Organic Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 Thanks for confirming that your motive for participating in this thread is merely to belittle and disparage Revit and anyone that realizes it's usefulness. I have no such motive. As you will see above I replied to tzframptons comments and even agreed with some of his views, which is a lot more constructive than if I had simply said "no" effectively. Quote
f700es Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 I have no such motive. As you will see above I replied to tzframptons comments and even agreed with some of his views, which is a lot more constructive than if I had simply said "no" effectively. Really? Because you have me fooled then. As soon as Revit was mentioned (in a string of other software) you jumped right in with your comments of its "conceived uselessness". I will agree that your "discussion" was a bit better than last time though. Quote
PotGuy Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 Sounds like it's "poll" time! LoL There should be one, judging by the exchange below. Revit or AutoCAD? Quote
ReMark Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 It doesn't get any clearer than Spencer's "Basic Technical Drawing" and the 17 page chapter on dimensioning. Just Fig. 281 on page 122 entitled "Dimensioning Conventions" is worth all the words said here regarding the subject. As Spencer goes on to say, "Remember that the dimensions are at least as important as the views of the object, and correctness is absolutely necessary." Need we say more? Quote
tzframpton Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 Back to the original poster's question, here's why I like the leader attached to a dimension that has been positioned off-center: it gives a reference for the dimension itself. There have been instances when I'm reading specs from manufacturers and it's very difficult to decipher where the dimension is truly point to, especially when dimensions get crammed in. This is why I prefer the leader with the re-positioned text location. Quote
Patrick Hughes Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 It might be of value to point out that Revit is not CAD. It is BIM, and CAD is simply a subset of the whole package. As to whether or not it is more suitable for CAD than AutoCAD who knows other than those using it. I don't have that much knowledge about Revit but from what I've read its value comes from utilizing all of its tools, not just the CAD aspect. Quote
RobDraw Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 Psst... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-aided_design I think this makes Revit, CAD also. Quote
ReMark Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 Are we discussing the differences between a potato and a potatoe? Quote
Patrick Hughes Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 Psst... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-aided_design I think this makes Revit, CAD also. I'm not going to disagree with you. My point is that CAD is only a part of Revit, BIM (Building Information Modeling) as the case may be. I should have written ...not just CAD Quote
tzframpton Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 I should have written ...not just CADVery good way to put it. Quote
Recommended Posts
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.