Thursday, March 03, 2022

Rumor wasn't a rumor - B.I.M. After Dark Conversation

I just wrapped up my conversation with Jeff, The Revit Kid on his B.I.M After Dark livestream. It was nice to chat about Revity stuff with Jeff and I hope it was interesting enough for those that attended and watch later. Jeff's done great work with his channel and B.A.D products as well as his legacy of The Revit Kid blogging. His passion for it is self evident.

I owe the folks at Ideate an apology. I neglected to mention how much their Explorer features in my day to day. I'm shocked that I didn't bring it up. I'll blame it on the whisky, a very good whiskey too. To all the hardworking folks at Ideate, keep it up! Glad you're on it.

Monday, February 28, 2022

Rumor Goin Round

I'm crawling out from under my rock later this week. I'm joining Jeffery Pinheiro's (aka The Revit KidBIM After Dark livestream on Thursday evening. He plays guitar and I play drums, we might get around to talking about Revity things too.






Friday, September 24, 2021

Revit Updates and 33 Percent

 There must be something magical about 33% and Revit updates lately?


I installed the Hotfix the other day and it "hung" at 33% long enough that I thought the install failed. I just started to look at a forum thread on the subject and it magically finished. This morning the same thing is happening with the 2022.1 update. Progress gauges aren't much good if they don't actually show progress the whole time, no? Looking forward to checking out the new features when it jumps from 33% to Finished!


Thursday, June 17, 2021

The Void and the Revolve

 A tale of mystery set in ancient times...a fairytale of majestic proportions...

Sadly it's more mundane than that. This morning I noticed a distinctly Reviteristic situation while answering a client's question. To get a void to cut a revolve, their orientation to one another seems to matter.

If I create a revolve in the Front view of a Generic Face Based template and then create the extrusion in a side (Right/Left) view the void won't cut if the extrusion extends too far toward the other side of the revolve (seem image).

It took two voids on either side of the Axis of the Revolve to get a full cut of the revolve form (see image).

However if I create the revolve in the Right side view AND create the void extrusion in the same view one void is enough (see image).

Perhaps this is old news to some but it's definitely subtley quirky (which defines a Reviteristic for me). Next time you're taking a journey with a revolve and void...remember this? I'll try.

This was done using Revit 2020.2.4 BTW

Friday, June 11, 2021

Entering Values using the Project Base Point

A recent message asked how they can enter values into the Project Base Point (PBP) like we used to be able to do when the PBP had a clipped/not clipped status.

The answer is Specify Coordinates at Point (SCaP).

They wanted to enter 8,000,000/8,000,000 as their example. R2021 won't accept that value but R2019 would.

In the past, when we selected the PBP, entered coordinate values, it actually shifted the Survey Coordinate System (SCS) away from the Origin/PBP. It was easy to assume we moved the PBP because it is easy to overlook the information that displays above the selected PBP. It says PBP but right underneath (see image) it says Shared Site: and the coordinates it displays are relative to the SCS.

Entering values in the PBP directly (in the past) is same as using SCaP (now). The Survey Point will move to mark the 0,0 origin of the SCS after we enter our values. The PBP will still be at the Internal Origin (IO). The following image is 2019 and 2021 showing the same end result, just using a different tool.


Entering values directly into the PBP now will move it away from the IO, something it did not do in the past. This invokes a Local Coordinate System (LCS) that uses the PBP as its origin. Spot Coordinate/Elevation annotation can reference this LCS. This why Revit won't let us move the PBP too far (10 miles) from the IO.

I think Autodesk should change the PBP reference to the Shared Site since it is confusing. I think the PBP should show reference coordinates back to the Internal Origin. There is probably some room for disagreement though, which is why it probably still references the SCS.

This change seems to annoy people the most because we can't just enter values into the PBP directly and get the "old" result. We can enter values but not to alter the SCS, which is what really happens with the clipped PBP of old. The unclipped status of old is when the LCS is invoked.

The PBP only moves in an unclipped state now, thus no clip.