Section Line Annotation Alignment

No, not the 2019.1 feature that allows us to use the Align tool on sections...

If you find yourself wondering why you don't the get the telltale dashed lines to help you line up section heads or tails check Visibility/Graphics for the view and make sure Lines are checked (visible). If the category is turned off, so too are they. These...

Check this...

Active View can Matter When Linking Using Positioning Auto - Center to Center

If you link a model via Positioning: Auto - Center to Center in a plan view its zero elevation will align with the host model's zero elevation.

Do that in an elevation or section view however and the linked model may not rest at the correct Zero elevation. The discrepancy man be very subtle or quite obvious. It will depend on the adjusted extents of the view that is active.

The trigger appears to be the elevation or section view being cropped very shallow (only one level visible) prior to linking the model (tested as far back as Revit 2015). If all the levels are visible in the view it seems to be more reliable.

Far safer me thinks to just link via a plan view, something to watch out for. 

Fill Pattern Alignment

I responded to a thread at Linked In this morning, something I almost never do. I find LI too frustrating to spend much time there. Regardless, the sought after result was to get horizontal and diagonal patterns (part of a material assignment) to line up, to appear to connect to each other. This is an image of what was shared in the thread.

The Fill Patterns (Model) need to use spacing settings that will allow their endpoints to meet. For example, if the parallel horizontal lines are 300 mm apart then we can use trigonometry to determine the parallel spacing of the diagonal pattern.

The formula b = c * sin(B) where c = 300mm and angle B is 45 degrees returns a length of 212.1 mm for the length of b. The diagonal pattern will need to use 212.1 mm for its spacing so it will align with the endpoints of the horizontal pattern at 300 mm.

Once the patterns work, it will still probably be necessary to fine tune each pattern's position on the surface of each wall so they each start at the correct location. That's because each wall will place/start the pattern you assign according to its own extents.

I like the the Align tool, I pick a segment of the horizontal pattern first then the diagonal pattern and the diagonal pattern will shift to line up as desired. That's how I aligned the patterns in the second image.

Alternatively we can use the TAB key to select one line within a Model Pattern and then use Move to adjust the pattern's location. If the walls are not parallel to each other it may be necessary to create a section view that allows us to see both patterns and use the Move tool. It may also be necessary or helpful to sketch a Detail Line from one endpoint of one of the patterns so we can snap easily while moving the other pattern's position.

Also, the taller the walls (the bigger the overall pattern) are the more important your choice of rounding (decimal places) for your calculated pattern spacing will be. You may find that the pattern begins to slip past or fall short of the adjacent horizontal pattern the bigger the pattern gets.

Revit 2016 R2 - Positioning by Auto - Project Base Point to Project Base Point

This is an interesting development for reconciling the misalignment of models. This gives us the option of linking a RVT model according to the location of its Project Base Point (PBP) and aligning it with our own.

Let's imagine a scenario where our structural engineer decides to mock-up a preliminary model but does so without the benefit of having the architectural model linked in yet. This new feature allows the engineer to either move the PBP un-clipped (see warning below) to an agreed upon grid intersection or to start by placing their grids at the default PBP location in their model.

All I have to do to get their model to align with my model properly now is make sure I move my PBP un-clipped (again see warning below) to our equivalent grid location or be grateful I was lucky to have guessed that we'd start our grids at the same location to start with. If I didn't guess correctly then moving it un-clipped puts it in the correct location and the link lines up nicely.

Being able to move the PBP un-clipped is helpful for Revit to Revit alignment. It DOES NOT address exporting to DWG however (nor appending to Navisworks). If each model is exported using Coordinate System Basis: Project Internal they will not line up with one another because the model's file origin is not altered. If each trade is careful to start modeling the agreed upon grid intersection at their templates's default PBP location (not moved at all) then they'll line up when their exported files are opened in AutoCAD or Navisworks.

I'm not sure we can rely on that if we can't count on them waiting for our model to use as a linked reference first? Still it is an interesting development. Hopefully it doesn't just contribute to the existing confusion regarding linked RVT file positioning.

My recommendations?

• Make sure all trades agree to begin their work referencing their own PBP with the same understanding. For example, agree in advance that the bottom left grid intersection shall occur at the PBP location (like shown in my images). This will ensure that exported data will have the same file origin.
• Don't move the PBP un-clipped to reconcile the PBP location IF you want to be able to export using Project Internal.
• Only move the PBP un-clipped if you will rely on Shared Coordinates to deal with external model alignment in other applications.