No announcement yet.

GA + DC + view scale

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    GA + DC + view scale

    what do you guys normally do to solve this issue?

    like Autodesk default content, i used nested GA for some stuffs like receptacle, exit sign, etc., and used nested DC for other stuffs like lighting fixture, etc.

    but GA will scale up/down on different view scale, do i have to create another set for different scale? if so, what other scales normally use except 1/8"? if not, then using nested DC for all "symbols" seems the only way out, but then you'll have to worry about different orientation due to different host like wall / ceiling / etc.

    in short, what's the best practice for all these "symbols" especially from electrical discipline?

    hmm... by the way... GA = Generic annotation, and DC = Detail component.
    Freelance BIM Provider at Autodesk Services Marketplace | Linkedin


      I have them set up as a detail component. The electrical stuff, sockets, light switches and stuff, the DC's are nested in a 3D family
      Martijn de Riet
      Professional Revit Consultant | Revit API Developer
      MdR Advies
      Planta1 Revit Online Consulting


        Originally posted by mdradvies View Post
        I have them set up as a detail component. The electrical stuff, sockets, light switches and stuff, the DC's are nested in a 3D family
        so basically disregard the way of what some Autodesk default content (like receptacle, etc.) do and use DC for all electrical symbol stuff, right?
        man, i hate to redo my work, does anyone have 2nd opinion?


          Im pushing more to strip both out, and move to Tags that abandon the old graphical tradition of what those things should look like. DC or GA will both have problems when you have things like: Outlets close together, outlets vertically stacked, or whatever. I dont like the DC approach, because you get back to that sloppy look where in different scaled details, the *symbol* for the thing changes. Reminds me of pre-annotative Autocad. "You used the wrong layer!!!" I have the GA approach, since i dont feel like building in manual instance offsets for the dumb symbol.

          Tag All Not Tagged + Manually moving tags = i am happy. Just means it isnt a symbol, but a letter. Works for me. Then i also dont have to deal with shutting off the GA's and DC's when i dont want them.
          Aaron "selfish AND petulant" Maller |P A R A L L A X T E A M | Practice Technology Implementation
          @Web | @Twitter | @LinkedIn | @Email


            tags are great approach, i like it very much! in fact, it's not just a letter, you can embed symbols / lines / texts / fill regions / etc., and labels of course.

            i didn't do any test yet, but the limits i can think of
            1) cannot rotate tag except for doors / etc., but it can be solved by adding rotation parameter within tag family, right?
            2) when adding element into project, you may have to turn on "Tag on placement", otherwise you may not "see" anything as most likely geometry visibility is off except in 3D view, any better ideas?
            3) same as nested GA, tag will scale up/down on different view scale so i still have to create another set for different view scale, isn't it?

            Aaron, besides above mentioned, any issues when you use tag approach even though it may be minor ones? and i assume using multi-category tag is the way to go, right?

            Ning Zhou
            Senior Member
            Last edited by Ning Zhou; August 11, 2011, 06:06 PM.


              I have tags for the specifica categories, but i stay away from symbols/lines/filled regions. An "Electrical fixture tag" can go on any fixture, not just an outlet, and not just a dataport. So there isnt an intelligent way currently, to make it "read" what the family is, then "show" something else. So i just use the Labels, which read from the family itself. It is COMPLETELY manual to keep an "outlet tag" and a "data tag" and have to switch them back and forth. There flat out ISNT an automated way to do it.

              I dont use Tag On Placement, unless im working in a Documentation View. You can always go back and tag later, or use Tag All Not Tagged to tag an entire plan at once.
              Aaron "selfish AND petulant" Maller |P A R A L L A X T E A M | Practice Technology Implementation
              @Web | @Twitter | @LinkedIn | @Email


                I've been patiently plugging (pun intended) tagging over nested annotation for ages... some listen and many don't. Nested isn't terrible for a washer or dryer maybe but for versatile electrical data identification tagging wins in my book.


                  OK, i now understand (?) what Aaron + Steve means for tagging, is it means disregarding "conventional" way to represent electrical stuff say in plan view? see attached RVT, left receptacle is Autodesk OOTB, and right ones are modified (strip off symbol) + tagging + stacked, am i correct?

                  my original question is more "conventional", i have a large building footprint (mainly parking levels) needs to be fit into titleblock so i have to use 1/32" view scale instead of 1/8", see attached JPGs, some elements w/ nested GA looks way too big in 1/32".

                  i know this issue can be solved by depedent views and have 4 sheets instead of just one, but what if they don't like it and still want to see entire building footprint in one sheet? well, normally only one titleblock should be used in project, and Revit cannot scale symbols as easily as AutoCAD (oops!).
                  Attached Files


                    Revit "grew up" being told by professionals that text and symbols should never "change size", from one scale to another. Creating symbols of varying size results in illegible documents when they are reproduced or printed at reduced sizes. There are government agencies in the USA and owners of significant property that insist on specific text size for example so they can still be printed at smaller sheet sizes and be legible. Revit's developers created a system where these things remain the intended size at all times and the only way it isn't is if someone used the wrong text style or created smaller symbols intentionally. Ironic that years later a frequent request is for special reduction of the grid heads in large scale plans and the issue you describe.

                    Personally I'd lobby for using the intended scale to document the information and provide a simplified 1/32" "key plan" so people know which partial plans to refer to for design detail.


                    Related Topics