Related Posts with Thumbnails

« Bill Buxton on the parallels between architecture and software design | Main | Feature Stories continued | Elevation Tags »

July 16, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Thanks for posting this; I like the inside story of the steps along the way to a solution.

I too, would like the internal symbol line to remain horizontal. And I'll add one more thing that still needs to be done: there must be a way to have one drawing number for multiple elevations within a symbol. This convention is so old and embedded in our ways of thinking (not to mention codified in the National CAD Standard) that we NEED to be able to do this. It also helps with graphical conciseness; reductions in graphic density typically increase clarity, always a worthy goal.

Here's one idea for how this could work: When placing an interior elevation tag, only one view should be created. This view would really be a view container, much like a sheet except that it can itsef be placed on sheets. The container would then include any walls in the room the symbol is placed in, as specified by the existing show/hide arrows checkboxes. Since the container acts like a sheet, the individual elevations could be moved with respect to each other simply by operating on their crop boundaries. Imagine how much simpler the project browser would be!

Interesting proposal Joel. The key to cracking these is to find some existing technology that can be leveraged without feeling forced or unusable. I'll take a look into this. It is a separate issue from the ability to customize the tag and so it was treated as such to keep things from getting bogged down but it clear the need is still present.

Thanks for posting. I like the whole story and the solution to it. the convention is also too old that will each can understand well.

Amazing post.

Erik -

I understand that there are challenges, but I think it's an endpoint that just everyone wants. The rest of the world will not change simply because it's difficult for Autodesk to implement, and the standard is the standard. We have clients that require adherence to the NCS, so then how do we meet that obligation with Revit? Answer: lots of Autocad skullduggery, and a total waste of time (profit).

The idea I posited was an attempt at a viable solution, but I don't know anything about the internals so can only guess. I am also wary of creating yet another corner case.

completely understand.  It came up in 2011.  The new feature was released without this requirement in the interest of keeping things moving forward but it is something left to do.

Thanks, Erik. I think we can all relate to endless task lists. The more one accomplishes, the more items pop up seeking attention!

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS

  • Subscribe