Smaller Grid Bubbles

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.

Revit MEP Annotation Scale

In the settings dialog for duct, pipe, conduit and cable tray Revit provides a parameter called Use Annot. Scale for Single Line Fittings. There is also a second related parameter called "XXX Fitting Annotation Size" where "XXX" is the element involved. As the parameter names suggest they are related to single line views, where the detail level is either assigned to Coarse or Medium for their category (duct/pipe/conduit/cable tray).

When the first parameter (previous image) is checked Revit will check (turn on) the parameter that each fitting or accessory has, called Use Annotation Scale, each time they are placed in your project.

The purpose of these related settings is to provide a consistent symbol size regardless of view scale (in single line views). This way the symbols don't suddenly become much larger or smaller in different scale views than the symbols we show on our legends. When you see this occur you'll need to double check the settings and the individual parameter values for each affected family.

If the option is off in the Settings dialog then every fitting or accessory you place has its own Use Annotation Scale setting unchecked (off). It's a global on/off switch to enable the feature. You can still interact with each fitting or accessory's own parameter to enable the annotation scaling feature or vice versa. When you change the view's scale you'll find that the annotation symbol graphics will not remain the same printed size.

The following image shows one ball valve accessory that has had its Use Annotation Scale turned off. It's larger than the other fittings and accessories in the view, they adjust their symbol size so they are the same size when the views are printed on a sheet. The lower plan view is using 1/4"=1'-0" scale and the upper one is assigned to 1/8"=1'-0" scale instead.

This image is both views placed on a sheet for comparison.

Each of these MEP element has its own settings; Duct, Pipe, Conduit and Cable Tray. I think the most appropriate setting for each is checked (on). The second parameter XXX Fitting Annotation Size is usually 1/8" ( or 3.0 mm) (stock setting in templates) and that's probably a good starting point. You may find it necessary to adjust it slightly by increasing or decreasing the size to get the ideal symbol graphics.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the single line graphics in these families are defined by Model Lines that are set to be visible in Coarse and Medium Detail Level but to not be visible in Fine Detail Level. This makes it possible to generate the single line diagrams in 3D views too, otherwise there would be nothing to see. It also makes it a bit trickier to get the same graphic size when comparing one fitting or accessory with another.

This is quite different from electrical families by comparison because those primarily use nested annotation symbol families for their symbolic graphics. Those already conform to Revit's annotation behavior of maintaining their printed size. It also explains why, for electrical components, 3D views (and elevations/sections) do not show the plan graphic symbols we are accustomed to seeing.

Scaling Revit Families

Every now and then there seems to be a convergence in the "Revitverse". A series of events, themes and user attitudes and desires emerges. Lately it seems to be the notion of scaling families. Revit has not permitted the arbitrary "make this 2x bigger" unless we could provide all the constraints and parameters that allow that kind of input and result. For example we don't usually ask for a desk or chair to be twice as large. A chair becomes too big to use if so. I believe that this logic prevailed in their choice to be more restrictive about scaling things as arbitrarily as other software allows.

A common thread in scaling lately has been classical architecture and columns. These are defined by ratios and rules to some extent while the sculpting applied to them seems to have much more freedom. Reading other blogs and attending the Revit Technology Conferences and Autodesk University made me plan to write a post that provides some links to the various places that you can find intriguing information on this subject. With the many bloggers focused on Revit it really didnt come as a surprise that somebody beat me to it. That someone is Mark Cronin, who I chatted with in Auckland at RTC. He wrote a summary of resources that you'll find useful, techniques that capitalize on new features as well as one that recalls a longstanding feature that we've all managed to forget about.

Please let me encourage you to read Mark's post for the details since he took the time to compile it in the first place, you really should.

Thanks Mark!

Scale an Image

Responding to a post at RevitForum I created this brief video that shows how I used the Scale tool to change the size of a image file in Revit. The image in the video is based on a sketch that Cyril Verley used in his Revit training curriculum books for several years. I believe it is based on a Richard Meier building.

The video describes:

• Select the image
• Click the Scale tool (I keep calling it Resize, the old name)
• Click the Origin (or first "known" point)
• Click the Second Point (second "known" point)
• Provide the correct dimension for between the known points.
• Et Voila!