Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Dept. of Why? Grids Don't Mind Piling On

I often wonder why some objects can't be placed on top of another while others just don't mind at all? Grids are one of these that really shouldn't be placed on top of one another but don't seem to annoy Revit at all when they are. Then we are left to figure out why a Grid number isn't available but we thought it was. Then it turns out that someone accidentally added a grid on top of another one and we can't see the grid value of the one hidden beneath it. A little head scratching and we are back on track.

Still, wouldn't it be more effective if Revit at least said, "Umm Steve, I hate to distract you but you just put a grid on top of another grid. Would you mind getting a clue and a life and fix it for me?, Cheers mate!". Better yet if it said it out loud in the voice of Mrs. Emma Peel (Diana Rigg). I can take criticism from her surely!


Aaron Maller said...

This is an interesting topic that ive seen come up on a few projects in the past:

What would dictate grids "on top of" one another?

1. Aligned with one another?
2. Having overlapping 3d extents?

If the former, what happens when the extents dont actually touch each other? Like two grids in a project with multiple phases that bear no real relativity to one another?

If the latter, do they have to entirely overlap? Or only partially?

In the multiple phase case, we left the original grid from the previous phase (afterall, it merely provided another measure of how to "connect" the phases), but invariably it also meant a confusing system of numbering... As the grid layout for P2 was dissimilar from P1, and the fact that they aligned was merely mathematical coincidence (think 150'-0" with two systems... one on 30 feet and one on 25, juxtaposed).

Plus, throw scope boxes in the mix... If i use one grid, i disassociate it from the SB then, yes? Since it crosses both phases? If its only a partial overlap of extents (presupposing using the overlapping extents AND alignment for revit saying *grid overlap*, then i wonder how that would work.

An interesting quandary...

Steve said...

Design Options and phasing would not cause overlapping because Revit understands their difference...except grids can't be phased. But then I wouldn't expect a Grid to be on top of another if it was existing. I'd still call it by an existing name or prefix all existing grids with something.

I'm not suggesting that overlapping be disallowed, just detected and more easily resolved apart from being less casual and perhaps sloppy in the first place.

Aaron Maller said...

Understood... And im not refuting that point either. A warning or some other indication would be great. But now im wondering HOW it decides whats overlapping?

Being in the same plane alone? Or being in the same plane and having overlapping extents? Or just when theyre identical (IE "Identical instances are in the same place, which will result in double counting...")

Architect said...

When I first read the headline, I thought it read "Girls"