Panel wiring diagrams in Revit

[Anonymous]

Hello everyone,

first time posting here.

So like title says, Does Revit has functions to draw panel wiring diagrams like AutoCad Electrical has? I mean we put specific symbols, draw wire lines and make Source/Destination signal arrows and more in AutoCad Electrical. 

Can we do this in Revit or Magicad for Revit?

Thank you for replies. 

[CFNBen · Accepted solution]

I am not familiar with the exact appearance you're going for with these 'diagrams' but if your question is: "Does Revit have a 2D space where i can draw a bunch of lines and type some text" then yes, Revit does. 

They are call Drafting Views. Find them under the 'View' Tab.

[s.borello · Accepted solution]

You can do all this in Revit... you will have to spend some time recreating your details from AutoCAD in Revit.  If you don't want to spend the time to do this natively in Revit, you can simply link in your single line diagram from AutoCAD. 

[Anonymous]

Well, I see the situation here. No separate ribbon for designing control schematics, only manually creating your own symbols.

Thank you guys anyway.

[smbrennan]

There are some things to be careful of if you're going to go down the road doing diagrams in Revit. 

First, unlike AutoCAD, you can't easily create a library of symbols and easily change viewport scales. Any object you make is going to be 'Annotative' (in AutoCAD terminology). But linework, just like ACAD, is not. Therefore, you should establish your boundaries in the Drafting View first so you can at least know when you're running low on space. 

Second, also unlike AutoCAD, you can't choose to display on a certain area of the drafting view. Floor Plans & Ceiling Plans allow this by the way of the Dependent Views, but drafting views don't have these. There are mentions of it on the Revit Ideas forum page, but nothing implemented as of Revit 2020. You will have to put each page's diagram on a separate drafting view. 

[CFNBen]

smbrennan I disagree with some of your points:

1. "You can't easily create a library of symbols..." - why not? What's difficult about creating a library of symbols?
2. "...and easily change viewport scales." - True you cannot change the viewport scale and expect everything to scale up and down as a result. As a result, like you say, you need to make sure you know the extents of your drafting area before you start drafting. This ensures that whenever you have sheets printed out side by side, let's say an A3 and and A1, the symbols and text will all be exactly the same size because you've drafted them in the same scale. I would argue that consistency is key and this lack of scaling drives that. You can't just change the scale at the drop of a hat because you don't have enough space on your piece of paper. You have to change the paper size or split the diagram.
3. I agree it would be nice to use dependent views with drafting views for when a diagram needs to be spread across two sheets. We are currently using floor plans and dependent views instead of drafting views when a schematic/diagram needs to be split. However the way you say "...you can't choose to display on a certain area of the drafting view" makes me feel like you have a load of different but similar diagrams that you want in a single drafting view, which you would then use dependent views to display on sheets. I think there are two schools of thought here: One, yours, have similar diagrams in a single parent view and split via dependent views; Two, mine, Each diagram should be in its own drafting view, with only larger diagrams split via dependent views.

[smbrennan]

---

@CFNBen wrote:

smbrennan I disagree with some of your points:

1. "You can't easily create a library of symbols..." - why not? What's difficult about creating a library of symbols?
2. "...and easily change viewport scales." - True you cannot change the viewport scale and expect everything to scale up and down as a result.

---

Those two statements go hand-in-hand. Not intended to be 2 independent statements. I have a library of symbols, but on larger jobs where a single line spans more than one page, and we know that going in - we need to plan in advance. Whereas in AutoCAD it was much easier to manipulate objects around model space and/or place the viewports where needed. 

At our company, any papersize for a project is consistent within that project, unless it's a clarifying sketch. Usually we plot ARCH E & E1, sometimes D. ARCH C on occasion. Letter & 11x17 for sketches as needed. So when we talk consistency, we have to put a little upfront thought into our single lines and how they will fit on the pre-determined paper size, which is usually driven by how the overall plan, or segmented plan, fits on a page at 1/8" = 1'-0". 

[CFNBen]

---

"First, unlike AutoCAD, you can't easily create a library of symbols and easily change viewport scales."

If you wanted them to be a single statement then perhaps you should have used better wording. 

"First, unlike AutoCAD, you can't easily create a library of symbols which scale easily with viewport scales."

I don't dispute the ease with which you could manipulate viewports in AutoCAD. 

It sounds like you know the line is going over two sheets, but you blindly don't think that you will then have to split it? 

You're telling me that if you require a very large sheet size for a projects' layout views, you'll use that for schematics/diagrams as well, even if they would only take up 1/5th of the sheet otherwise? As a result, you wish to scale up diagrams, to fill more of the sheet?