Remember Linked Files Have Two Workset Parameters

I find this overlooked regularly. Each link has an Instance AND Type parameter called Workset. If we select a link (RVT) in the Project Browser we can see the Type parameter for workset, even if the link isn't loaded.

If we right-click and choose Select All Instances > In Entire Project we can see the Instance parameter value, unless there is more than one instance (copies of the link).

The best way to ensure that both parameter values are assigned to the same workset is to make sure the Active Workset is set correctly first, before we link the file. If not then we have to check both values.

Why are there two parameters?

The Type parameter governs the existence of the link in the database while the Instance parameter governs the actual instance you can see in the model views. The linked file can be copied, for example House Design A can be copied so we can show that it will be located on several lots within a development, each likely oriented differently.

The instance parameter allows us to assign each copy to a unique workset while the Type parameter affects all of the copies. That means closing the workset assigned to the Type parameter will close all of the copies of the link, none of them will be visible.

If we close the workset assigned to just one copy then only that linked file won't be visible.

If we experience erratic issues with linked file visibility it is the first thing I check. I'm also in the habit of looking at all the linked files every time I get introduced to project. This also applies to other linked files (CAD,Point Cloud).

Section Line Annotation Alignment

No, not the 2019.1 feature that allows us to use the Align tool on sections...

If you find yourself wondering why you don't the get the telltale dashed lines to help you line up section heads or tails check Visibility/Graphics for the view and make sure Lines are checked (visible). If the category is turned off, so too are they. These...

Check this...

Cannot Publish Coordinates

I've run into this with a couple clients recently, this warning message appears:

Quirky work-around warning...

• Building Model: Make sure you have a Local File for it (I save to my own PC)
• Site Model: Change the saved path to the Building's Central File to your own Local File instead
• Site Model: Publish Coordinates
• Site Model: SwC (should succeed and get a prompt to Save changes to the linked file)
• Site Model: Close
• Building Model: Open your existing Local File SwC (passes shared coordinate data to central)
• Building Model: Close
• Site Model: Reset the path for the Building to the central location

Any future Publish Coordinates, if necessary, should work after that.

The error message is tied to linked files (DWG) that are actively changing. Revit would notice those links were different than the version it had a record of during a SwC, even though it does not reload links during a SwC. I imagine it takes note of the file date or something high level that defines the DWG in the database. The solution then was to reload those links before using SwC.

I have found since that it has been possible to avoid the warning if any linked DWG files are unloaded prior to using Publish Coordinates. In at least one situation we had to go through the steps above even when there were no DWG's linked/imported. Autodesk documentation says in some cases it can be associated with file corruption.

Quirky...     

App Thoughts - Project Info Workset

Lately I find the Project Info workset is borrowed by someone inadvertently (okay me). As such, I wishfully imagine I could mash a button and find out if I've got that workset borrowed based on selecting a project folder and it checking each of the project files it finds. Being able to browse through projects on Revit Server would be boss too. If it could relinquish any instances if finds for me that would be really boss.

I guess I'll have to wander off to the Dynamo salt mines to see if any of it's possible.

As for why this happens...in my case it is related to Publish Coordinates. That's the only operation Revit permits us to alter a linked file; alter and save changes to a file we don't have open in the active session.

At the moment I think it happens when the process fails to complete properly. However it has happened too on occasion when I was convinced it worked. I have some reservations about Revit Server too. I've noticed a higher proportion of projects not being able to use Publish Coordinates when the files are available via Revit Server. Which reminds me I've got a post in drafts about resolving a Can't Publish Coordinates situation...brb.

Casting numerous aspersions with only clues to base them on...not very scientifical of me eh?

Project Units Matter - Specify Coordinates at Point

When we use the Specify Coordinates at Point (SPaC) it is possible that the units in use will affect your results. For example, this project is using Feet and Fractional Inches (FaFI) but for SPaC to match the available survey info it was changed to Decimal Inches (DI) with six decimal places. After using SPaC the units were returned to FaFI.

Some time later the elevation needed to be changed thus causing us to revisit using SPaC. The following image shows the original values used for SPaC.

Leaving the Project Units assigned to FaFI resulted is this subtle change to the coordinate values.

When the units were revised to match the earlier DI settings the SPaC coordinates are not altered.

Shorter story, be careful with your unit settings when using SPaC.

Move to Room - Element ID - Review Warnings

If we use Review Warnings often enough, and we should be, we'll run into this warning eventually.

Check the item and Click Show to have Revit try to find a view to show it in. Once it is selected we can either drag the Tag where it is suppose to go or Click the Show Related Warnings button on the ribbon to show the dedicated warning it has again.

When this warning is isolated like this the dialog includes the Move to Room button. An aside, is it amusing or worrisome that Revit seems to think the best way to fix warnings is to delete the offending element (via Delete Checked)? Regardless, Move to Room will resolve the issue whether we can see where the tag is meant to be or not.

Another way to tackle it from the Review Warnings dialog is to make a note of the Element ID referenced in the warning. Now we can then use the Select by ID tool. Enter the ID value and click OK.

This will select the tag, even if we're not in a view that it can be seen in, and then we can use the Show Related Warnings button on the ribbon again followed by the Move to Room button.

What's New in Revit 2019

It's a teaser blog title. I have no idea what is in Revit 2019, or rather until I read THIS POST.

I'm looking forward to exploring the new features myself once I actually have time to download it.

As for not knowing what was coming like in the past. My access to their review program was screwed up last spring/summer and I haven't been able to log into the site ever since. I had someone looking in to it but their tech support efforts...well suffice it to write I haven't been able to log in. Bummer...

I hope you, dear reader, enjoy the new features in Revit 2019. I, like many of you, will get to experience them with fresh eyes!

Oh, Revit 2018.3 was released the other day too so look out for that update. As always, go slow with installation and rolling it out...make sure your existing projects are in a position to tolerate the potential for some issues before upgrading any projects. I wish you pleasant upgrades.

Double oh, a little birdie told me Paul Aubin and Bill Debevc (okay Bill told me) are going to do a podcast on the new features. Also Paul has a Lynda video on the new features.

Copy Monitor - A Different Way?

Morning musing...

It's my observation that there is a prevailing mostly ambivalent attitude toward the Copy/Monitor (C/M) features. I've said before that I think the order of the tabs in the Options dialog are based on the likelihood that we'll use them. Specifically they are listed left to right: Levels, Grids, Columns, Walls and Floors.

C/M isn't hard to use but once it is in play we've got some new rules and warnings to contend with. The process depends on us identifying the elements we want to live in the C/M system. I understand the logic of that choice. Revit asks us to tell it what is important enough to us to engage the system.

Perhaps we need a completely different way to attack the problem? One that doesn't require the advance work. One that is more a reaction to work as it is created and shared, that merely exists.

I wonder if it would be more betterer if we could run a Level or Grid check as a process. The application would compare elements and compile a report, observations and differences. It could be something we read afterward or presented in a dialog for immediate action.

For example, it could just start with: "Hey Steve, there are 27 grids in your model and 30 in theirs. You should look at them." Take it slightly deeper, "Hey Steve, there are three grids that share the same name but are not in the same location."

Does it matter that they used to be in the same location and they aren't now? The application would have to start storing records for past results to do that but it could be useful to determine when or how things got off track. The rules or conditions that are interesting need to be defined.

This sort of element review and comparison doesn't have to be limited to the five that Copy/Monitor were designed for originally (overlooking the MEP elements that have been added in some fashion). It still requires two or more elements though; mine, yours and theirs. The redundancy is annoying but it does provide us with flexibility within our own models.

I imagine much of what I'm describing (and more) is possible via the API and Dynamo. It just needs someone to decide it is an interesting enough thing to do.

Five Minutes with Shape Editing a Bay Roof

I posted this screencast in response to a thread at the Autodesk Forums. Figured I might as well share it here too. I used shape editing to create the bay roof condition shown in this image.

It's based on an image of a DWG roof plan that was shared in the original post in the discussion. The sketches of the main and bay roofs look like the following image. It also shows the sketched Split Line elements I added to make raising the bay ridge up easy.

Here's the screencast I created to post at the forums.


FWIW, I made the main roof partially transparent so I could see the walls more easily. In the video I commented about using the Two Cut Plumb setting with a 12" value. The Shape Editing disables that for the bay roof but it did start out with that setting in play so it all worked out as I intended even though I was confused about it at the time.

Sketching Tangent Lines

A post based on my responses at the Autodesk Forum: Tangent Circle to Tangent Circle.

It could be easier...

I see Revit behaving this way, they regard the first point as ineligible to being tangent because it depends on the bearing of the line, With that assumption or bias, the first point is necessary to make a tangent condition possible. I can easily snap to a location on the circle (a pulley for example) that couldn't be tangent to the next pulley.

AutoCAD deals with this in a clever fashion (when we invoke the tangent snap) by fixing (changing) the first point to be tangent after the second point is placed. If we aren't careful with our second pick point (snap tangent too) the tangent line might end up on the opposite side of the pulley.

In contrast, Revit handles it naively, because it regards our first point as ineligible to tangents because it isn't considering this particular end result: "I want to draw a line tangent to two circles". AutoCAD appears to know this by virtue of snapping tangent for the first point so it can adjust the final bearing, and attachment to the circle, of the line.

To get around this naiveté, I place the first point on the pulley where it looks like it can be tangent, to my eye. The second point snaps to tangent with the icon. I return to the first point and grip/drag it away and back to let the snap icon appear, to fix it for tangent, just to see if I was close. If my guess wasn't accurate, it is now.

After reading a reply to my comments I did a quick sketch in AutoCAD and then did the same sketch in Revit using the same pulley sizes and offset from one another (see Footnote). The tangent lines have the same x/y properties for start and end as the AutoCAD version, that I made using its snap tangent.

This is the native DWG sketch and properties screen captures for each element.

This is same information but for the Revit drafting view exported to DWG. When I create an External Reference of the exported Revit drafting view it lands right on top of the native sketch. If you look really closely you'll see a value is slightly different in the Revit version. I think that might be my fault, sketching. Regardless, I think close enough is fair.

Footnote: Regarding a drafting view aligning with a DWG file after export: It might not be obvious but drafting views have an origin. To test that claim link a DWG, that has a marker at the WCS origin, into one and you'll see where the origin is. I did that before I did any sketching so I'd know how to place the pulleys in the same place. That made it possible to compare the tangent lines after exporting it to DWG.

Also the Start and End X/Y values are reversed. That's either just how Revit interprets the vector of each line segment or it's because of the direction I chose to sketch them in Revit. In AutoCAD I started at the smaller pulley. I didn't make sure to sketch in the same way in Revit, sloppy scientist.

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.

How Often to Synchronize with Central - SwC

Grist from a recent support conversation..."How often should we use Synchronize with Central (SwC)? We have some users doing it every minute."

Well....every minute seems a bit much...but...

The number of people actively working on a file affects the truth of the statement too. Every 30 minutes, for example, is too infrequent in my opinion. My own habit is to SwC as often as I complete any given task. I tend to take small bites, tasks that are 1-10 minutes, and SwC as soon as they are done.

More frequent SwC is less data transmission than every 30 minutes, potentially. Replacing or reloading a title block for 1,000 sheets is not a small task and probably ought to be done at lunch, advising people to create new local files afterward. Otherwise each sync will need to needlessly update each local file's copy of the sheet's title block too, for everyone. If that is done while they are all away they just inherit the new version of the project with their new local file.

It's all relative though because the transaction comparison between syncing that kind of change and closing a model and opening it later is subtle. In fact opening a file again might be slower, but reasonable, depending on how many people are involved. It can be justified though, especially if they are out of the project anyway such as out for lunch or after hours etc.

I think it is more important to be aware of other users also using SwC, than imposing a specific time requirement. When more than one person uses SwC at the same time Revit has to parse those changes and it does so, more or less, in a single threaded manner, not like a multi-thread OS (though they are improving that all the time) doing simultaneous tasks. It has to reconcile changes and move to others once it is satisfied it can finish successfully. The more people forcing Revit to do that at the same time the slower it gets for everyone. That's where the advice to schedule or increase the time between SwC came from. One client decided to build their own tool so users can see if someone is syncing. A button on their Quick Access Toolbar parked next to the SwC button is red when someone is syncing and green when nobody is. Green means go for it.

Any sort of "Every 30 minutes" rule is often an over simplification, a rule meant to be easy to implement. In practice it can be just as harmful as helpful. If I slip and go 60 minutes or longer then that starts to slow down SwC times for everyone else too. Pushing and pulling data through a pipe takes time, smaller chunks of data generally take less time and less time to reconcile with the model too.

I'd focus on developing awareness of other users syncing as the priority and it's increasingly important the more users that are working on the same project file.

Revit Coordinate Systems Video

A lengthy exchange at Autodesk's User Forums about this subject reminded me that I've meant to create a short video to describe how they relate to each other for quite awhile. This morning I saw our cutting boards drying next to the sink and realized they could serve as metaphorical coordinate system planes (Project and Survey) work in Revit. I am curious if readers find it helpful.



The original post at the forum dealt with a few projects that had been modelled very far from Revit's Internal Origin/Startup Location. I looked at one of the project files and found the Survey Point and Project Base Point had been moved very far away while unclipped. The modelling started there, really far far away. They started to experience some of the negative symptoms that can occur and started looking for solutions...thus the original post. The short answer is they needed to move their model closer to the origin. No other way around it.

Consulting Work - December and January Schedule

I've been very fortunate over the years to find project delays, postponement or cancellations easy to deal with. This year each of those things have happened at the same time. As such I'm putting it out there that, to use the phrase from the very British TV show "Are You Being Served?", "Mr. Stafford are you free? Why yes I'm Free!"

I'd be pleased to hear about training, implementation, modelling ...anything Revity...that I can help with! Just send me an EMAIL.

Thanks for reading!

P.S. Really hoping this isn't indicative of a cycle returning...

Link DWG and Named UCS

Working through a couple support issues recently it turned out that the presence of a Named UCS prevented us from linking a DWG using By Shared Coordinates. Revit would force the DWG to link using Center to Center instead. We tried all the things to resolve it first until we remembered to check this too.

This has been a part of Revit for a long time, the "REVIT60" in the name is the Revit version when it first appeared, Revit 6.0. When we use Publish Coordinates on a DWG file Revit creates this UCS so it can be used from within AutoCAD to ensure any external references that need to align with it will do so. We can delete the Named UCS in AutoCAD by right-clicking on the name.

We have more than one site related DWG for each project to align within Revit. We used Acquire Coordinates on our benchmark file. When all the related DWG files share the same WCS origin we can tell Revit to use By Shared Coordinates when linking them.

An obtuse but factually correct message appears telling us the files don't share coordinates.

Aligning the file based on its WCS is precisely what we want so each of the files align in Revit, possible, again, because we used Acquire Coordinates on the benchmark file first. That aligned the Shared Coordinates with it so the other files could stack on top of each other properly when we linked them.

There are many subtle things that can affect the linking process with DWG files, add this to the pile.

Mr. Revit OpEd at The Whiskey a Go Go

This provides ample distraction from writing as much as I used to. I can hit ALL the THINGS!!

Yes, I've been earnestly playing the drums again. When I moved to California the three piece band (Angry Neighbors) I had been part of for roughly ten years found themselves without a drummer. They've kept themselves busy since, most recently as part of a group they call Harmonic Dirt.

For many years steady travel for work made it impractical for me to be part of a band here. I haven't needed to travel nearly as much for the last couple of years and I realized I could make it work. So far so good.

Last May I joined a band called Parker Street Gypsies. It is led by and features songs written by Michelle Kasajian (vocals/guitar). Armando "Mondo" Lopez (guitar/vocals) contributes songs as well. Add in Charlie Peck (bass guitar) and yours truly to provide the foundation and we make four. We've been rehearsing regularly working toward playing in front of people more often. Our first time out was at the O.C. County Fair.

Our next gig is THIS Saturday, December 2nd at The Whiskey a Go Go.

We open for The Baby's, a favorite 70's band of mine (and many others)!! I'm looking forward to seeing and hearing them as well hoping to meet their drummer Tony Brock. His playing was/is a strong influence on my own approach to the drums. I think my favorite album is Union Jacks but I tend to waffle on favorite anything.

Believe it or not, there are FIVE bands leading up to The Baby's performance Saturday night; they are: Parker Street Gypsies (us), Alinea, Nation of Salvation, Union of Saints, and Kirk Randall & the Back Beat. We play last but just before The Baby's set.

Despite what you may read or hear live music is still out there waiting for you to experience/enjoy. Musicians are still struggling, as ever, to satisfy their muse and play for you/us, no matter how much the business has changed.

If you are in the LA area and looking for something to do on Saturday night we'd love to have your support. The Whiskey is an all-ages club, as well as being a famous venue for music historically.

We love to rock!

P.S. At the recent Autodesk University several of us musician types got together one evening after the primary events had wrapped up. We played some tunes at a local rental studio, some were planned in advance and many others weren't. Some turned out pretty well and others...well it was fun to play...

The AU Band consisted of: Robert Green (guitar,vocals), Guillermo Melantoni-Cortabarria (bass guitar, vocals), Steven Shell (guitar,vocals), Shaun Bryant (vocals), Kate Morrical (vocals), Jim Balding (Cowbell-aka Whiskey bottle) and Kelly Cone (vocals)..oh and me. This is a nice shot of Jim Balding helping Steven Shell play guitar or vice versa.

We didn't have a cowbell so JB made do with a Four Roses whiskey bottle that somebody conveniently emptied so it could be used. This was my second year playing with them, good fun!

Phases are Deleted - Electrical Issue - Cancel placing a wire

A client shared this issue with me a couple of weeks ago and Autodesk has acknowledged it as a bug. If you've already installed 2018.1 it has been patched, so the scary bit that follows has been dealt with.

The issue: Place the first node of a wire and then cancel (press ESC key for example) before placing the second node. Afterward, people find that their project's Phases are no longer available. In other words, the phases are not listed in the Phasing dialog box nor in the Phase parameter for elements, when examining the Properties palette. Also, the buttons that allow us to create new phases are disabled in the Phases dialog.

Bad bug! Fixed in version 2018.1.

Fixture Units don't Update

I read a post at RFO that said the value for Fixture Units added up along a pipe run were correct at the pipe (in properties) but that tags attached to those pipes did not report a matching value. My first thought was that the system's Calculations parameter was assigned to something other than Flow. So I mocked up a quick test (using version 18.1.1.18 - 20170907_2315(x64) - 2018.1.1). Three families, two with the same Fixture Units assigned and one rogue.

I changed the middle fixture to be the same as the outer two and the pipe properties responded, the tag didn't (2nd from left). I took a look at the Calculations parameter for the Sanitary Piping System. This is using a stock Imperial Plumbing template. It's already set to Flow.

I switched it to None, clicked Apply, and the tags responded with this (Performance does the same).

I changed it back to Flow, clicked Apply, and the tags responded again but now they report the correct values.

I thought that there might have been a subtle change within the Mechanical and/or Piping settings that I missed when Revit 2018 arrived. I don't think there is though.

If you're counting on Fixture Units being added up and reported correctly in tags, you'll need to keep an eye on this. I've been able to wake up the tags by toggling between Calculation Settings for the Pipe System.

Added: Temporarily adding a pipe or altering the connected pipes also cause the tags to wake up. Also, just to make things stranger, changing the fixtures again I find the information displayed in properties of the pipe does not respond either, nor does a schedule of Pipes. However, if I have a Piping Systems schedule that does update as changes to fixtures are made.

New Book - Delivering COBie Using Autodesk Revit

A team of authors led by Bill East (COBie inventor) has finished a book dedicated to COBie and Revit. His team consists of: Shawn O'Keeffe, Richard Kenna and Emma Hooper.

Bill writes:

"This is the first comprehensive COBie How-To Guide! We explain the implications of COBie requirements on your professional standard-of-care. Next, we describe the architectural and engineering design best-practices we adopted to help us capture COBie as part of our standard design process. We show you how to unlock the power of the Revit COBie Extension and Classification Manager Add-Ins to automate COBie file production details. And we show you how to share your new found knowledge with your team, company, and stakeholders."

David Philp, Global BIM Director, AECOM reviewed the book and had this to say:

"This book offers a comprehensive and real-world insight to the COBie value proposition but most importantly it demonstrates HOW this can be practically achieved. This book is an essential read for anyone that is interested in effectively capturing and using project information. If you want to better understand how to deliver COBie from a Revit environment then this book is a must.”

David Light, Autodesk Senior Customer Success Manager also reviewed the book and said this:

"Finally, the AEC industry and the Revit user has an unparalleled guide for helping you understand, as well as deliver COBie from Autodesk Revit!

Delivering COBie should not be scary, as noted, the guidance provided in “Delivering COBie Using Autodesk Revit'” is designed to help AEC industry deliver COBie on any building, as easily as possible.

East and the authoring team provide a detailed history of COBie, so you understand the background of why COBie? It helps demystify some urban myths around COBie, allowing you to better understand the value of this industry standard digital exchange format. The book runs through best practice tips for model development, model configuration and data preparation for Autodesk Revit.

The guide leads the user onto the configuration of the free Classification Manager and the COBie Extension. Lastly, 'Delivering COBie Using Autodesk Revit' teaches the reader how to apply various concepts on a Dormitory Project example, through shared best practice from recognized industry experts, explaining how to prepare the Revit model for repeatable COBie deliverables."

The authors of “Delivering COBie Using Autodesk Revit,” Dr. Bill East, Dr. Shawn O’Keeffe, Richard Kenna, and Emma Hooper look forward to showing you how to make COBie an integral part of the standard design process for yourself and your team, company, and stakeholders. The pre-release spiral-bound “workbook edition” is now available for individual Revit users. The version for purchase by libraries, institutes, and companies available 15-Sep-17.

You can Order your Copy HERE.

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!