Yesterday while trading messages with a friend we discussed my previous post about columns disappearing. He suspected it might explain the issue he was observing. After looking more closely it turned out that it doesn't. In his situation the structural columns were modeled the full height of the building and Join Geometry was used on walls, that passed through (overlapped) the columns, at each floor (level). The result: at some levels no column appeared while at others they do.
It was necessary to pull the walls back so they stop at the surface of the columns. Join Geometry allowed for the desired appearance and the columns reappeared at the other levels where they were missing earlier.
Showing posts with label Columns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Columns. Show all posts
Thursday, May 23, 2019
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 09, 2015
Placing Columns - At Grids Option does not Work
When we are placing structural columns you'll find that there is a button for the At Grids option.
All we have to do is select at least one pair of grids to define intersection locations for Revit to place columns for us quickly. If we select all our grids we get a column at every intersection, FAST. Sometimes it is faster to do that and delete a couple we might not really need than to carefully place a column at grid intersections one at a time.
When we use this option there is a condition that renders it numb or ambivalent to our wishes. Put another way we can select the option, select grids yet when we click Finish to create the columns nothing happens, no columns.
If we place columns from level 1 to level 2 but then increase the height of the columns to allow for additional height to accommodate a splice above the floor slab Revit will think there are already columns at these grid intersections when we attempt to create columns from Level 2 to 3. When a column is found by Revit within the primary range of the view Revit disregards the intersection where this column is, it isn't a valid location for a new column.
To get around this it is probably best to alter their offsets after they are all in place. Place all the columns and then reconcile where the splices should occur.
All we have to do is select at least one pair of grids to define intersection locations for Revit to place columns for us quickly. If we select all our grids we get a column at every intersection, FAST. Sometimes it is faster to do that and delete a couple we might not really need than to carefully place a column at grid intersections one at a time.
When we use this option there is a condition that renders it numb or ambivalent to our wishes. Put another way we can select the option, select grids yet when we click Finish to create the columns nothing happens, no columns.
If we place columns from level 1 to level 2 but then increase the height of the columns to allow for additional height to accommodate a splice above the floor slab Revit will think there are already columns at these grid intersections when we attempt to create columns from Level 2 to 3. When a column is found by Revit within the primary range of the view Revit disregards the intersection where this column is, it isn't a valid location for a new column.
To get around this it is probably best to alter their offsets after they are all in place. Place all the columns and then reconcile where the splices should occur.
Friday, December 05, 2014
Changing Column Types and Copy Monitor
Using Copy/Monitor Revit does not complain when we change column families or types. It does complain if the column is moved. This is different from other elements like grids and levels. My understanding is that the way they expected Architects and Engineers to use the feature is a little different for columns, something like this:
To be warned requires me to have a copy of the column to monitor, which I'd prefer to avoid ordinarily. In general, I encourage Architects to remove their own columns (structural or otherwise, if they use them) in their model as soon as the Engineer is hired and they send them their structural model. Now the architect can focus on using walls to wrap columns as required by Design Development and Construction Documentation. I resist the natural temptation to have my own copy of elements if at all possible, striving to avoid redundancy. Using copy/monitor (the monitor aspect only) can still alert us to major changes to location of the grids/columns.
For now Revit doesn't complain if we change the columns, as long as that change isn't its position/location. If that doesn't fit our model view then we need to let them know.
I wrote this post in part because of a thread at the Autodesk Revit Structure online user group. I wrote this suggestion to work around the lack of warning.
Since Revit is sensitive to movement, we could agree to move columns that are changed like this. If the architect is redesigning a column they can swap out the type for a new type but also move it off grid by a specific value. This will prompt a coordination review when the file is refreshed in the other discipline's file. When they examine the column they'll see the change is more about the size than position. They can respond to the change and move the column back into position, which will prompt coordination review upon return. We could agree that such trigger movement would always be East to West and always a specific distance or something like that so each team knows what to expect.
- Architect places schematic architectural columns (different from structural columns)
- Architect sends model to engineer
- Engineer uses copy/monitor to create structural columns where the architects schematic columns are
- Engineer sends their model to Architect
- Architect adjusts their columns to be masking only (unless they are left uncovered)
To be warned requires me to have a copy of the column to monitor, which I'd prefer to avoid ordinarily. In general, I encourage Architects to remove their own columns (structural or otherwise, if they use them) in their model as soon as the Engineer is hired and they send them their structural model. Now the architect can focus on using walls to wrap columns as required by Design Development and Construction Documentation. I resist the natural temptation to have my own copy of elements if at all possible, striving to avoid redundancy. Using copy/monitor (the monitor aspect only) can still alert us to major changes to location of the grids/columns.
For now Revit doesn't complain if we change the columns, as long as that change isn't its position/location. If that doesn't fit our model view then we need to let them know.
I wrote this post in part because of a thread at the Autodesk Revit Structure online user group. I wrote this suggestion to work around the lack of warning.
Since Revit is sensitive to movement, we could agree to move columns that are changed like this. If the architect is redesigning a column they can swap out the type for a new type but also move it off grid by a specific value. This will prompt a coordination review when the file is refreshed in the other discipline's file. When they examine the column they'll see the change is more about the size than position. They can respond to the change and move the column back into position, which will prompt coordination review upon return. We could agree that such trigger movement would always be East to West and always a specific distance or something like that so each team knows what to expect.
Thursday, August 07, 2014
Structural Column Preview does not Show
Daniel Stine shared this situation with me the other day. It may be familiar to you too?
Revit has a glitch in how it deals with the structural column preview (i.e. outline of structural member relative to the cursor) during placement. Working with Autodesk Support, the problem comes into play when the Levels are “Moved” vertically (the problem kicks in after a certain distance – not sure what the magic number is yet).These are the steps he described that will (should) reproduce the problem using the out of the box (OOTB) structural template.
- Open the structural template
- Switch to elevation (or section)
- Select the levels and move them up 100’
- Switch to the level 1 plan view
- Try placing a structural column
- The preview (i.e. outline of structural member) should not be visible but it it will appear after placing the first one
In testing this, the problem does not occur when using the Relocate Project tool and changing the Levels to use the Elevation Base parameter setting: Survey Point. We submitted this to Autodesk and support has passed it on to development for a closer look. This is one of those little annoying things for our staff.
Monday, December 30, 2013
Split a Column Wish
A wall that starts out as a single full height wall, spanning many levels, can be Split (Split Tool) in a section/elevation view at each required level where they change size/type. They'll stay aligned with each other based on their location line if one of them are moved. If we try to change the location line parameter for one of the affected walls we'll get this familiar warning.
For columns it would be handy if we could use the Split Tool and get similar behavior. Unfortunately, the Split Tool doesn't even "see" columns (structural or architectural). If they fixed that, it would be nice if this was possible in Graphical Column Schedules too. To add insult to injury Split works on Beams, just not columns. Oh the inequity, the inequity...
For columns it would be handy if we could use the Split Tool and get similar behavior. Unfortunately, the Split Tool doesn't even "see" columns (structural or architectural). If they fixed that, it would be nice if this was possible in Graphical Column Schedules too. To add insult to injury Split works on Beams, just not columns. Oh the inequity, the inequity...
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Last Minute Christmas Gift Suggestion - Renaissance Revit
Still looking for one more great unexpected gift for your office library, co-worker, nutty Revit pal, boss, BIM mentor, Revit Family Advisor, brother, sister, "in-law", or in some rare (perhaps dangerous combination) cases your architect spouse?
Let me recommend Paul Aubin's new book, Renaissance Revit: Creating Classical Architecture with modern Software. It's a bit personal spiritual journey as well as his quest for Revit knowledge and enlightenment captured in his newest self published tome. He secured a fine Foreword by Andy Milburn too. I enjoy every post that Andy takes the time to share with us on his blog Shades of Grey. His writing sets a nice tone for the rest of the book.
When you get to read it you'll find you sense how important writing this book was to Paul. Granted he says so in the text but you can also perceive a sense of excitement or energy in his writing in each of the chapters. If you've ever met him and talked about Revit you'd also know that it's been many years in the making, even before he was particularly focused on Revit he was doing things that set the stage for writing this one.
It's offered in two versions; Black & White or Color. Naturally the color version is a bit more expensive to buy (and produce) but for your gift's recipient doesn't color say "I care about you" more than black and white? This is a capture of the Table of Contents from his book's page on his own website.
As a Revit author and blogger I'm both jealous and relieved he wrote this book. Jealous that it's so good I wish I'd written it and relieved that he DID so I don't have to, not that I could communicate his passion for classical architectural forms as he has done. Especially relieved because now I don't have to figure out how to model this from scratch all on my own!
Paul, congratulations for a job well done!!
As for you dear reader, it BELONGS on your shelf (or desk) complete with dog ear'd pages and highlighter smudges. Hmm, maybe that's a special edition version you could buy, rusticated or pre-worn like jeans? Nah, you should wear it out yourself. Come to think of it you should buy two now. One for your collection and one to abuse at work on your desk.
Oh, that's right I was recommending you buy it as a gift for someone else, now you need to buy three!
Let me recommend Paul Aubin's new book, Renaissance Revit: Creating Classical Architecture with modern Software. It's a bit personal spiritual journey as well as his quest for Revit knowledge and enlightenment captured in his newest self published tome. He secured a fine Foreword by Andy Milburn too. I enjoy every post that Andy takes the time to share with us on his blog Shades of Grey. His writing sets a nice tone for the rest of the book.
When you get to read it you'll find you sense how important writing this book was to Paul. Granted he says so in the text but you can also perceive a sense of excitement or energy in his writing in each of the chapters. If you've ever met him and talked about Revit you'd also know that it's been many years in the making, even before he was particularly focused on Revit he was doing things that set the stage for writing this one.
It's offered in two versions; Black & White or Color. Naturally the color version is a bit more expensive to buy (and produce) but for your gift's recipient doesn't color say "I care about you" more than black and white? This is a capture of the Table of Contents from his book's page on his own website.
As a Revit author and blogger I'm both jealous and relieved he wrote this book. Jealous that it's so good I wish I'd written it and relieved that he DID so I don't have to, not that I could communicate his passion for classical architectural forms as he has done. Especially relieved because now I don't have to figure out how to model this from scratch all on my own!
Paul, congratulations for a job well done!!
As for you dear reader, it BELONGS on your shelf (or desk) complete with dog ear'd pages and highlighter smudges. Hmm, maybe that's a special edition version you could buy, rusticated or pre-worn like jeans? Nah, you should wear it out yourself. Come to think of it you should buy two now. One for your collection and one to abuse at work on your desk.
Oh, that's right I was recommending you buy it as a gift for someone else, now you need to buy three!
Friday, December 20, 2013
Columns and Paste Aligned
Imagine a project with four levels 0 - 4. In this image there are two columns and a foundation wall that extend from Level 0 up to Level 1.
If we open an elevation or section view, and then use Copy to Clipboard and Paste Aligned to Picked Level to create copies of the columns and foundation wall we'll find that Revit is hard wired to respect the default Depth setting from the height/depth option (Options Bar).
This means that if we pick/choose Level 1 (logical expectation) Revit will put them on Level 1 but use a depth extending down to level 0, resulting in columns in the same place as the existing columns.
To be successful in these views we have to pick one level higher, Level 2 in this example. Using Paste Aligned to Selected Levels in elevation or section views also suffers from this condition.
In contrast, using Copy to Clipboard and Paste Aligned to Selected Levels in a plan view Revit gets the relationship right (true of 2014 at least, I recall it not working in older releases but haven't tested again to be certain) and the columns extend from Level 1 to Level 2. The same is true for Foundation walls.
Be careful with columns (and foundation walls), view selection and using Paste Aligned...
If we open an elevation or section view, and then use Copy to Clipboard and Paste Aligned to Picked Level to create copies of the columns and foundation wall we'll find that Revit is hard wired to respect the default Depth setting from the height/depth option (Options Bar).
This means that if we pick/choose Level 1 (logical expectation) Revit will put them on Level 1 but use a depth extending down to level 0, resulting in columns in the same place as the existing columns.
To be successful in these views we have to pick one level higher, Level 2 in this example. Using Paste Aligned to Selected Levels in elevation or section views also suffers from this condition.
In contrast, using Copy to Clipboard and Paste Aligned to Selected Levels in a plan view Revit gets the relationship right (true of 2014 at least, I recall it not working in older releases but haven't tested again to be certain) and the columns extend from Level 1 to Level 2. The same is true for Foundation walls.
Be careful with columns (and foundation walls), view selection and using Paste Aligned...
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Column and Beam Relationship Macro Idea
I wrote a post that described the parameters (Start Attachment Type and End Attachment Type) that can be harnessed to make beams respond to column changes, specifically the height of the column to cause a beam to slope. While chatting with some Revit Structure users it occurred to me that it would nice if a macro existed that could automate the process a bit. As it stands now we often need to deal with each beam carefully to determine which end of the beam is actually attached to the column. It is easy to see now with the addition of colored ends (green for start and red for end) when Show Analytical Model is used.
That written, we could just select all of the beams, say for a roof structure, and change both parameters, Start and End Attachment Type, from End Elevation to Distance. If their supporting column's Top Constraint or Top Offset values don't change then the beams won't either. In that context it's not hard to just select them all and apply the same parameter values regardless of whether they will need to change or not.
If we want to be more selective, I imagine it would be nicer to start a macro, select a column and let the macro determine which end is connected, for each beam, and alter the required parameters. Alternatively the macro could let us select beams and then the related column we want the beams to follow. Ideally the macro could let us choose between the two approaches. Technically the macro doesn't need to know which column to change the parameter if we just want to change both parameter values. It matters if we'd prefer to only change the parameter relevant to a specific column.
Perhaps such a macro exists individually or as part of a collection I haven't noticed yet? If so, enlighten me. If not I'd be happy to brag about the developer that creates it. Second guessing...is it even worthwhile?
That written, we could just select all of the beams, say for a roof structure, and change both parameters, Start and End Attachment Type, from End Elevation to Distance. If their supporting column's Top Constraint or Top Offset values don't change then the beams won't either. In that context it's not hard to just select them all and apply the same parameter values regardless of whether they will need to change or not.
If we want to be more selective, I imagine it would be nicer to start a macro, select a column and let the macro determine which end is connected, for each beam, and alter the required parameters. Alternatively the macro could let us select beams and then the related column we want the beams to follow. Ideally the macro could let us choose between the two approaches. Technically the macro doesn't need to know which column to change the parameter if we just want to change both parameter values. It matters if we'd prefer to only change the parameter relevant to a specific column.
Perhaps such a macro exists individually or as part of a collection I haven't noticed yet? If so, enlighten me. If not I'd be happy to brag about the developer that creates it. Second guessing...is it even worthwhile?
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Hiding Columns in Schedules
We can hide a column if necessary. Hopefully that's not a surprise. Each field in a schedule has a parameter called Hidden Field, available when we are looking at the Formatting tab in the Schedule Properties dialog.
We can also right click on a column while editing a schedule, in a schedule view, and choose Hide Column.
We can use right click to Unhide All Columns but it will reset them all, as the name implies.
If we use this on more than one column and only want to restore one of several we need to return to the schedule properties dialog and the formatting tab to uncheck the Hidden Field parameter.
We can also right click on a column while editing a schedule, in a schedule view, and choose Hide Column.
We can use right click to Unhide All Columns but it will reset them all, as the name implies.
If we use this on more than one column and only want to restore one of several we need to return to the schedule properties dialog and the formatting tab to uncheck the Hidden Field parameter.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Two Minutes with Beams and Columns
Brian Mackey recently wrote on his blog about a subtle feature that seems to have crept into the product without much fanfare. You can read his account. I decided to capture it in video format to pass along to a client who was asking about the concept (having beams aware of column ends) so I've posted it here too.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Bug - Structural Columns - Paste Aligned
When you work with Structural columns you have the option to define them according to their Height or Depth relative to the level you are working on. This is in response to the fact that Revit used to only place them according to Depth and that was frustrating for most users. Having the choice is good!
When you want to propagate a Level's columns to another Level or Levels by using the Copy to Clipboard followed by a Paste Aligned - Select Levels by Name technique...you don't get a choice. Revit's code places the new columns using Depth regardless of the fact that you placed the originals using Height.
If you aren't careful you'll likely end up with a warning like this one.
Now the programmer will take issue with the "bug" designation because it works as written. True or not...it doesn't work the way I'd expect it to work.
The solution? When you use Paste Aligned, remember that the Level you are pasting from and the one above it should not be selected because the next set of columns above will be starting at a level and using a Depth placement logic instead of Height. Here's an image of the Paste Aligned Result when I select Level 3 for destination even though I selected the columns on Level 1 as the originals.
It is interesting that skipping Level 2 in the selection process produces a column whose Instance parameters end up "correct" though.
Unfortunately this image is from 2010 and that means it isn't "fixed" yet...and yes this is an "oldy" but not "goody".
When you want to propagate a Level's columns to another Level or Levels by using the Copy to Clipboard followed by a Paste Aligned - Select Levels by Name technique...you don't get a choice. Revit's code places the new columns using Depth regardless of the fact that you placed the originals using Height.
If you aren't careful you'll likely end up with a warning like this one.
Now the programmer will take issue with the "bug" designation because it works as written. True or not...it doesn't work the way I'd expect it to work.The solution? When you use Paste Aligned, remember that the Level you are pasting from and the one above it should not be selected because the next set of columns above will be starting at a level and using a Depth placement logic instead of Height. Here's an image of the Paste Aligned Result when I select Level 3 for destination even though I selected the columns on Level 1 as the originals.
It is interesting that skipping Level 2 in the selection process produces a column whose Instance parameters end up "correct" though.
Unfortunately this image is from 2010 and that means it isn't "fixed" yet...and yes this is an "oldy" but not "goody".Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Structural Column - Quick and "Evil"
I was checking out the new Mastering Revit Structure book by Tom, Jamie, David and Eric (yes...too lazy to spell out their whole names but then I wrote this instead, hmmm). On page 144 is a grey section that describes the following tip, written here in my own way.
Need a Structural column that leans, quick? Don't want to make a column family first? You could use a wall? BIM purists, cover your ears and eyes..."you know where to put the cork" ("The Who" fans quiver with recognition). You can use a wall and then edit its profile to create the appearance of a leaning column in about the same time as it takes to choose the correct family template first.
Naturally this assumes that we are talking about concrete, it doesn't work quite as well for steel shapes.
Just a little "out of the box" thinking courtesy of the four RST "muskateers", check out the book!
Need a Structural column that leans, quick? Don't want to make a column family first? You could use a wall? BIM purists, cover your ears and eyes..."you know where to put the cork" ("The Who" fans quiver with recognition). You can use a wall and then edit its profile to create the appearance of a leaning column in about the same time as it takes to choose the correct family template first.
Naturally this assumes that we are talking about concrete, it doesn't work quite as well for steel shapes.Just a little "out of the box" thinking courtesy of the four RST "muskateers", check out the book!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)