Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: dimensioning to linked elements

  1.    #1
    Member lost again again's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 10, 2011
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    349
    Current Local Time
    09:23 PM

    dimensioning to linked elements

    I'm unsuccessfully trying to dimension to a linked file's wall core. I found the following thread in which the argument is made that linking files is discouraged partly because dimensions to linked elements disappear.

    https://www.revitforum.org/architect...enterline.html

    My situation is much simpler than above thread: I linked two simple buildings and a site file together, because both buildings could possible move on the site. I'm creating sheets in the main building. I would prefer all building and site information for the project were in one file, but I'm not sure that trying to move and possibly rotate an entire building in a file is practical. Is that still the best process given the inability to consistently dimension to linked elements?

  2.    #2
    Moderator snowyweston's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 21, 2010
    Location
    C.LONDON
    Posts
    3,863
    Current Local Time
    05:23 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by lost again again View Post
    I found the following thread
    I missed that thread completely.

    But having just read through it, wished that I'd chimed in - not that it would have been, like this won't be, anything new as a counter.

    I/we use links on every project:
    0. Sheets (for yep, "master" documentation, as unloved as it is )
    1. Datums (to establish, articulate and communicate baseline metrics like grids and levels)
    2. Context (for importing often dirty foreign geometry of vast, densely populated, local surroundings)
    3. Landscape (for hard/softscaping, planting, parking (where external), site fixtures and furnishings, etc)
    4. Exterior (envelope elements only)
    5. Interior (interior elements only)
    + consultants of many colours

    We only ever dimension to our own content in our own links, never to another's.

    I might see one "dimensions will be delete" so-called-error-but-more-a-warning a week when perusing multiple projects' sheets models. I/we simply do not experience the dimension fallout many report.

    (As for other reservations relating to the use of links made by some, lets leave them for that other thread, it's new enough to revisit.)

    With regards your query, as I understand it you have:
    0. Site file
    1. Simple building (considered the "Main"?)
    2. Simple building
    ...and you're documenting in (1) so far yes?


    With "my" approach I'd be documenting in a "sheets" model, or given your models to work with, probably elect for the more static "site" file... but perhaps the buildings deserve their own documentation? Are they fundamentally distinct or essentially "blocks" (semantics I know) that share commonalities? Are their documentations sets shared/aligned? Does your work extend to designing/delivering and/or producing documentation for interfaces like landscape/civil/etc?

    I like the choice to split distinct buildings at a file level for the ease of relocating/rotating on a large site - not that I get to exercise the technique these days. To be fair, I think the last time I did was circa 2012 - and we documented per building/model back then - and it all came together nicely.

    The risk I'm reading in your method is that you plan to document building (2) from the views and sheets setup in the building (1) model? If yes, a rotation will certainly throw building-to-building dimensions wobbly, but, and with caveat as unconfirmed dimensions element-to-element within either building (once rotated) should remain sound.

    Have you dared a test? There is always CTRL Z.

  3.    #3
    Member lost again again's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 10, 2011
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    349
    Current Local Time
    09:23 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by snowyweston View Post
    With regards your query, as I understand it you have:
    0. Site file
    1. Simple building (considered the "Main"?)
    2. Simple building
    ...and you're documenting in (1) so far yes?


    With "my" approach I'd be documenting in a "sheets" model, or given your models to work with, probably elect for the more static "site" file... but perhaps the buildings deserve their own documentation? Are they fundamentally distinct or essentially "blocks" (semantics I know) that share commonalities? Are their documentations sets shared/aligned? Does your work extend to designing/delivering and/or producing documentation for interfaces like landscape/civil/etc?

    I like the choice to split distinct buildings at a file level for the ease of relocating/rotating on a large site - not that I get to exercise the technique these days. To be fair, I think the last time I did was circa 2012 - and we documented per building/model back then - and it all came together nicely.

    The risk I'm reading in your method is that you plan to document building (2) from the views and sheets setup in the building (1) model? If yes, a rotation will certainly throw building-to-building dimensions wobbly, but, and with caveat as unconfirmed dimensions element-to-element within either building (once rotated) should remain sound.

    Have you dared a test? There is always CTRL Z.
    Snowy - you understand my situation: site file plus two building files. Creating sheets in main building file. Creating only the architectural sheets and probably will not send files to anyone else. The buildings may move or rotate, but I've got to get something on paper before that is decided, so links is the correct layout.

    The second building (a workshop) is described on one sheet in the main building file's documentation. I don't mind if a dimension is deleted when something rotates between those things being dimensioned. From that thread and my own experience, I'm concerned about other dimensions disappearing. But mostly, I just want to try dimensioning building 2 in building 1 and Revit won't select the face of core.

    Separate issue: I'm also finding I can't align an elevation with the linked, rotated walls.

  4.    #4
    Moderator snowyweston's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 21, 2010
    Location
    C.LONDON
    Posts
    3,863
    Current Local Time
    05:23 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by lost again again View Post
    But mostly, I just want to try dimensioning building 2 in building 1 and Revit won't select the face of core.

    Separate issue: I'm also finding I can't align an elevation with the linked, rotated walls.
    Yeah, missed the bit about the core. That's not something I've encountered, we dimension off-grid to wall centres all the time. Or do you mean dimensioning to a particular edge of a compound wall type's "core"?


    ...and elevations don't place "room-size-aware" either, I guess these are the trade-offs others pick up as reasons to avoid linked working. But then pick-placing a dummy wall before, and deleting after, making an elevation is hardly going to break the balance sheet.

  5.    #5
    Member lost again again's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 10, 2011
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    349
    Current Local Time
    09:23 PM
    Yes, I want to dimension to the face of core (face of wood stud in this case.) Tabbing while placing the dimension never selects face of core. Dimensioning to whatever point revit allows then clicking the blue dot on the extension line doesn't act the same as with a non-linked wall: nothing happens. Dragging that blue dot does not recognize face of core being selectable either. Any other tricks to fool Revit into dimensioning to the core?

    Dummy walls sounds like a quick workaround for placing the elevation markers - thanks for that tip.

  6.    #6
    Forum Addict elton williams's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    2,063
    Current Local Time
    03:23 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by lost again again View Post
    Yes, I want to dimension to the face of core (face of wood stud in this case.) Tabbing while placing the dimension never selects face of core. Dimensioning to whatever point revit allows then clicking the blue dot on the extension line doesn't act the same as with a non-linked wall: nothing happens. Dragging that blue dot does not recognize face of core being selectable either. Any other tricks to fool Revit into dimensioning to the core?

    Dummy walls sounds like a quick workaround for placing the elevation markers - thanks for that tip.
    Not being able to dimension the core face of a linked wall is a known bug and has been discussed a few times here.

  7.    #7
    Member lost again again's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 10, 2011
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    349
    Current Local Time
    09:23 PM
    Elton - thank you for pointing that out. I googled but did not find this mentioned specifically. Do you know of a workaround? Searches here for "core face link" or "dimension link" results in no obvious relevant threads.

  8.    #8
    Forum Addict elton williams's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    2,063
    Current Local Time
    03:23 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by lost again again View Post
    Elton - thank you for pointing that out. I googled but did not find this mentioned specifically. Do you know of a workaround? Searches here for "core face link" or "dimension link" results in no obvious relevant threads.
    I place some reference planes and dimension to those. Depending on how many linked walls you want to dimension YMMV. If you have too many you might want to consider placing the dimensions inside the linked model.

  9.    #9
    Member lost again again's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 10, 2011
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    349
    Current Local Time
    09:23 PM
    Exactly my guesses, but I don't used links much (refplanes) haven't used linked annotation much ever (dimensions in link) so thanks for the confirmation.

Similar Threads

  1. Copying elements in linked model
    By rushmore in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 23rd, 2017, 04:56 PM
  2. Dimensioning Linked Revit File
    By jambalaya3 in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 13th, 2016, 05:43 PM
  3. Hosting elements in linked models
    By Cyus in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 28th, 2014, 07:47 AM
  4. Missing elements in linked file RVT
    By tomek64 in forum MEP - General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 15th, 2014, 08:01 PM
  5. Two Part Question: filtering linked elements & linked model appearance
    By chompi0n in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 16th, 2014, 01:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •