That Thick Boundary on my Sheet

A conversation about our title block is inevitable when working through implementation. If we're going to produce a drawing we'll need one unless we've arrived at the day when a model is the only deliverable which, unless I've become Rip van Winkle and woke up twenty odd years in the future, isn't the norm yet.

One recurring theme is a thick boundary line. A polyline is often used for this in AutoCAD. Sorry, there is no equivalent element (AutoCAD polyline) in Revit, namely that a polyline's thickness can vary along it length. To replicate a thick boundary we need to use Revit's own lines to sketch thick lines. We also need to keep in mind that Revit's lines do not square off at the ends, an option that AutoCAD developers added to it in the past. Revit's developers designed it thinking that the tip of pens/pencils are round and when you sketch with a them you get rounded edges, consistent with "reality".

If we need a thick (or very thick) boundary with squared edges then we accomplish that with a Filled Region (solid black). It is sketched like two rectangles, inside and outside edges of the thick line, using a thin line. When the filled region is finished it will look just like a thick "line".

Hopefully the same result, just different technique.

Revit INI UI Calculator

When Revit 2014 offered a single installation (just called Revit) with all of the discipline specific Revit features included (aka "one box") the development team provided a calculator to determine the correct variable to assign a parameter value in the Revit.ini. This value is used to configure the user interface according to the disciplines that we want users to see listed on the Ribbon tabs. Since there are numerous combinations that are possible they are using "bit" logic to arrive at a single unique value that defines how the ribbons should be configured. The calculator provides a simple way to arrive at that number. Check the boxes and use the value at the bottom.

When the help documentation team began migration to the present online help delivery software (moving from the previous WikiHelp format) they decided to abandon the calculator since it seemed few people were really interested in it or using it. I complained that as software developers they ought to realize that it was already serving a niche among niches in the first place. It remains a niche item and I'm grateful they've recently taken the time to restore/re-code it to work in the new help documentation system. It's subtle but every little bit helps.

It can be seen HERE.

Should I Use Revit for this Project?

It isn't a surprising question, it's asked often. I wrote a post before called "Yeah but". That's the kind of response that often comes after answering the question with, "Yeah, you should".

"Yeah but... the architect isn't using Revit, the engineers aren't using Revit, we don't really need 3D for this project, this project doesn't have the margin, this project is fast track, this project isn't big enough, this project is too big"... and so on.

A recent one I heard was, "The architect isn't using Revit, should we use Revit MEP for this project?"

When Revit Systems was released in 2006, the essence of Autodesk's marketing commentary was, "this is new software so it probably doesn't make sense to tackle a project with it unless the architecture team is using Revit too." I don't think it is still true six years later. Sure we benefit from the modelling effort in architecture and structure but we can still benefit from the effort without them.

Is this our first project using Revit? - If yes, then maybe this project isn't the ideal first project.

Otherwise, assuming we are comfortable with Revit, then why not? Is it a valid question for architects? As in, "We aren't going to use Revit because the engineers are not using it." There wasn't a Revit Structure or MEP when Revit was introduced.

There is a lot more to Revit than just 3D. Why assume that there is no value in creating a model of the MEP scope of work even if the architect doesn't use Revit? We will still be able to compare our model against 2D documentation by importing various 2D CAD views into the model. We can still export to 2D files for them to do the same. Why assume that we won't learn anything from doing so? We don't have to assume the burden of modelling the architecture or structure to get something out of the effort. Every project has some, or more often many, surprises. Modeling a project reveals more than doing one in 2D. Just try creating a model using only 2D documents as the guide.

When considering this I think it is important to be careful which measuring stick is being used. Is it measured according to the technical drafting staff, the project engineer or manager, the firm, the project or the owner? If we measure too closely to who performs a single task we lose sight of the bigger picture, the downstream ramifications of our choices. Revit challenges our assumptions and process. More often than not I hear decisions being based on a notion of "us and them" in the equation. Adversarial business relationships don't make it easy to ensure a great result.

Given the chance, I'm betting that using Revit on any project (assuming some responsible preparation is in place) will ultimately prove to have been worthwhile, often in the least anticipated ways. I think this fits, "we don't know what we don't know". I find I stumble into what I don't know more often in 3D than in 2D.

Autodesk BIM Deployment Plan

From the Autodesk site:

...snip...

The Autodesk BIM Deployment Plan offers tools and guidance for building industry professionals interested in implementing Building Information Modeling (BIM). Tools offered in this resource provide a practical framework for AEC stakeholders, and can be used by individual organizations on specific projects. The BIM Deployment Plan includes:

* BIM support materials for owners, architects, engineers, and contractors
* Templates to streamline multi-discipline communications
* Recommendations for roles and responsibilities
* Best business process examples
* Software suggestions for an effective BIM environment

...snip...

Download it now?

The First Number or Value - Template Setup

When you place a component, like a door, Revit provides a unique Mark parameter value. Same thing happens when you place a grid. Have you started a new project, placed a door and found a nice number like 234? How about a grid value of 2 or 15 instead of just 1 or A? Not all elements get a unique number automatically, such as furniture or casework for example. Those two just get a blank value.

Fortunately this issue is pretty quick to resolve. Just open your template, place a new component or grid and renumber the Mark/Name parameter so that it has the number just before the one you want your user to get with the template when they get started. This works fine for numbers but I'm not sure what to do about letters. If you want the grid to start with A...what comes before A? I've tried to get it to start with A again...but no joy.

I made a short video that shows what I'm writing about.

Implementation by Accident

Don't try THIS at home!!


When a friend sent this image to me I thought of what Phil Read said at Autodesk University in one of his sessions a couple years ago. He said (paraphrasing), "You can't implement Revit accidentally". He was emphasing that implementation is a deliberate activity that requires planning. If you don't then in a way you are doing what this guy is doing...hoping that his supports hold...good luck!!

(I don't know where the photo originally came from but thanks!)