I'm making a view into something for council submissions. So if you make your own LineStyle give it a descriptive name - so you "remember" what it's for.Īs an example. a linestyle uses a particular line type and line weight).
This is much "nicer" than having to use 2 layers in ACad to distinguish something like Wall from Wall-Below.Īs for linetypes / lineweights - it works similar to acad, only it gets combined into Line Styles (i.e. for each object style you can set the fill and linestyle for that object in elevation as well as when the view sections through it (separately). The ObjSt/VG dialogs are more comprehensive than the ACad's Layer Manager, e.g. Note if you use the VG so your view is a bit different from "normal", you can use View / View Templates in a similar way to ACad's Layer States. You can adjust their normal display properties through the Manage / Object Styles dialog. And they're automatically applied to whatever you draw - it's as if Revit "knows" what layer to place what thing on, unlike ACad where you had to manually set the layer. Basically object styles are like Layers in ACad - only they're much more than only layers. The main reason people say Revit-is-NOT-ACad is because it has a lot more and/or different functionality than acad has.įor what the OP is referring to: You need to adjust the object styles. There are things which work different, but generally you'd find it's just that the names change and the order of doing things differ. It's not "strictly" true that Revit is ABSOLUTELY unlike acad. Why not explain what that RVT way is to accomplish the same product as you'd get from ACad? Sure RVT is not ACad, but rather than simply saying: Do it the Revit way.
I actually feel that type of answer is very un-helpful. The first rule to learning Revit is IT IS NOT LIKE AUTOCAD
0 kommentar(er)
