Details Library

[LRe]

My office is trying to create a generic architectural 2d details library that we can all share (such as generic wall types, slab on grade details, etc) But we are not sure what is the best way to set these up.

We usually draw the lines on a design layer and then annotate them in the annotations layer.. But I haven't seen any way to transfer these already set up viewports from one file to another..  And if we draw and annotate in the design layer, then the text and arrows get all messed up when they change scale.

 

I was wondering if anyone has any best practices or tips on What would be the best method to start setting this up?

[Boh]

 

You won't be able to easily set up detail symbols with details drawn in a design layer but annotated in VP annotations. All the info really needs to be either on a single design layer or in the VP annotations - not a combination.

 

If they are all on a design layer you can then create symbols of each detail and file them in your library for later re-use.

 

You are correct that text formatting/page based info will need reformatting when the scale is changed. I have found however that 'generic' details are best set up for one scale and simply pasted into your drawing. They are at a certain scale because that best suits the info it represents. For example a window sill detail which shows all the weatherproofing info like seals and flashings etc needs to be at a small scale certainly no bigger than 1:5. So a suggestion may be for your office to standardize the scaling of your details so symbols can efficiently be inserted with no reformatting required.

 

There was a recent thread on this however where I came up with a workflow to use page based symbols for detail symbols so that text formatting can be retained and different scales. Hasn't been road tested yet tho...:

 

 

Re transferring viewports: You can't copy & paste a VP from one file to another but a neat trick to transfer those details to a different file is if you group the VP first you can then copy & paste it to another file.

 

[cberg]

This is something I've been experimenting with the past few months.  

 

Not sure if this makes sense, but I've set up design layers at various scales that can be imported into our model for use in detailing.  The benefit in keeping the details in model space is that they are viewported onto sheets, and thus you can use automatic drawing coordination to link them to detail markers.  The detail sheet is set up as a template.  And the Model area is next to the Detail Zone (although I haven't included it in this screenshot.  Oh and I also make sure to display objects set at other scales in the Unified View Options, so you can see all the details at once.

 

It makes for slightly messy design workspace, but I try to keep 3d information in one area and the 2d details in another area.   The grids are still a work in progress, but they are increments of our sheet size.

 

I would be interested in seeing examples of how others do this since I'm not sure this is the best solution.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 18, 2019 by cberg

[Boh]

That's an interesting way to go which I think can work very well.  I've have been experimenting with a slightly different way:

 

Since we generally create a 3d model all our elevations and sections are live section viewports. From these we create detail viewports on our sheet layers. The design layer info in the VP's is just used as a template over which, in the annotation space of the VP,  we overdraw our 2d details (or possibly place a detail symbol) . Once the detail is completed the design layer's visibilities can usually just be turned completely off. So we end up with detail VP's with only annotation info in them.

 

The advantage of this is:

• No additional design layers are required for 2d details.
• Design layer scale is irrelevant - all text/page based info is scaled to the sheet layer (informed by the detail VP scale).
• Sheet formatting is simple, as all info is in the annotation space there is no tedious cropping of viewports and/or moving design layer info around to fit into a VP crop.
• Each detail has it's own viewport which can be moved around like a group to suit your sheet.
• Each detail viewports automatically update their number/sheet directly to the detail markers on the plans/sections.

Note that:

Details are typically only used in one viewport so why not put it into an annotation space? If repetitive detail info is required then this could be via a symbol definition.

Detail info is not generally required to export to dwg - so far we haven't had any issues there.

 

So far so good - the only downside I've come across so far is that live details still need updating before publish even when there is no DL info in them. Usually this is pretty quick though.

[cberg]

Boh I like your approach for details which are specific to project or model geometry.  That said, you can also extract the detail from the annotation viewport and put them into a 2d design layer of some sort so that they can be reused from project to project.  I'm thinking of generic roof details, millwork details that are typically used from project to project.  

[Boh]

7 minutes ago, cberg said:

That said, you can also extract the detail from the annotation viewport and put them into a 2d design layer of some sort so that they can be reused from project to project

If you want to be able to reuse details in other/future projects then the details in the annotation VP can simply be turned into a symbol definition and placed in your library. From there they can be imported into other project files..

 

Note the detail VP itself can't be made into a symbol but the annotation info in it can. As mentioned before you can copy & paste VP's from one file to another - you just need to group them first.

[LRe]

great Ideas guys!! 

Im not sure which one would work best for us, Will survey the team on their preferences now

 

Thank you

[cberg]

Let me know what you come up with.  I am very intrigued by Boh's process but worry that individuals who are less tech-savvy may find it more challenging. It's hard getting everybody up to the same level of technical proficiency.