Jump to content

Dumb Callout


addesigns

Recommended Posts

I created a Dumb callout so that we can reference AutoCAD sheets. I am wondering if it is possible to make the symbolic line annotative to the diferent scales.

 

I made it for a 1:75 scale cuz someone needed it. I was asked to make it so we dont just have blank sheets to reference. Everything is fine and dandy and the ends are adjustable but I just wanna know if I can make it annotative and I can add a hatch to the tail and end for the pointer that our company stand is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that auto-scales in Revit is an Annotation Family. So start a generic annotation family, but don't put any Text or Labels in it. Just draw your linework @ 1:1 scale, and nest it into whatever other Family you choose. Or, if what you need "is" an Annotation Family then you can disregard the last step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I really want is that the dumbcallout can be annotative and also the text, which i can imagine i just use a label, for the reference sheet and detail/section number on that sheet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then just make a generic annotation, and create two Text parameters. Set them as Instance Parameters, then apply them to a Label in the Family. Draw your linework to match the style Callout you prefer, and load it in. Because they are Text, and Instance Based, this callout is now nothing more than a "Block with Attributes" as compared to AutoCAD. Attached is a very quick and dirty example.

 

*EDIT*

I will say to proceed with caution. Now you are trying to make Revit act like AutoCAD and you have now created a handicap for yourself. I know you're still new to Revit, and this is a really bad habit to get into. This will now become your default instead of your last option in some cases and it can really bite you in the butt later on. It is better to use a View Reference instead, and leave the instance based text annotation families to things like Keyed Notes, among other things. But, the fact is this should be exactly what you're looking for.

 

:)

Callout.rfa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If i do a view reference then I am just creating a bunch of blank detail or section view correct? I suppose that would be easier than the way I want to go about it, and its not like it would be eating up alot of space to have a few blank details sitting around. Correct me if I am wrong please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theory is this: If you are placing a Callout to reference another view, then you *should* have a view created in Revit, which lives on another sheet. If this is not the case, and say you are referencing another sub-consultants sheet or something, then using a "dumb callout" is the only way to go. Hope this clears it up.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotcha. My company uses PDMS, AutoCAD, Microstation, and Revit. All disciplines of Autodesk. We don't always create everything in Revit, don't ask me why, so we need to refernece CAD once in a while. I'm gonna propse that we just create blank detail views from now on so it makes things easier. I work with many older/set in their way people who just seem to fight change. We are new to Revit company wide so things are still getting figured out. I'm just trying to become as valuable and wise about managing and creating families as possible as to ensure my future value in the filed. Ill take your advice and suggest the way it should be managed and used.

 

Much thanks as always

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried managing the "blank Drafting Views" and I had enough of that crap. We use "Dumb References" instead but it's very few and far between.

 

And as for Drafting Views... just Link your AutoCAD files into a Drafting View and use the Pick Lines tool to recreate your typical details. Save the Revit file and use the Insert From View tool to easily drop them into your project. If you show your old-timers this, they'll like Revit a lot more. 2D is just as easy in Revit as it is in AutoCAD.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way we did these previously (i.e. reference a DWG file) is to link the DWG model space into a drafting view. Then place those onto a revit sheet. Then the normal view tags work as expected and auto-update if you renumber the view / sheet or if you "move" the view to a different sheet. Only trouble was that you needed to sort out the imported linestyles (as it doesn't always do these automatically). These days we do everything direct in Revit, only using DWG when the consultant doesn't use Revit (and even then importing/linking only for coordination).

 

As for referencing other consultants' drawings, we've been burnt in the past with that. If you don't have control over those files, I'd advise never reference a specific drawing number - it might change or become superseded without your knowledge (sometimes they issue to contractor without even telling you about the change). Rather reference using a note to "see relevant drawings of consultant X", "to consultant X's detail", "to consultant X's spec", etc. - whichever is more relevant. I know the PM's usually tend to frown on this, but believe me - once one of those un-updated links cause the contractor to claim for incorrect / missing info, they realise the trouble they've caused everyone (including themselves).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for referencing other consultants' drawings, we've been burnt in the past with that. If you don't have control over those files, I'd advise never reference a specific drawing number - it might change or become superseded without your knowledge (sometimes they issue to contractor without even telling you about the change). Rather reference using a note to "see relevant drawings of consultant X", "to consultant X's detail", "to consultant X's spec", etc. - whichever is more relevant. I know the PM's usually tend to frown on this, but believe me - once one of those un-updated links cause the contractor to claim for incorrect / missing info, they realise the trouble they've caused everyone (including themselves).

 

I am the direct opposite of this. I would rather reference another consultants specific drawing as 81652A etc only to later find out it was superseded etc rather than the contractor to simply see that we reference a consultants drawing and for them to then use the (sub) consultants drawing regardless of the revision number of it. I've seen too many erogenous mistakes on infrastructure construction as a result of superseded drawings being referenced and used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose if you include the revision number in your reference you should be fine. At least then it's the contractor's responsibility to inform you if the drawing is superseded. It shouldn't need to work this way, the sub-consultant should issue the drawing to yourselves as well.

 

Unfortunately for us, it's rarely the case that we're the main consultants. So we rarely have any sway in making the others give us timeous notification of their drawing changes, it's always as if they're doing us a favour! If we could force that, then we'd at least have the capability of revising our drawings to suit their numbers (if and when such happens), as is the case usually we only find out after the contractor has issued an RFI and is trying to claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...