Thursday, August 16, 2018

App Thoughts - Project Info Workset

Lately I find the Project Info workset is borrowed by someone inadvertently (okay me). As such, I wishfully imagine I could mash a button and find out if I've got that workset borrowed based on selecting a project folder and it checking each of the project files it finds. Being able to browse through projects on Revit Server would be boss too. If it could relinquish any instances if finds for me that would be really boss.

I guess I'll have to wander off to the Dynamo salt mines to see if any of it's possible.

As for why this happens...in my case it is related to Publish Coordinates. That's the only operation Revit permits us to alter a linked file; alter and save changes to a file we don't have open in the active session.

At the moment I think it happens when the process fails to complete properly. However it has happened too on occasion when I was convinced it worked. I have some reservations about Revit Server too. I've noticed a higher proportion of projects not being able to use Publish Coordinates when the files are available via Revit Server. Which reminds me I've got a post in drafts about resolving a Can't Publish Coordinates situation...brb.

Casting numerous aspersions with only clues to base them on...not very scientifical of me eh?

Wednesday, August 15, 2018

Project Units Matter - Specify Coordinates at Point

When we use the Specify Coordinates at Point (SPaC) it is possible that the units in use will affect your results. For example, this project is using Feet and Fractional Inches (FaFI) but for SPaC to match the available survey info it was changed to Decimal Inches (DI) with six decimal places. After using SPaC the units were returned to FaFI.

Some time later the elevation needed to be changed thus causing us to revisit using SPaC. The following image shows the original values used for SPaC.


Leaving the Project Units assigned to FaFI resulted is this subtle change to the coordinate values.


When the units were revised to match the earlier DI settings the SPaC coordinates are not altered.

Shorter story, be careful with your unit settings when using SPaC.

Tuesday, August 14, 2018

Move to Room - Element ID - Review Warnings

If we use Review Warnings often enough, and we should be, we'll run into this warning eventually.
Check the item and Click Show to have Revit try to find a view to show it in. Once it is selected we can either drag the Tag where it is suppose to go or Click the Show Related Warnings button on the ribbon to show the dedicated warning it has again.
When this warning is isolated like this the dialog includes the Move to Room button. An aside, is it amusing or worrisome that Revit seems to think the best way to fix warnings is to delete the offending element (via Delete Checked)? Regardless, Move to Room will resolve the issue whether we can see where the tag is meant to be or not.
Another way to tackle it from the Review Warnings dialog is to make a note of the Element ID referenced in the warning. Now we can then use the Select by ID tool. Enter the ID value and click OK.
This will select the tag, even if we're not in a view that it can be seen in, and then we can use the Show Related Warnings button on the ribbon again followed by the Move to Room button.

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

What's New in Revit 2019

It's a teaser blog title. I have no idea what is in Revit 2019, or rather until I read THIS POST.

I'm looking forward to exploring the new features myself once I actually have time to download it.

As for not knowing what was coming like in the past. My access to their review program was screwed up last spring/summer and I haven't been able to log into the site ever since. I had someone looking in to it but their tech support efforts...well suffice it to write I haven't been able to log in. Bummer...

I hope you, dear reader, enjoy the new features in Revit 2019. I, like many of you, will get to experience them with fresh eyes!

Oh, Revit 2018.3 was released the other day too so look out for that update. As always, go slow with installation and rolling it out...make sure your existing projects are in a position to tolerate the potential for some issues before upgrading any projects. I wish you pleasant upgrades.

Double oh, a little birdie told me Paul Aubin and Bill Debevc (okay Bill told me) are going to do a podcast on the new features. Also Paul has a Lynda video on the new features.

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

Copy Monitor - A Different Way?

Morning musing...

It's my observation that there is a prevailing mostly ambivalent attitude toward the Copy/Monitor (C/M) features. I've said before that I think the order of the tabs in the Options dialog are based on the likelihood that we'll use them. Specifically they are listed left to right: Levels, Grids, Columns, Walls and Floors.

C/M isn't hard to use but once it is in play we've got some new rules and warnings to contend with. The process depends on us identifying the elements we want to live in the C/M system. I understand the logic of that choice. Revit asks us to tell it what is important enough to us to engage the system.

Perhaps we need a completely different way to attack the problem? One that doesn't require the advance work. One that is more a reaction to work as it is created and shared, that merely exists.

I wonder if it would be more betterer if we could run a Level or Grid check as a process. The application would compare elements and compile a report, observations and differences. It could be something we read afterward or presented in a dialog for immediate action.

For example, it could just start with: "Hey Steve, there are 27 grids in your model and 30 in theirs. You should look at them." Take it slightly deeper, "Hey Steve, there are three grids that share the same name but are not in the same location."

Does it matter that they used to be in the same location and they aren't now? The application would have to start storing records for past results to do that but it could be useful to determine when or how things got off track. The rules or conditions that are interesting need to be defined.

This sort of element review and comparison doesn't have to be limited to the five that Copy/Monitor were designed for originally (overlooking the MEP elements that have been added in some fashion). It still requires two or more elements though; mine, yours and theirs. The redundancy is annoying but it does provide us with flexibility within our own models.

I imagine much of what I'm describing (and more) is possible via the API and Dynamo. It just needs someone to decide it is an interesting enough thing to do.