Unloading a Link Deletes Radial Dimensions

I read THIS post at RFO with interest naturally. The thread is about losing dimensions when linked files are updated. A subtle development in the thread is that radial dimension and linear dimensions are affected differently when a link is unloaded. Aaron Maller noticed that, mentioned it (in the thread) and asked someone at Autodesk about it. They looked into it and replied with:

Originally Posted by Autodesk Team

Here are the details. This is caused by the inconsistency between linear and radial dimension internal design.

For linear dimension, it handles “Unload a linked file" as a special case of dimension references not visible in the current view, while for radial dimension, it handles the unloading as invalid dimension reference, and thus it requires deletion of the radial dimension when unloading.

We will see how we might improve the radial dimension to follow a similar behavior pattern.

The emphasis was added by Aaron. Okay, good to know. For now, radial dimensions are at great peril if they are referencing a linked project. Best bet is to avoid dimensioning to linked elements anyway but especially so with radial dimensions. 

Dimension Inline and Dynamo

(Edit: If you download and apply an update to his Rhythm package after 1/17/2018 you'll have this node too)

From time to time I've heard people ask about putting the dimension value on the line (inline) instead of above the dimension line the way Revit prefers. The only way we can do it within Revit is to manually grip and drag the dimension value down to the line.

More recently I read a thread at the Autodesk Forum asking about this. The premise in their situation is that it is a significant roadblock to using Revit for one of their client's projects, it doesn't meet their drawing standard unless the dimensions are inline.

I was trading messages with Aaron Maller and mentioned it to him. Aaron was trading messages with John Pierson and a few minutes later I learned it is possible with Dynamo and a custom node. This morning he shared this with me, as well as replying to the thread. Nicely done John! We are sooo connected these days.

My Kingdom for a Dimension...or Two...Three

A Friday thought...

I've spent the last couple years doing a lot more modelling work than I expected to do. If you asked me in years before I'd have told you 80-90% percent of my time was dedicated to training and implementation activities.

Much of the modelling I do these days is from the contractor's point of view, for them. I quite enjoy it. I learn a lot and it keeps me on my toes.

This work is requested often because the documents they are using are not created from models to begin with. Sometimes they are but they (the contractor) have to build based on drawings so they find it informative to attempt to build things in the computer before doing it in the field. Where have I heard that notion before?

Chief among the things that trouble me doing so is the lack of dimensions. If there are lots of dimensions then the issue is their message or rather the lack of clear intent.

All too often I find a slab edge plan is lacking that one dimension, between adjacent slabs for example, that I could really use. In other instances the decision to start plotting the dimensions is based on a datum that involves a fussy site related angle (like based on a property line); when other orthogonal options are available.

I've also seen far more effort and devotion applied to dimensions for parking stripes in a parking garage than for the structural elements that make it possible to paint those stripes eventually. Then you have the dimension value bust. Such as, setting out the building grids reveals a subtle mathematical inconsistency or outright typographical error or override.

Then there are the dimensions that describe how to place something relative to other elements that get installed later during construction. How do we place a concrete column by referencing interior partitions...when those dimensions don't relate back to grids or structural elements? That issue is both missing dimensions and logical progression.

Often I have to endure the game of look over there, as if a hockey puck is getting smacked back and forth, when one says look at those guy's drawing for more information and then the other says the reverse. Slab edges that are required to overlap (per nearly matching details) are a real chore to sort out when you have to flip back and forth constantly and double check against the reflected ceiling plans...oops they're inconsistent with the plans...note to generate an email...

Then there are arcs. Thanks for all the radius and diameter information. Could I get dimensions for their endpoint locations and chord height/width? Better still, could I get something that tells me where their origins are supposed to be? Yes I do realize that one or two might be located somewhere on the outskirts of town. Then again if doing so exposes that issue up front when they are sketched, maybe we could get some other localized notion of how to place them on site too?

Though I've rarely encountered it in real life, I've really learned to appreciate the my documents stand on their own philosophy. In other words, a structural set of documents could be used in isolation to build all the the structural elements required, correctly, even if the rest of the work never got funded. It IS harder to do because it requires concerted effort to coordinate the disciplines well.

Yes I know, it's complicated, building stuff is messy. Now that I mention it, have you noticed, like me, that those ugly fractions people don't like seeing on drawings still crop up everywhere in real life.

Ah well, enough complaining. I've got some slab edges to reconcile. Back to grumbling to myself again. May we all enjoy a dimensionally accurate weekend!

Tags Dimensions and Linked Files

I've mentioned this subject in the past. I'm writing to bring it up again and to focus on how Revit deals with tags and dimensions differently when we apply them to elements that are in linked files.

First as a reminder, when a linked file changes and a user reloads that link in their Local File other users are not necessarily seeing the same version of the Linked File. That's because reloading a link is a local change, a personal action, that doesn't get passed along to the Central File when we use Synchronize with Central (SwC).

Let's imagine User A has reloaded a linked model and they've placed tags on doors and rooms that they observe are now present in the link. User A uses SwC to share this new tagging effort. Now User B, who already has a Local File open, decides to use Reload Latest or SwC to share something they've done or see what work other users have contributed.

It's important to note that User B did NOT use Reload in Manage Links or via right-click on the linked file in the Project Browser FIRST. As a result User B gets the warning in the next image. Don't be confused by the mention of Coordination Monitor which can be confusing. It can make us think we're dealing with something that has been involved with the Copy/Monitor tools.

The Tags are Orphaned, they've lost their relationship with the linked file's elements they are supposed to identify. You can see one tag is highlighted in orange in the image above. In the next image we can see what the floor plan really looks like in the linked file (and what User A sees). It's not quite the same as what User B thinks it looks like is it?

Let's now imagine that User A continues to work by adding the dimensions you see in the image above too. After they finish doing that they use SwC.

User B now decides to use SwC or Reload Latest, AGAIN without using Reload on the linked file. Their reward is a larger collection of warnings (see next image). The first three warnings are dedicated to the dimensions User A added to their Local File. There are no equivalent elements in the version of the linked file that User B sees so Revit's only recourse is to delete them ... or ... choose Cancel ... which is actually a better choice. If User B cancels and then Reloads the linked file first that will eliminate the warnings entirely.

The remaining warnings are focused on the newly orphaned door and room tags that can't find their parent elements. If we select one of the orphaned tags we can either use Pick New Host or Reconcile Hosting. The former will need us to pick a door to associate the tag with. The latter will open the Reconcile Hosting browser which shows us everything that has been orphaned so far. We can select individual items and right-click to use Pick Host or Delete the tag if that's a better choice.

Keep in mind, once this orphaned status occurs it sticks. Merely reloading a linked file afterward isn't going to fix it. We'll be forced to deal with Reconciling Hosting. In some situations it might be faster to delete the tags and use Tag All to place them all over again.

This might be an opportunity for an enterprising developer to write a routine that looks at orphaned families and picks the closest possible host? Better still...Autodesk?

My recommendation, if you MUST use tags and dimensions on linked files?

Develop the habit of reloading the necessary linked files BEFORE using SwC or Reload Latest.

If you get the warning messages in the images above, use CANCEL. Make a note of the elements the warning(s) is(are) focused on. Most likely the warnings are being issued because you need to use Reload on the linked files first.

I'd also consider a moratorium on applying tags or dimensions to linked elements while the link is being changed aggressively. For example, if we know that the link is going to undergo some massive redesign we should just agree to stay away from tags and dimensions until it settles down again.

It's also a good idea to let other people know that you have changed an integral linked file so they can all use Reload (link) to catch up together.

Temporary Dimensions and Activate Dimensions

I've written about Temporary Dimensions and the Activate Dimension button in the past (2007-9), these are some posts that discuss them.

Space Bar Subtle Effect on Temporary Dimensions
Dept. of Reviteristics - Activate Dimensions
Activate Dimensions
Activate Dimensions - Redux

Temporary Dimensions don't appear when two or more elements are selected. When that happens you should see the Activate Dimensions button appear on the Options Bar.

Temporary dimensions also don't respond to families that host nested shared families. That's because these families are also regarded by Revit, under the hood, as a selection of two or more elements.

Dimension between Concentric Arcs

Revit is a bit obstinate about applying dimensions at times, like placing dimensions between concentric arcs for example. It's not uncommon to find people adding short Detail Lines and placing dimensions on those instead...to get the look they want. Chris Needham shared a technique at RevitForum earlier today that's elegantly simple...but perhaps not well known either.

Add a Reference Plane that begins at the center of one of the arcs and crosses all of them. You can adjust its extents afterward so it only appears near to the arcs.

You'll find you can use the Aligned Dimension tool to reference each intersection of the arc (walls in the image) and the Reference Plane, like in the previous image. Revit doesn't give really convincing feedback on screen so you have to look closely and trust its working.

When it comes time to print, just use the Print Setup Option Hide Ref/Work Planes. If you're careful it will look like the dimensions are referencing the arcs.

It would be nicer if we could just do this directly instead...but until that day...

Oh, DON'T turn off Reference Planes using Visibility/Graphics in the view. That will also kill the dimensions.

Mr. Anonymous wrote a comment describing how using the witness line grip after placing the dimensions will allow us to associate the dimension with the arcs. Good tip too, so I created a short video describing the process. Ignore the extra dimension segment I created by mistake (I deleted it in the video).

Revit 2016 - IFC Snap Align and Dimensions

We can snap to IFC link elements to create new elements and we can also dimension to elements in the link. We can also Align Revit elements to IFC-based elements as well as Host some face-based families, such as electrical devices. Dimensions will only recognize the faces of linked IFC geometry and not any center lines, reference planes, or other non-geometry elements.

This is a plan view of linked IFC walls and doors along with a few local walls and doors. Rooms were added to the overall plan, using the room bounding setting for the linked IFC file.

If the IFC file changes and it is reloaded into the Revit model, previously established references may not be maintained. We’ll have to make sure they are intact. It is difficult to ensure that changes to IFC geometry will retain relationships between any dimensions that reference it.

Dimension Style Type

That parameter name seems a bit like the Department of Redundancy Department. It lets us choose between three kinds of dimension behaviors: Continuous, Baseline and Ordinate. We are all pretty familiar with Continuous. I've spent time doing mechanical drafting (aka shop drawings) in the past and it wasn't uncommon to use some form of the other two types of dimensions. This is what the three of them look like together.

The Baseline dimension you see in the image is a single element, the entire collection of dimension lines you see. Each dimension line is offset from the others by the Dimension Line Snap Distance parameter's value.

Detailing and Circles

If using a Detail Line and drawing a circle Revit doesn't much care for attaching a dimension to the "side" of it, in this case it is a conduit, when they are sketched that way. We can sketch a short straight line segment and place a dimension that references that instead.

If we create and use Detail Items for 2D versions of real things then we'll find the dimensions more accommodating. The advantage of being a component is it can be re-used, provide a variety of sizes as types and they can be tagged. Lines have never been quite the equal to components in Revit's world. I do think it is a bit silly that the dimensions don't work on a detail line used to create a circle. We can only dimension the diameter, radius or from center to another element.

Where are the Constraining Dimensions

When you edit a family that someone else created you may encounter a situation where the constraints that control it aren't readily visible. Yeah, it could even happen to you with content you created. These are a few things to consider when you start hunting for them.

Inside the Sketch - It is possible to add dimensions and parameters to control solids/voids while editing their sketch. If that's been done you won't see them unless you edit the sketch for that solid/void.

Associate Family Parameter - The little sneaky gray button (that has a tool tip since 2014) allows us to constrain some things without an actual dimension in canvas. We just connect the dots between the parameter of the form with a parameter.

Automatic Sketch Dimensions - These kick in when you start creating parameters and elements without tying them to anything specific. Revit guesses what you have in mind. They'll usually only be visible while you are editing a solid/void. They are definitely off by default in Visibility/Graphics. You'll find them under the Annotation Categories tab. I've written about these in the past.

Choice of View - Sometimes the dimension isn't in a view that we'd expect it to be in. For example the stock door template has the width parameter in an elevation view instead of the plan view. I certainly wouldn't expect to find it there. I try hard to put X/Y oriented dimensions in plan views and Z oriented dimensions in elevations, usually Front but occasionally Right.

Visibility/Graphics - Sometimes dimensions are just turned off in the family's views.

2014 Revit OpEd

Always Unless - Interacting with Dimensions

It is fun to tell someone how to behave with elements and dimensions in a project and then the next day talk about the family editor and contradict that advice.

For example in a project we select an element like a wall and then interact with the dimension value (permanent or temporary) to move it. If we select the dimension first we end up in the Dimension Text dialog instead. Revit thinks we want to override the dimension with text or add a suffix/prefix.

In the family editor however we can select a dimension that has a parameter associated with it and interact with the dimension value directly to change a referenced element's position.

Just remember, It's the same only different or It's always like this except when it isn't.

Trey Suppress Spaces

Okay this is a follow up to redux. Erik pointed out that we can still override the dimension style to ignore the project settings and Suppress Spaces. Here's what a string of dimensions look like with no overrides in play.

Here's what the same string looks like with overridden dimension style and Suppress Spaces on. Notice that the dimensions are tighter (good) and the prefix and suffix are closer too (not a better look though).

This means that we can still get what I though we lost. It seems the Suppress Spaces option is limited to altering the prefix/suffix while the dimension style needs to be overridden to get it.

Since I can put a space in between the prefix and dimension value, same for suffix, I'd prefer that the style could use the more obvious Suppress Spaces option and let the dimension stay connected to project units. I'd be far more likely to use it that way than ever use it to mess with prefix and suffix which I seldom use in conjunction with a real dimension value either, definitely the exception rather than the rule.

Suppress Spaces Revisited

In Revit 2012 (wrote about this earlier) we had the ability to shrink imperial dimension values a bit.

The upper dimension shows what 2012 did when Suppress Spaces was checked. The bottom shows unchecked. In 2013 we lose that. In my earlier post I missed/forgot that Ryan responded explaining what changed. Rats, I don't like the change, I want my old suppress spaces back by golly! This is what we get now (using my best Craig Ferguson accent, "It makes littul sense tah meee").

Revit 2013 - Suppress Spaces in Dimensions

Revit 2013 changes the means to reduce the overall size of the text displayed in a dimension string, particularly noticeable to people using imperial units. It was tied to the project units and you had to alter a dimension style to not use the project units settings in order to use it.

This is the new location for the option, found in the Type Properties for a dimension style.

This means your dimension styles can continue to depend on the Project Units as well as suppress the spaces in dimension values. A subtle but more logical approach I think.

However in testing it appears to be broken... The option for Suppress Spaces exists in the the Project Units dialog. If I turn on the feature it affects dimension styles downstream and the option in the dimension style should then work as an option to remove it but it doesn't do anything. Odd...

Revit 2013 - Diameter Dimension

It might seem surprising to someone unfamiliar with Revit but it has not had a diameter dimension option for twelve years, since the beginning, only a radius (radial). That said, it has never prevented me from getting something done, just inconvenient at times.

In my view, any hole you make (or need to describe) with a drill is better dimensioned with a diameter value, you buy drill bits and core drill sizes based on diameter. More often than not I used text and a leader to "point" at a hole and say what diameter it needed to be. I didn't need a dimension for that.

Now for walls that are curving (or soffits or ceilings etc), those are better laid out with the radius. Give a contractor the diameter and they just have to divide by two anyway. In fabrication I used diameter dimensioning all the time. In construction on site, very seldom...unless selecting a drill bit.

So no diameter dimension for many years, but no more...Now it does!

One place I will be very grateful for the diameter dimension is in the family editor. What was dreadful was defining pipe diameters there without it (or round duct fittings for that matter).

Splitting a Dimension String

The media embargo has been lifted. As the noise regarding the next release of Revit grows I thought I share a feature that's in tune with me enjoying the "little things", refinement. They've added the capability of removing a segment of a dimension without using Edit Witness Lines.

It's pretty simple, though maybe not all that intuitive. You use very Reviteristic concept hover > tab > click to select. You place your cursor over the segment you want to remove (hover), press (don't hold, that's disco tab) the tab key until just that segment highlights, next you click to select it and then finally Delete it. You can choose how you want to delete it, Delete Key, Delete button on the ribbon, right-click > Delete...have fun!

Hover > Tab > Select

Press the Delete key

Here's to the little things.

Almost Five Minutes of Dimensioning

I got a question the other day about adding a dimension between a couple corners at a corridor so we could show how much space exists between them. It wasn't really a design factor as much as, "See there is this much!" So while I was talking through that I thought I'd cover a few other dimension features. I ended up recording a video. It's just under five minutes and I've really only scratched the surface of dimension features and settings. You can watch the full size video at OpEd Videos or You Tube.

Show Your Constraints

In Revit we can apply constraints (padlock and EQ) using dimensions. These dimensions can get deleted and if the person doing the deleting doesn't respond to the warning well...the constraint remains intact without any obvious visible evidence.

Choosing Unconstrain will eliminate the constraint when the dimension is deleted. Unfortunately many users just click OK, leaving the constraint to come back and bite someone later, maybe themselves.

For example, years ago, a friend started modeling a tall building. He locked the distance between a few different floors and then later deleted the string. Eventually he needed to change the floor to floor height and Revit crashed. I took a look at the model. When I used Zoom to Fit in an elevation view I noticed that a little padlock appeared when I selected a Level. Revit tends to display the icon for a constraint at the opposite end of what is being examined, usually off screen unfortunately (less clutter with other icons is my theory). Using Zoom to Fit meant I could see the whole level, and the constraint icon, like in this image at the far left.

Software programmers "comment their code" so that it is easier to figure out what a section of code is intended to do later. It's etiquette, good practice, nice... Half the time it's self serving too. I've returned to some code I wrote months or years later pleased to find my own comment helping me remember why I did "that".

To mimic this notion of "commenting our code", I frequently suggest that if this sort of constraint is really important then consider making a duplicate view called Level 1 - Constraints (or somesuch). Lock and constrain it there. With this special view any/everyone can see the constraints anytime they want and see why they are there because you can add a note saying so.

Assigning a Dimension Oddity

Received a question via email asking why Revit seemed unwilling to assign a Shared Parameter that used the Duct Size type to a dimension string. Here's what the SP properties looked like.

The quirky part assumes that you want to select a dimension string and then associate it with the SP. This is what happens when you do that.

I've recorded a brief video to show the result too.

Alternate Units - Part Two

A few comments responding to yesterday's post made me aware of a couple perspectives I had not given enough fair play in my mind. Thanks for the comments and the attitude adjustment. Just to repeat myself, I'm not opposed to showing alternate units or defending Revit's lack of the concept. I'm all for Autodesk making alternate dimensions a priority for documenting in Revit. Hopefully it will happen sooner than later.

One comment asked about using a dimension style that uses "no lines". I exaggerated, it does use the dimension line but that will overlap the other so it is "invisible". A video will help see how I apply it and these two dialog boxes will show what settings I used. Hope it helps...a little.

Setting the Type Parameters:

Setting the Units (from within Type Parameters):

Here's the VIDEO and the version at You Tube:

As it turns out the person who asked about this wrote a tip at the RevitForum.org that describes roughly the same thing except he eliminates the dragging of dimension values by increasing the Dimension Line Snap Distance parameter so that one dimension is above the other automatically. A nice improvement which assumes that format approach will be acceptable. Hopefully it will be! If not, the way I show in the video shows what you'll have to consider.