To put it simply, we prepare our drawings with tags and annotations first hand, on whichever scale, it doesnt matter, say 1:100, till it is done. Rather than looking down on the problem, I think you should maybe share your workflow order in detail so people like me can understand what we are doing wrong. I am having the same problem with the original poster. In many cases it is preferred that the cut patterns of a wall have the same pattern spacing regardless of the scale. But when you go from 1:200 to 1:50 the dimensions are too small so you will have to increase the size of the dimension ( and all other annotation). So in DD you just might dimension the total length of a wall and grid spacing, but in a CD set you will add also wall openings. Each project is different but lets just use this as a guidance. At every stage more information is added. Bids and Permits drawing are in 1:100 and CD's or on a 1:50 scale. Typically you create a 1:100 or 1:200 drawing for DD. But deleting dimension strings, hiding partition tags, changing room tag size to comply with the minimum requirements is time consuming.

I'd sometimes like it different when a different View is at a coarser scale.There is more information on a CD that isn't needed for a permit set. But not because I want to print the same View at different scales. I will grant you, there's been times I'd like to have a different size for my Grid Bubbles, though. Which is probably less than the pen weight its drawn in. Is your permitting set really required to have Partition Type Tags on it?ĭo you need to show that 150mm dimension to the centerline of the wall? At 1:200, that's going to be (if my math is correct) 0.75mm. Here is a quick video to explain.Like Aaron said, the reason (or at least one of the reasons) that you don't just scale down your annotation is the different scales typically require different information. So if you are using the Guide Grid to line up plans, this is a much nicer way to do it. This location will be maintained across your various sheets (since this is the very purpose of the Guide Grid). So, if you reduce the size of the grid to make it very small, you can then move the entire grid anywhere you like. You can use these grips to resize the grid. When you select a Guide Grid, it has grips on the edges. This works, but recently it dawned on me that there is a better way. When I first started using the Guide Grid tool, I noticed that the default size was pretty dense, so I would typically change the size of the grid to the largest size I could get away with in order to reduce the visual clutter of the grid. However, if your building does not use Grids, you can draw some Reference Planes instead. With plan views, the most likely element for this task is the Column Grids. It does this by allowing you to move the viewport on a sheet by snapping to the datum elements in your model (levels, column grids and reference planes) and then snapping them to the intersections on the Guide Grid. It is a slightly odd little tool that allows you to line up model elements in the same location across multiple sheets.

Revit has a tool for this called the Guide Grid. If you have each floor plan on its own sheet, you probably want those plans to align in the same general location with respect to their titleblocks. Often when composing sheets in Revit, we have similar views which we would like to appear in consistent locations from one sheet to the next. I have had this post in my queue for a while now.

Revit print to scale with grid