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.

Multi-Segment Grid and Crop Boundary Interaction

When one segment of a multi-segment grid passes entirely beyond a views crop boundary that segment is not displayed. That seems reasonable to me. The annotation at the end of the grid however also disappears and that doesn't seem as reasonable to me. I'd like that to remain especially since (when) that end isn't coming into contact with the crop boundary. It is easier to see with a video capture embedded below. Whaddyathink?

Smaller Grid Bubbles

I wrote about one way to achieve using smaller grid bubbles in different views HERE. That written I can't help but wonder how much smaller is appropriate. A user recently complained they need a smaller grid bubble in a 1:1000 (metric) view. My gut reaction was "really?...maybe the grid bubble is just too big to begin with?" For example, this is what 1:100 and 1:1000 scale views look like side by side for a tiny footprint of grids using a stock grid family (6.5 mm radius/4.5 mm text).

That image is captured after using Zoom to Fit. How effective are grid bubbles at that scale to begin with? In imperial units that's equivalent to a view scale of 1"=120'-0". Keeping in mind that Revit's bias is to maintain the printed size of annotation, how much smaller does the bubble and text need to be to be better but still useful? This next image is the same sheet with grids bubbles that are half as big, text half as high (3.25 mm radius circle and 2.25 mm text).

I could argue that if the 1:1000 scale size is acceptable it might as well be the standard for all the views? This is how it (the smaller size grid bubbles) looks if I use Zoom Sheet Size and pan the view to show the grids side by side. This is more representative of what it will look like on the printed page.

Having the ability to turn off the bubble graphics only leaving the Grid name's text only might be a nice option. It seems to me that decreasing the size of the text means it is likely to no longer be legible. That's never good for documentation. For example, quite a few standards dictate a minimum text size of 1/8" which is larger than the 2.25 mm text I've shown in the images above.

Using a smaller font than what is shown above is going to start being too small to read on half-size prints; which is what I see getting printed more often these days. Fwiw, it's my understanding that 1/8" text as a requirement was decided upon because half size documents are printed so often and the resulting 1/16" text is at the brink of no longer being legible so standards set it accordingly.

Regardless, it's a frequent enough request that the development team ought to see what they can come up with. Something that is easy to implement and provides more flexibility for documentation.

Filter Linked Grids and Levels

As soon as we rely on or need to use linked files we are confronted with the presence of their grids and levels. Some people use Visibility/Graphics to interact with the linked files and override them so they can shut them off. I like using a Filter for each instead.

Since I have control over the naming of my grid and level types I can make them unique enough that it is unlikely to compete with the naming used for those that are in any of the linked files. Naturally, the last thing I want to attempt is to get the other trades to align their grid/level names. It's a lot easier to just deal with my own naming.

For example let say there are four linked files; Structure, HVAC, Plumbing and Electrical. They all have grids and levels that use different names. As long as mine are distinctly different from theirs I can filter them all off with one filter for grids and another for levels...since I may want to restore one or the other at times, separately.

Here's the Filter dialog configured to filter out all Grids but mine; I called it Not Local Grids. My Grids have a type name prefixed with AEC, but a firm's own acronym or something else that makes it unique works too. This can change from project to project easily too...if necessary.

Now I just add the filters to my View Templates and all the views that are going to get put on sheets and printed will behave with minimal input from me here on out. For coordination I'll use working views that don't have the filter applied or temporarily override the view template so I can toggle either of them on if necessary.

Here's a bonus Filtering tip that was shared at RTC (sorry I don't recall whose session it was). If you are filtering with a specific criteria but can't recall if the first letter is capitalized or not just leave that letter out. For example if you aren't sure if it is Concrete or concrete just enter oncrete as your critera. Pretty subtle and clever!

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.

Web Update 7 Killed Grid Level and Ref Plane Alignment

I was wrong, the update is innocent, sorry. The culprit is Snap to Remote Objects which was off.

Uh oh, I installed the recent Web Update 7 and now grids, levels and reference planes don't see each other like they used to. Existing grids and levels work normally. It seems to affect new elements when you attempt to place them in alignment with others. For example, try to sketch new parallel grids. Normally we see a green dashed graphic that indicates alignment with an adjacent grid end. I don't see this anymore. I also don't get the locked relationship between grids. Same for new levels.

If you copy them they'll recognize their alignment and behave normally unless you unlock that and alter them individually. Then they'll forget they can see (should see) each other. We can get around it, with grids for example, until they patch it by sketching a reference plane across the grid ends and dragging them so they touch the reference plane. The grids will start to behave normally as long as we don't separate them again.

Well at least a couple replies suggest I'm crazy but here's what's happening to me.

Grid Bubble at Second End

Occasionally I get this question, "Why does the grid bubble always show up at the second point? I wish it was at the first point. I'd like to start at the bubble and draw from there." The answer is you can! It's just a setting, a simple one at that. This is the Type Properties dialog for a grid type.

Notice the highlighted parameters? End 1 is the Start (first pick point) and End 2 is the End (second pick point). If you want to sketch grids starting with the Bubble just switch the check marks. End 1 should be checked and End 2 should not. Make this adjustment in your project template and you'll not have to worry about it again, hopefully.

Same thing is true for Levels by the way.

Gaps in Grids

Some people do not like grids that extend entirely through a model. I usually hear about this in building elevations. They want the grids to stop just above the model. That is easy to do when we toggle from 3D to 2D. We can drag the 2D extent of the grid above the building. If we turn on the crop boundary of the view and make sure it intersects the grids we can drag them all together faster than doing it one at time.

Some want similar behavior in plan views too. We can do the same thing unless they also want the grids to appear on both sides of the model. In this case we can use the Center Segment parameter that is part of grid types. The stock Revit templates provide three grid types: 1/4" Bubble, 1/4" Bubble Custom Gap, and 1/4" Bubble Gap. They look like this.

If we want to stop the grid from traveling all the way through a model we can use the 1/4" Bubble Gap type. The gap is created with the Center Segment parameter by using None instead of Continuous or Custom. Choosing Custom enables (turns on) three new parameters: Center Segment Weight, Center Segment Color and Center Segment Pattern (a Line Pattern).

People also ask to be able to adjust this gap differently in different plan views. At first it doesn't seem possible because adjusting one does affect other views, until you toggle the 3D status to 2D. Once the grid is using the 2D mode we can alter the gap differently in that view when compared with other views. This gap does affect elevations and sections. This means you'll have to adjust the extents of the gap in those views too, especially if you don't want the gap to show up in those views at all.

It's like Spiderman's Uncle said, "...with great power comes great responsibility". The more subtle features we engage the more work it is to manage them.

By the way, this isn't possible with Levels. There is no Center Segment parameter. There are occasions where it would be helpful if we could do this for Levels too.

Enable 2D Setting for Multiple Grid Lines

There are times when we'd like to alter the 2D (view specific) position of Grids. When you select a Grid you can click the 3D icon to toggle it to 2D. That's a one-at-a-time affair though. If you have many grids you won't look forward to doing that.

When a Grid crosses a crop boundary in a view (when the crop boundary is enabled) it switches from 3D to 2D automatically. If you want to enable the 2D setting for all the vertical grids at once turn on the view's crop boundary and make sure it crosses your grids.

Now you can adjust all the Grids end point position together just like they do automatically for the 3D setting. It will work for levels too. If you don't want the crop region long term you can just disable it afterward. The Grids or Levels will retain their alteration until (if) you elect to use the Reset to 3D Extents (right click context menu option).

Monitor a Multiple-Segment Grid

When multi-segment grids were introduced they were not able to include them in the Copy/Monitor "loop" for Grids. We can monitor them, sort of. Since Copy/Monitor won't cooperate we can create our own "copy" of multi-segment grids by selecting them in the linked model and using Copy to Clipboard and Paste Aligned to Current View. We just need to remember to use the TAB key to cycle "in" to select elements in a linked model. Alternatively we can sketch our own version over the grid(s) in the linked model.

Once we have our own version we can use the Monitor part of C/M to let Revit watch over it, sadly...only sort of.

When we just use Monitor Revit recognizes the individual segments, not the whole multi-segment grid as a complete grid. If their original changes the process break downs even further. We do get a warning that the monitored grid has changed. If we select our version of the grid we don't get the Stop Monitoring button that normally allows us to sever the relationship. Our version also doesn't trigger the Coordination Monitor button when we select it after getting the warning when we reload the link or open our project fresh. If we just delete our version the coordination monitor warning is still lurking and I find that it will show up again later complaining about the deleted grids (ours). At this point it is messier to use Monitor than just watching for changes ourselves.

If we are willing to place individual grid segments over their multi-segment we can use Monitor and get normal results if we monitor each of their grid segments against our own individual segments, just not if ours are also are a multi-segment sketch based grid.

Short story, even using monitor only on multi-segment grids leaves us wishing for better. Hopefully the Copy/Monitor tool will get smarter and work with Multi-Segment grids too!

Grids Generator Extension

While I seem to be in whine mode this week I might as well suggest that the long standing grids generator extension get full Revit status. I think it could live on the ribbon alongside the Levels and Grids tool on the Datum panel. It might actually get used more if it were part of application and where's the harm in that??

Again, like the Space Naming Utility, awareness is the issue. People just don't know it exists. Instead of "hiding" it away on Autodesk Exchange put it in Revit! By the time they find out about it they've already put their grids in. If it was on the ribbon poking you in the eye when you look for grids and levels to begin with you might be more inclined to remember to use it. Hey, I thought the ribbon was better for discovering tools than the old fuddy duddy menu and toolbars approach? :)

Revit 2014 - Schedule Grids and Levels

Revit 2014 has added grids and levels as valid elements that a schedule can be based on.

I've not personally needed to schedule them for documentation purposes but I have wanted to do so many times just so I could analyse a project's datum. For example when someone says their level has "gone missing" a schedule of levels will quickly tell me if it is still there. Now I know that it is an issue with the extents of the level as opposed to someone deleting it entirely or perhaps assigning it to a workset that isn't open or visible.

I've seen a few offices that provide a "Storey" summary of their project on their general sheets, along side code compliance information. A level schedule can help provide this without resorting to text and lines that are not tied to the model data at all.

Mentioning worksets, it is worth noting that is not an available schedule field for a level or grid, it would be if it could be part of their schedule too.

Reusing the Same Grid Names

A reader saw a post by Brok on the HOK BIM Solutions blog and he wrote to me about this tip. His name is Mr. Smith, yeah uh that's his name, Mr. Smith... Well anyway the tip is this. We can use the right click option to insert unicode control character when editing the grid name parameter.

If we choose one it won't print but it will make Revit think that this grid #1 is different from this other grid #1. Pretty sneaky.

Mr. Smith's name has been changed to Mr. Jones to protect Mr. Smith.

P.S. My 2014 prediction is still that Revit will still be called Revit.

Hacking at Railings Again for 3D Grids

An exchange at RevitForum.org discussing 3D grids for 3D views or exporting to Navisworks prompted yet another "hackalicious" thought for Railings. I posted a VIDEO or this video so you can see and hear me discuss the concept. If you want to cut to the chase you can download the example project file (just scroll to the railing section on the page).

Aaron Maller shared some images (in the RFO thread) and concepts behind the line based families they've been using. Seeing them and reading the other posts made me think of railings yet again, because they don't mind curved paths and multiple segments. That and I'm not good with math that involves letters, weird signs or code.

By the way, several Dallas area based RFO members (Dan, Jose, Bob, Tanner, Aaron and me) got together for dinner last night and I mentioned it to Aaron so naturally I ended up writing this post tonight. We went to Taverna by Lombardi. Dan found it because I mentioned I was in the mood for risotto (yum!). Thanks to Dan for getting it organized! Sorry, I digress...

The first thing I did was create a baluster family to show a grid name, using 3D Text. Then I created a profile for the "railing", just a thin rectangle "kick plate" to "trip" over in the model. Once they were loaded into the project I created a new type for each Grid name, you'd need a type for every grid name in the project.

With the the types established I'm ready for railing types. I just created a new railing type for each grid as well. Then it's click click click... adding the matching baluster type to the railing type. Yep, this is the tedious part. It's more fun once you get to sketch the grids...define "fun" though?

Like I said railings don't mind curves so here's a curved grid added in.

Last image is using "nicer" grid stands to identify them, more like the example Aaron showed at RFO.

Listen and Watch my video here?

In actual use, I'd start in a empty project file and link in the project file that has the governing grids in them. Then use Copy/Monitor to create equivalent Revit grids and put the 3D grids (hacked railings) on top, at each level of the bldg. Copy/Monitor let's me open my 3D grid file any time and see if there are any changes I need to be aware of. I just have to provide a new export to .nwc (or .dwg) any time there is a change, and pass along the new file.

Tip - List of All Levels via Grid Generator Extension

This tip is courtesy of Daniel Stine, author of several Revit books (listed in previous post). If you are familiar with the Grid Generator extension for Revit you might have already seen this? If not...have a look!

This extension provides a nice summary of all the levels in your project AND their elevations. Also nice is that you don't really have to do anything, just launch the Grid Generator tool and then make sure the Levels option is selected.

It isn't always easy to see them all when some have been hidden or their extents are affecting what you see in sections and elevations. Thanks Daniel!

Dept. of Bugs - Revit Framing Does Not Play Nice

Avan Amalsad wrote to me today asking me if I could corroborate her observations and those of one of her clients, she works with Microdesk and specializes in Revit Structure. She was asking about that version but I had Revit Architecture open. The two applications share these features so if it happens in RST I expected it to happen in RAC, it did! Okay okay...what is it?

If you have a grid, column and framing layout and adjust the position of a grid by a value of around six inches or less (150mm) you'll find that the framing doesn't follow the grid.

If you change the spacing by a value greater than six inches (150mm) then it seems to wake up and follow the grid. If you keep changing it by small increments the framing may not wake up until you've move it enough that it does again. Odd foible. Avan's client says that they saw a larger increment of failure back in Revit 2009 so it is better now. I guess we have to define better loosely? I recorded a little video to demonstrate it to make it easier to see.

Workset Visibility in Linked Files

Warning: Worksets are not for visibility control purists need to walk away, put some ear plugs in and repeat after me, "Nah nah nah, I can't hear you Steve, I can't hear you".

When you work with linked project files a common issue people deal with is controlling the display of the linked levels and grids. The first person I recall discovering the technique I'm about to describe is Daniel Stine, the author of several Revit books.

If your project and the other project files use specific worksets for certain elements, like Levels and/or grids you can control their visibility quite easily. Here's the steps:

• For each linked project file - define a workset(s) name for the linked elements
• Have the source of each file make sure the elements are assigned to this workset(s)
• Create the same workset(s) using the same name in your own project
• Un-Check Visible by default in all views

When you import the other project file Revit will recognize the workset that uses the same name and respect the fact that your workset by the same name isn't supposed to be visible, rendering their workset "invisible" too. I've created a brief video that explains this too.

For the purist that prefers to use Filters for visibility control, Revit doesn't provide access to project file parameters like file name or project name. If Revit did then we could filter for the grids in the other file instead. If the grid family name chosen by the other project file creators was carefully assigned/selected we could control it with Filters.

Guide Grids

Robert Manna recently posted some observations about the new Guide Grid feature that arrived with Revit 2011. It is intended to provide a bit more control over the view alignment between sheets. I complained about this process in an earlier post. It was only a month or so later that I saw a sneak peak of the Guide Grid concept.

It's probably simplistic of me to say so but it seems to me that it is an expansion of the existing Show Work Plane feature present for model views. I came to that conclusion because it shares the exasperating limitation of only allowing one dimension value to control the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the grid.

If you are interested in a little deeper commentary just read Robert's post. For now, if you use this new feature, just remember:

Don't DELETE a grid in the sheet view if you don't want to see it anymore. Set the Guide Grid value to none for the sheet or use Visibility/Graphics in the sheet view to turn it off.

If you delete a guide grid you'll remove it for all the sheets. You should get this warning though in an attempt by Revit to save you from yourself.

Earlier posts:
Align Views on Sheets
Aligning Views Between Sheets
Dept. of Wishes - Aligning Views on Sheets

Dept. of Workarounds - Smaller Grids in Large Scale Views

I responded to a post at AUGI with this text (I did tweak this version a little since the thread isn't here to get the context of the conversation):

I hear this complaint, "I need smaller grid bubbles in site plans, they are toooo BIG!", every now and then in the last couple years. In the early days there was usually a "hallelujah" when we realized we no longer had to deal with keeping them the correct size when printed. Irony!

The fundamental issue is that Revit's mandate is, "All annotation must maintain their intended printed size". If the grid text is assigned 1/8" scale and the circle is 3/8" diameter then no matter what scale is used they will maintain that size. This is why they are "so big" in 1:500 views. The reality is they are not bigger, they are exactly the same...the building has gotten much smaller in comparison.

Text, symbols and dimensions all behave in exactly the same manner...except that they only show up in one view, the one you place them in. Grids, levels and reference planes transcend the view specific nature of other annotation to eliminate the need to draft them repeatedly and therefore coordinate them endlessly.

A solution to show different size grid annotation in large scale views involves using Design Options.

• Create a Design Option called Grid Management and two options: Normal Size and Reduced Size.
• Create a Reduced Size Grid type that uses a grid bubble family with smaller text and circle.
• Rename the normal Grid type: Normal Size.
• Add all the Normal Size grids to the project and then add them to both Design Options.
• Edit the Reduced Size view's Design Option and change the grid types to the matching Reduced Size grid type.
• In the larger scale views set their Design Option (via Visibility/Graphics dialog) to display the Reduced Size Design Option.

Now you have smaller grid bubbles and they "look" better...just keep in mind that they are smaller and now harder to read when printed full size, or half size for that matter.

Caution Dimensioning to these grids in a design option and to the rest of the model can have unpleasant issues. Such as the dimension getting deleted or at least disappearing when the relationship between the Option"ed" grids are no longer relevant. This can happen if you toggle the assigned option to another and back.

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!