I wrote about one way to achieve using smaller grid bubbles in different views
HERE. That written I can't help but wonder
how much smaller is appropriate. A user recently complained they need a smaller grid bubble in a 1:1000 (metric) view. My gut reaction was "really?...maybe the grid bubble is just too big to begin with?" For example, this is what 1:100 and 1:1000 scale views look like side by side for a tiny footprint of grids using a stock grid family (6.5 mm radius/4.5 mm text).
That image is captured after using Zoom to Fit. How effective are grid bubbles at that scale to begin with? In imperial units that's equivalent to a view scale of 1"=120'-0". Keeping in mind that Revit's bias is to maintain the printed size of annotation, how much smaller does the bubble and text need to be to be
better but still useful? This next image is the same sheet with grids bubbles that are half as big, text half as high (3.25 mm radius circle and 2.25 mm text).
I could argue that if the 1:1000 scale size is acceptable it might as well be the standard for all the views? This is how it (the smaller size grid bubbles) looks if I use Zoom Sheet Size and pan the view to show the grids side by side. This is more representative of what it will look like on the printed page.
Having the ability to turn off the bubble graphics only leaving the Grid name's text only might be a nice option. It seems to me that decreasing the size of the text means it is likely to no longer be legible. That's never good for documentation. For example, quite a few standards dictate a minimum text size of 1/8" which is larger than the 2.25 mm text I've shown in the images above.
Using a smaller font than what is shown above is going to start being too small to read on half-size prints; which is what I see getting printed more often these days. Fwiw, it's my understanding that 1/8" text as a requirement was decided upon because half size documents are printed so often and the resulting 1/16" text is at the brink of no longer being legible so standards set it accordingly.
Regardless, it's a frequent enough request that the development team ought to see what they can come up with. Something that is easy to implement and provides more flexibility for documentation.
