Move Room Tool

Following on yesterday's post about rooms and their tags. It occurred to me that a Move Room tool might be helpful (via Dynamo or app). I imagine being able to start the command and choose a room. Then I'd choose between options for This Floor or Another Floor.

If This Floor is selected I'd choose between options for Move All Associated Tags or Delete All Associated Tags and then I'd be prompted for a new location.

If Another Floor is selected then under the hood the room would be deleted, I'd choose between tag options, and then prompted to choose another plan view to open, followed by placing the room in the new location.

Multiple room selection might be useful too? I don't often move a collection of rooms together. It's certainly possible that could be necessary and very helpful if so.

Whatcha think?

Revit 2020.2 Turn Off Internal Origin - Dynamo Option

In a thread at RFO John Pierson (Parallax Team, and Dynamo guru) got the ball rolling with a video link that described overriding graphics in views. I picked up the ball and created the graph but missed an essential but tiny setting for one node to make it work (Lacing - Cross Product).

The Dynamo Graph looks like this (click to Download).

You can use Dynamo, with this graph, to turn off the Internal Origin, Survey Point, and Project Base Point in floor and ceiling plans, sections, elevations and 3D views. Change the code block from False to True and it will turn them all on instead.

Regarding Jean-Marc's comment: I think he was suggesting this instead.

Filter Dialog and Reading a Long Filter Name

Dialog stretchiness has been an ongoing long standing user wish for all dialogs. Daniel wrote to me hoping that I'd echo his complaint about the Filter dialog. Yes you can stretch it but the frames remain less so. The Filter name frame does add a scroll bar at the bottom when a filter name exceeds the width of the frame, which does not increase in size when the overall host dialog stretches out. Ideally we'd be able to stretch/adjust individual sections of such dialog boxes. If memory serves that is dependent upon which GUI tools are being used to generate the dialog. If that tool set doesn't do it then...we don't get it...without a custom entity.

Daniel was writing about Revit 2019. Even when you scroll over to the right completely a filter with a long name gets truncated and you can't read all of the name.

I note that in Revit 2020 a tooltip will appear that displays the full name while the frame does the same truncating even when it has been scrolled completely to the right.

Naturally, we can avoid it if we can use Filter names that are not very long, an easy fix...there's that word again - easy. Easier said than done...it seems.

App Thoughts - Project Info Workset

Lately I find the Project Info workset is borrowed by someone inadvertently (okay me). As such, I wishfully imagine I could mash a button and find out if I've got that workset borrowed based on selecting a project folder and it checking each of the project files it finds. Being able to browse through projects on Revit Server would be boss too. If it could relinquish any instances if finds for me that would be really boss.

I guess I'll have to wander off to the Dynamo salt mines to see if any of it's possible.

As for why this happens...in my case it is related to Publish Coordinates. That's the only operation Revit permits us to alter a linked file; alter and save changes to a file we don't have open in the active session.

At the moment I think it happens when the process fails to complete properly. However it has happened too on occasion when I was convinced it worked. I have some reservations about Revit Server too. I've noticed a higher proportion of projects not being able to use Publish Coordinates when the files are available via Revit Server. Which reminds me I've got a post in drafts about resolving a Can't Publish Coordinates situation...brb.

Casting numerous aspersions with only clues to base them on...not very scientifical of me eh?

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.

Revit Safe Mode - Wish Fulfilled

The other day I wrote about David's idea for a Revit Safe mode and Robert Manna responded in a serious way. He and the gang at Stantec created and have just shared an application to do just what we were suggesting. This is a screen shot of it running (from Robert's post).

It runs outside of Revit, prepares for opening Revit without the add-ins you choose to disable. It allows us to be fairly surgical in our troubleshooting even if it's akin to exploratory surgery ... "Hmmm, maybe we need to remove the appendix? No, that wasn't it...maybe the spleen?"

If you're curious head over to Robert's post on their blog for more information and to download the application.

Wish - Revit Safe Mode

I'm echoing something I heard David Baldacchino suggest, good idea Dave. Revit will crash from time to time. Sometime it isn't because of something I've done, it tracks back to an add-in I've got installed. It can be a bit of a hassle to disable add-ins to rule them out.

It would be handy if there were a way to start-up Revit in safe mode - add-in free so to speak so it can run on its own and help us diagnose an issue.

Speaking of Wishes - Autodesk started a new community forum called Revit Ideas to post this kind of thing. It allows us to Vote Up an idea so those that many of us really like can rise to the top. Potentially this can help them focus on things we really want and are (hopefully) expressed well enough to pursue.

Open Sheet - Equal Rights for Panel Schedules

This new right-click choice exists, within the Project Browser, for views that are on sheets. Views that are real that is. Schedules are special views, they can be placed on more than one sheet (like Legends). Electrical Panel Schedules share this distinction but unlike other schedules they are not nearly as likely to require being placed on more than one sheet. Their schedule-ness makes this right click option invalid for them too.

I realize it probably isn't easy or perhaps even possible to segregate this schedule-ness from Panel Schedules but I would have found it very handy to be able to use the Open Sheet concept for them several times today. In this instance it would have been faster than navigating through a very long list of sheets. I suppose it is also possible that some firms do need to be able to put Panel Schedules on more than one sheet, in which case...bummer for me and my wish...

A Case for Worksets - Opening Linked Files

It is common to choose to avoid enabling Worksets when we don't need to let more than one person access our project at the same time. If we rely on using linked files then we can benefit from not avoiding them. For example, if you've ever wanted to open a linked file at the same time as the file you are currently working in you've seen this warning message.

Revit doesn't like opening a linked file in the same session, without unloading the link in the current model first, but it won't mind doing so if you open a second session of Revit. Revit uses separate memory allocation for each session. That means it isn't possible to use Copy to Clipboard with Paste Aligned when we are using two sessions. If you let Revit unload the link instead you won't see any changes in the host project until you save, close and reload the linked file. A good many users regard that cycle of steps to be annoying.

When we enable Worksets we have a Central File but work in a Local File. If all the project files we use have enabled Worksets then when we open any of the Linked Files we are creating a new Local File. Here's the tricky part...technically that's not the SAME file we Linked. The Linked File is (should be) based on the Central File (it's name and location)...the Central File is linked, not our Local File.

Yes this means you can now open a linked file in the same session of Revit. You can make changes in either file and use Synchronize and Modify Settings to store the changes in the Central File(s).

Now before you get too excited, you still have to use Reload on the Linked File that's been changed. That's not really any different than having another user making changes to the Linked File and having to use Reload to see their changes. It does make it easier to go back and forth between models quickly; eliminates the open/close part. Eventually you have to use Reload to see any changes regardless.

If you are a sole user and still intimidated by Worksets; just remember you only have to have one Workset for it to be enabled, for Revit to work. Revit creates two default Worksets for us to use (Shared Levels and Grids and Workset 1) but we don't have to be too concerned with assigning elements to any but Workset 1. That's assuming we don't really need Worksets for its fundamental purpose; allowing concurrent access to the same data by more than one person.

Something to consider if open/closing and unloading/reloading links is annoying.

Oh, I should mention that this starts to disintegrate if you are opening more than two files that are inter-related, linked into each other. For example, imagine a Host Model, Linked Model 01 and Linked Model 02. The Host Model has linked both of the linked models. If Linked Model 01 is also linked into Linked Model 02 and we then open both of them as well as the Host Model we will encounter this kind of message when we make changes to Linked Model 01 and then attempt to reload it in the Host Model.

The file in question is also present in the other open Linked Model and that is what Revit is objecting to. We'll also find that the file is unloaded automatically. We'll have to close the other file that it is visible in before we can successfully reload it. As such my habit is to limit my use of this technique to two open files at a time.

Purge Unused - Categorical Wish and Dynamo

I wish we could choose a single category or several individual categories while using Purge Unused. The dialog defaults to selecting everything that is not used. It's normal to have things that just aren't used yet. That means a generic application of Purge Unused on everything will eliminate things we need, just haven't needed them yet.

I'd like to be able to click the Check None button and the check a box next to a category or categories.

I think the default presumption for Purge Unused should NOT be everything selected. We should have to deliberately do that using the Check All button instead.

It would be a lot faster than working through a long list of families and the unused types. Ideally (even ordinarily) the list wouldn't be long but I've seen some lists that go on and on...

For what it is worth, we can select a category and use NUM LOK + * to expand the whole branch of that category. Then we can select the first and last types in the branch followed by clicking OK to Purge Unused. It just takes a while for the list to respond when there are a few thousand types...yeah I know...that's a lot!

Regarding Dynamo

I pinged Julien Benoit about this and using Dynamo. In response he was kind enough to send me the graph below.

At the moment it leaves behind a Family with no types if the purging process eliminates types and there were no types in use. Given how quickly he responded to my question WITH an attachment, no complaints here! Thanks Julien! Check out Julien's blog while you are at it.

Friday Wish - IDs of Element on Modify Context Ribbon

As a quick follow up to yesterday's post about using the IDs of Selection tool, I find myself wishing that the button for it would show up on the Modify Contextual ribbon tab when elements are selected.

Yes I know I can assign a Keyboard Shortcut to it... assuming I'd be able to remember it...

Wish - Insert From File - Work with Templates

Insert from File allows us to import views from another project, views like schedules, drafting views or even sheets that contain either. It is biased toward RVT files though.

It would be handy if it we less biased, enough to include RTE (Revit templates) too. Since we probably have standard stuff set up there anyway. Doing so would allow me to acquire a view from a template file instead of having to first save one as a new project or find another project that is already available in a project folder elsewhere.

View Reference Example

Related to a past POST or TWO...or THREE.

Here's a quick example of a poorly crafted Plan View reference that can be used to indicate what sheet a plan view is from a Section or Elevation view.

Want to reverse engineer it? Download the View Reference family.

Need a Ceiling Tool

Revit Workflows and Auto Floors Builder are two 3rd party applications that tackle the task of creating floors more efficiently. Revit Workflows is focused on finish floors and Auto Floors Builder has a more structural focus. While I think Autodesk ought to tackle this sort of refinement directly it is great that there are some options.

Where are equivalent tools for creating ceilings? Is the API holding development back or are they just still on the drawing board? My inquiring mind is curious...

Copy Monitor - What Elements are in a Relationship?

A friend recently asked if there is an easy way to find out what elements are currently involved in a Copy/Monitor relationship. Good question! No easy button exists for this that I'm aware of. Sure we can select all grids and looks for C/M monitoring icons. That's not too hard for levels and grids. It's much less fun for walls, columns, floors or any of the MEP related categories that can be involved.

It might be an interesting question/problem for enterprising Dynamo aficionados or API programmers?

It would be nice to generate a report of the elements in a relationship and with which model and elements their relationship is based upon. I think it is just another example of the kind of refinement that Revit's collaboration tools ought to have.

Including a Sheet File Name and Path

Ever since we started using computers to generate architectural and engineering drawings we've been inclined to provide a place on a title block to help people find the file. Sometimes it is just the file name and other times it is necessary to have both the file name and path to the folder it is in.

The path is useful to the team working on the files but if those files are passed along to someone else it may be meaningless to them, or confusing at the very least. The file name is useful to anyone who happens to be looking at the drawings as long as they are in a position to access the digital version of the file too.

In a Revit model, which usually contains all the sheets for a project, the file name doesn't have the same usefulness when compared to a file based system like AutoCAD. That's true unless you are printing multiple layouts from a single DWG file, then it's not all that different than Revit. When someone is looking at a printed sheet and sees the file name and path it doesn't help them find the digital version, like a PDF file for Sheet A100 for example, because the file name is the Revit model, not the resulting PDF export.

As such Revit misses the mark in helping us carrying on that tradition. Since there are a number of ways our sheets can end up as individual files it is hard for Revit to anticipate or provide a suitable way to plug in a unique value until the data is exported outside of Revit. I'm sure there are some things that they could do to help us with this but it hasn't happened yet.

Revit's API could be used to capture the sheet information and store a contrived file name in a parameter for each sheet. When we print or export we might end up with the correct file names matching the resulting files or bearing a slight difference. I don't recall an existing application that deals with this specifically but one might exist, like Xrev Tools for example.

If we forget limitations within Revit for the moment, since the output format of a set of documents is where the appropriate file data is really needed it might make sense to consider focusing on how we handle the output files instead, at least for now. For example, the company Bluebeam offers software to process, review, and markup PDF documents. It includes the ability to add custom headers and footers, which can be the file name (among other things). It can also Batch Process files to include the file name. The file path is another available choice to put in a header or footer so we can combine them if we want to include both.

If it is necessary to provide the specific file name (and path) for exports to DWG it is probably best to add it those files after exporting, this way they'll point to an actual file instead of the Revit project file. Again some customization could add the necessary fields pretty effectively.

It seems like post processing this information is probably as effective as trying to come up with a way to deal with it internally in Revit.

Revit is Crashing

You're suffering with a file that is crashing on your computer. Have you attempted to work with/recover the file on a different computer? Doing so will help rule out the possibility that there is an issue with the PC you've been using.

Revit can be a grouchy bugger with too little RAM or an incompatible Video Card/driver. If you have very little RAM then it could be that Revit is running out of RAM before it can process the file properly during the save which can increase the RAM it requires to function. You can also try to disable the graphics options in the Options dialog > Graphics to see if that makes any difference.

I'd start by eliminating the PC itself, try to restore it using another. If that makes no difference then you need to consider the project file itself. Yet another thing to consider, linked files. You can move any linked files it is looking for to another folder temporarily so it can't find them to load them. If a link is really causing the problem then this file crashing is just a victim of a different problem. I've seen a link crashing the host several times in the past. It's a drag spending a lot of time trying to fix a file that didn't have a problem when a link really did.

In 2011 (my post about it) The Revit Clinic's Kathryn Langan wrote a post about a journal file parser she wrote.

Room Area Net vs Gross

When it comes to documenting room area we have one global setting called Room Area Computation, found in the Area and Volume Calculations dialog.

We get to choose from four options that affect the entire project's room area calculations: Wall Finish, Wall Center, Wall core Layer and Wall Core Center. Wall Finish tends to work for net area calculations while Wall Center works better for gross area.

When we need to be able to show both net and gross one approach we can take is to use Area elements and Area plans. Unfortunately area and room objects are totally ignorant of one another. That means an area plan using area elements is NOT a room so we've got a lot of redundant data entry to deal with. Another way to deal with it is to print sheets with the Room Area Computation set for one condition and then switch to the other setting for other sheets intended for that condition. We'll need some "redundant" views with tags etc. but perhaps it will provide the necessary differences required.

Another possibility if we are using Revit, the version that includes all the disciplines tools, is to take advantage of MEP Spaces. They ignore the Room Area Computation setting, they only reference Wall Finish. This means I can create a space for each room, yes some redundancy. I can use the Space Naming Utility (subscription extension) to pass the name and number of the related room to the space name and number parameters so I don't have to enter the redundant information. The end result could look something like this, where I use a plan focused on spaces and another focused on rooms to show both net and gross area calculations.

This nexst image is Gross Area using Wall Centerline as the Room Area Computation settings.

This image is the Net Area using Spaces instead, leaving the Room Area Computation the same as for the above.

This is using Area elements instead matching names and numbers manually. The API might be able to be harness to resolve this to some degree.

Something to consider.

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?

Show Me Wish

Revit offers us the opportunity to "Show" an element when we review warnings, use the Select by ID and fairly often when an error message is generated and we expand the warning.

Choosing Show will often generate a warning that there is no good view to show it in and ask us if we really want to let Revit hunt for a view.

I'd like to be able to specify which kind of views to hunt through before it does its magic. For example I know I want to find a ceiling so don't bother showing me 3D, elevation or section views if I'm really hoping to see just ceiling plan views. Perhaps a new Zoom option: Zoom to Selected that goes to the current element in the view, like Revit will do in a 3D view using the view cube.

Let me help Revit focus on what I'm interested in or think I need. I occasionally have a clue...