No, and "by design" it makes absolute sense. The .dwg is of the sheet ("document") - and since views can (and are more often that not) cropped/re-oriented/prepared for said documentation, how applicable/useful they would be in the "model space" (of a CAD environment) is negliglbe.

True, this is problematic if/when you want to check (documented information contained within) .dwgs against models in something like Navis (something I've yet to find a place for in my workflows) - but producing an export from a view (rather) than sheet, for such coordination purposes is hardly onerous.

My advice to you is to Export and share based on 3D MODEL as much as possible to overcome this and work with AutoCAD. From a 'bim' /3d point of view, it is logical too. You need to take a certain amount of hours into account for fixing and aligning the sheet using AutoCAD. Some wishes for better 2d DWG were submitted ..

You really dont want to bother exporting Sheets, in DWG format. Export the Views, and then export a single blank sheet so your CAD consultants have the Titleblock. Going one step further, i export the Parent Plan Views, for plans that are done as dependent views in my projects. If you have Area 1, Area 2, Area 3, Area 4, dont bother exporting all of them: Just export the Parent.

Reason being: If you have a Floor Plan that has each level broken up in to 4 areas or partial plans, Revit will treat those as completely different plans when exporting to CAD. EVEN if you have the worthless "make the views X refs" box checked, it doesnt use a SINGLE XRef like you would want, in CAD. So- long story short, unless the DWG's are strictly for archival purpose (where Shared coordinates dont matter), everyone will be better off if you just export the views and have the consultants rebuild their own sheets and viewports in CAD.

I wouldnt export the 3D model to DWG for a consultant that is drafting in AutoCAD, unless you want to get screamed at.

Certainly, it makes less sense to export cropped views, in that case better off exporting the "parent" view as says twicerasfolds.

However, the simple fact is that - at least in France- 80% of your consultants still work in CAD, so you are obliged to share your information in this medium. Sometimes it's even contractually. SO, to me this is an absolute scandal that technically you can't export plan views without shared coordinates - it's fatally flawed ! I mean at least AUTODESK could give you a choice !!! What kind of a product are you paying for - so to speak the interoperability between Cad and Revit (part of the Autodesk Design Suite) could be advanced.

The information of title blocks shoudln't be underestimated, once you get into legal arguments what plan was sent to whom and when.

My method so far was to export both, views and sheets, and copy the titleblock/ presentation via design centre in CAD. But, frankly speaking life is too short for this.

maybe script in cad could help to automate this tedious task...

We hear you - but Autodesk aren't obliged to address each and every nuance of every single take on a workflow - they have developed a platform to address what they believe is needed - and caveat emptor reigns supreme here - so instead of bashing the maker of the tool, consider maybe you bought the wrong one? But perhaps you like the other 95% of what said tool (Revit) does for you? What's your option then? If you've contractual conditions to meet, then yes, you are contractually obligated to comply - but that's not license to complain about the tool you elected to use (for whatever reason) because it can't meet said contractual requirement - as you made the choice to use the tool.


Now, in the (forum) spirit of helping, (rather than victim-blaming, not that there are any victims here, save perhaps Autodesk for getting bashed for a decision they elected to make in the development of their tool) let's consider what you could do, if Aaron's suggestion doesn't appeal...


You could do something (a bit) like my Bentley Powerdraft-using colleagues do (in their .dgn work); and make detail (or generic annotation) families of "titleblocks" that, scaled to "real world" (1:1 model) size, you could "frame/crop" areas of your entire model when placing on your (plan) views, doing away with (plan) sheets entirely (and all their other useful functionality), then export to .dwg using shared coordinates till the cows come home.

Sensible? No. In keeping with what Revit was designed to do? Most certainly not. Hacky? So very very much. But it'd get you your plan+titleblock out to .dwg as you want it (to shared coordinates) - and keep your contract-checking nit-pickers happy.

But there's no way you'd ever catch me doing anything of the sort - and to clearly state, I am not championing the use of such a method - but it's a "method" (hack) all the same - so I'm just putting it out there for you to consider.



What I don't really follow (about this whole thread) is that you say you have already found a solution for "fixing" things in CAD (that you've thought kindly not to share with us) - knowing full well that Revit isn't setup to work how you want - so you are still perfectly capable of meeting your contract requirements, and sometimes we all have to do a little hoop-jumping to meet as much, so whilst I understand you wanting to ask if there is an alternative, I do not understand, on learning that there (presently) isn't, you take shots at those who created a tool you chose to use. Very strange.

There have been attempt to get better DWG formats according to country standards. However, this Austrian (German) addon was only available on 2015 version and has not been continued. There were some things that could be done better but the idea was something I liked (.. To been seeing see 'out of the box'). But Autodesk didn't see added value in it to have better tooling for DWG out, I guess. I agree with, that is kind of scandal coming from a company that was based on DWG development..

Well they are still developing AutoCAD. I'd rather they focus their attention on newer formats like IFC (as with the 'other' thread). I stand by my point; Choose your weapon wisely.

O really? I think mostly selling it (/renting it). THe list of new things isn't quite long you know. I see developments but they are not from Frisco.

Some discipline just have to work with more than one piece of software and it is ESSENTIAL that software can work together. IFC doesn't offer anything for drawing management. DWG does. 'Compatible' should mean something, not some half baked tools that do evel to the other side. I haven't whitnessed much friendship working and having experience on both sides. Nothing personlly snowy, its autodesk where this starts and ends.

thanks for all theses interesting and helpful replies.

the workaround I ve found in CAD, I have already shared: My method so far was to export both, views and sheets, and copy the titleblock/ presentation via design centre in CAD - back into the dwg file exported from the view having shared coordinates. It works, it means spending some time with the exports. So the idea of this thread was to have a) a confirmation that it is not possible to export sheets with shared coordinates and b) get some feedback to possible ways around it.

We thought about the method your "Bentley" colleagues developed, but as you say seems quite hacky.

I am a great fan of Revit, but I am surprised that this has not been improoved.

Regards