rfas will be applied, depending upon the nature of the view being created or referenced.Īppropriate graphics, browser sorting, etc also respond to the nature of the view being created or referenced. System annotation types designate which of these bubble. rfas create the graphics of the reference bubble, with hard-coded parameters making up the data-drawing labels.
In a simplified distillation, it goes something like this: Therefore, these system annotation items are somewhat protected by a pretty complex layered hierarchy of nested families. All that coding that goes into such functionality, however, means that if those items were open to easy manipulation by all users, chances are something would get mucked up in the works, and the functionality hits the skids (the truth hurts!). I personally have lost weeks of my life to the CAD system of manually tagging and tracking related details to their respective locations on a project plan, and the accuracy of Revit’s system continues to delight me. Revit’s reference tracking system is one of the most amazing efficiency tools it boasts. While Revit allows a user to “Reference other view” with both these tools, it has no out of the box (OOTB) means of allowing what the team needed.
The challenge wasn’t in making a reference bubble that the team could manually enter in the detail/sheet of the appropriate CAD detail, it was in making the callout regions and section cut graphics by standard Revit means, while applying the manual reference system. This IS the real world, after all, and accomodations are necessary. Therefore, they will be producing CAD details on CAD paperspace sheets, and simply intersplicing the output for their final deliverables. While I’ve outlined the process of bringing CAD details into the Revit environment and thereby leveraging the auto-tracking referencing, this particular team has some real world limitations: not enough Revit licenses for their extended detailing support team to work in Revit, and workstations that aren’t powerful enough to manage a large-scale project in full Revit documentation. One of the teams I work with is still in a transitional mode towards Revit documentation – meaning that they still rely heavily on their existing CAD detail library, and in editing details in that format. However, after thorough discussion and disection of the issues at hand, I agreed with the feaseability in both of these situations. ‘Dumb’ tags are against that concept completely. I’m a firm believer that the incredible value of using a database system that Revit is, is in that actual data. In the past week, I’ve had two requests for ‘dummy’ tags to use in Revit – something that really makes me cringe.
0 kommentar(er)
