagree that it looks unprofessional and would ask you to further justify this opinion.
In the AV industry, it works differently and depends on Project and requirement.
Standard elevation scale 1:20. Sometimes we show one elevation which perfectly fits on A3, sometimes two elevations which perfectly fit on A2, or sometimes we have four elevations which nicely fit on A1 format. It depends on how many services we do and how many devices we have in the project. If you print the 1:20 scale from A1 to A3 it will be more difficult to read instead of having the actual scale on A3. The idea is to keep the consistency of views across pages rather than one-page size and scale that page to any format. The page is going to be empty If it shows only one view at 1:20. Second it is a waste of paper and cost. Third, if is there an option to have on A3 so people on site would use A3 instead of A1.
In the architecture industry maybe it works differently. You may have the A1 format as standard.
I'm in MEP and we use A1 as standard you are right.
With modern printing techniques I find it hard to believe someone can't print an A1 1:20 and it still be legible on an A3 paper but maybe that's just me. Let's see what others think of your idea!
Elevation, which area size is 3mx3m and a scale of 1:20 - is a very easy fit on the A3 page. We don't show the whole room we just show only what we need to show. We can save paper costs and it is convenient to read and carry on-site. We also have a project where we need two or more views from a different angle or for other devices on the same page and this is where the page size is matter, font and image scale.
I found a way dynamically scale the image in that case, I need one image for all paper sizes.
The biggest problem is the font (it is not scalable/can't change the size using custom parameters), as I have to make separate copies for each page size.
Making groups so I could snap labels to reference lines is just another problem.
