Exploding DWG Files

 "Just don't explode DWG files" is good advice, that is immediately ignored because...reasons...

Setting that aside, now that we've exploded that DWG, now what. First, there is full explode versus partial explode. A full explode will recreate all the DWG elements into native Revit elements (assuming it is possible) but a partial explode will produce some native elements and some new DWG elements (blocks).

Reducing all DWG elements to equivalent elements in Revit is fraught with peril. Not all blocks in a DWG are created well. Explode one block that happens to have very large extents and your project will now have display/graphics issues. A Revit project might have one imported DWG but many times that number after partial exploding.

I recently encountered three project files that had +95k imported DWG files. These were the result of partial exploding less than 20 DWG files. As most people are aware, Revit won't create an element if it is too short (less than 1/32" long). A scary number of these DWG files were invisible, undetectable by eye in any view, because I believe their contents were too short to display. Many thousands were in just a few views. I used IDEATE Explorer to select, open the view they were in, if they were invisible then delete them.

It was time consuming; for some of them it was fastest to just delete the drafting view entirely because the view/detail wasn't going to be used on the project anyway. It was part of the everything and the kitchen sink approach in their template. Many of these details were derived from existing DWG based details created over many years to varying standards.

Back to Revit and exploded DWG elements...

Each line, arc, circle, etc. element is recreated and assigned to a new line style named for the layer it lived on in DWG. Similarly each text element is created using DWG info to define it as unique. Line and fill patterns are created this way as well. Ditto for dimension styles...and filled regions...

Once these exist in a project they are prone to being used by others because they are there. It is hard to ensure the standards a company has developed are used when this additional noise is present.

If we must explode a DWG let's not do so in our active project. Use an isolated file, based on our project standards (template). Once exploded, take the time to convert everything to our standard types. The completed drafting view can be added to our active project using Revit's Insert from File tool.

Also consider the time is takes to do this well...might be as long or longer than sketching over a detail DWG instead. If our detail item library is pretty good we'll be able to create a detail faster because we have components to represent the same kinds of things the DWG has in block form etc.

Don't sweep the DWG remnants under the rug...

Zoning Clearance Thoughts

A long time fellow Revit traveler reached out to me via Revit Lifeline last night asking about zoning clearance ideas. Where he lives and works they want designers to demonstrate the building is not too tall. They also want them to prove it doesn't extend into a zone that leans back into the site. All in all the code reduces the size of the building that can be built on any given property that falls under its jurisdiction.

I have heard and read about this concern many times over the years. But in response last night, I mocked up a quick example to see if it met his needs (waiting to hear back). I thought, "Blog post? I just posted something the other day...don't get carried away. Yeah, but you've only posted like twice this year slacker! So a blog post it is then..."

Here's a few images to ponder first. Pretty fancy house design eh? Doors and windows are so last century. I CAN design YOUR next home, just call when you're ready...operators are standing by.

The upper surface is a thin floor which is manipulated through Dynamo and Shape Editing. Lauren Schmidt's LandArchBIM blog is a very nice source for land techniques and I stole her graph ideas in this post to make it. Her post explains the technique relies on a sub-region to match whatever hardscape shape (property boundary in this case) is necessary. I used the floor's offset parameter to move it up above the surface by the zoning height required.

The front and back property boundary clearance requirement is built with a railing and profile. The fact that railings can be hosted by toposurface now opens this door wide. The surface form might not lend itself to a nice clean railing though, mileage will vary. You can see the rear railing is a little deformed in a couple spots. I built parameters into the profile so I could (using types) vary the height of the angle portion, change the angle, change the height above property (spring point of the lean) and the thickness of the railing.

I created a specific material to assign to it all so it can be mostly transparent.

My example is admittedly simplistic. How many property boundaries are really a simple rectangle? Pretty rare, about as rare as a purple unicorn that uses Revit? A front or rear boundary that has arcs and many segments will probably pose some issues creating a hosted railing. I can imagine things going wrong but I'll wait until I'm dealing with something specific to worry about that.

The file I mocked this up is in Revit 2020.2 and the dynamo graph (link has both RVT and Graph) is so simple that this screen shot would help you build it nearly a fast as downloading and opening it up. That's what I did with Lauren's example. You do need the packages I've circled.

Oh, the mockup has a massing element too, you'll have to turn massing on though. At first I thought I'd sweep a profile along the property edge defined by the upper surface. After I did that I thought of the railing. The learning curve is much less steep for a railing than massing, bonus being much faster too.

Decided to add a couple more images. I realized that I could have turned off the sub-category Interior Edges for Floors to hide the tessellation in the other images. It also occurred to me that another railing and profile configuration could deal with the top. I just created another type from my existing profile family to make it a 90 degree railing. A separate wide profile without a vertical portion would provide just a top surface. The floor and railing approach don't result in the same surfaces but within reason? If reason can be applied to a zoning requirement?

Here's both visible...

Change a System Parameter from Type to Instance - Not Length

It is fairly common knowledge that we can change a built-in parameter like Width from Type to Instance by going through the side door, selecting a dimension assigned to the parameter and changing it to Instance on the ribbon (see the image).

Kurt Thompson wrote to me to share how he gets around this issue when the parameter isn't something a dimension can be associated with. Specifically he was referring to a thread at the Autodesk User Forums where a member (electrical focus) was asking Autodesk to change the default parameters for Mains (instance), MCB Rating (type) and Subfeed Lugs (type). They argue that each parameter should be the opposite of the current configuration based on how the information is really dealt with (not that he needs me to, but I agree with him).

Kurt writes:

"To change a System Type parameter to Instance...(specific to the mentioned thread)

Create a Shared Parameter built exactly like the built-in parameter you need to change but make it Instance instead of Type. Starting out with a Generic Model family, add the new parameter. Now assign the family to the category Electrical Equipment, Revit will replace the shared parameter with the built-in parameter but it will retain the Instance (or Type) property setting from the shared parameter. Give it a try."

Thanks Kurt!

Property Boundary and Coordinate Data - Dynamo

Alternate title: Mr. Revit OpEd finally does something (tho basic) with Dynamo!

I used this problem as an excuse to dig into Dynamo a bit. I created the attached graph to read a text file with coordinate values, one line per X,Y,Z values.

The text file format is very basic, it looks like this:

I created a 3D cylinder and model lines to form a target symbol family, 3D and fairly large so I could see it anywhere in the model. The graph places a target family at each coordinate location. Before running the graph, I assigned the Project Units for Length to Meter. Then I ran (manual) the Dynamo graph to place the target families. The last step was to start the Property Line tool and sketch the property boundary segments from target to target, which looks like this.

It was necessary to move the points closer to Revit's origin so they were not so far away, since Revit hates that. After doing that, I moved the Survey Point (not clipped) to one corner of the property (target family location) and then used Specify Coordinates at Point at that location using the coordinate values for that corner. This will allow me to export the result to DWG, if necessary. I also created a specific Spot Coordinate family type so I could identify some or every target location and make sure each reports the correct coordinates, double checking my work so to speak.

I probably spent a couple hours on this, mostly trying to get my head wrapped around which nodes in Dynamo to use. The next time I'll be twice as fast!

Project Units Matter - Specify Coordinates at Point

When we use the Specify Coordinates at Point (SPaC) it is possible that the units in use will affect your results. For example, this project is using Feet and Fractional Inches (FaFI) but for SPaC to match the available survey info it was changed to Decimal Inches (DI) with six decimal places. After using SPaC the units were returned to FaFI.

Some time later the elevation needed to be changed thus causing us to revisit using SPaC. The following image shows the original values used for SPaC.

Leaving the Project Units assigned to FaFI resulted is this subtle change to the coordinate values.

When the units were revised to match the earlier DI settings the SPaC coordinates are not altered.

Shorter story, be careful with your unit settings when using SPaC.

Five Minutes with Shape Editing a Bay Roof

I posted this screencast in response to a thread at the Autodesk Forums. Figured I might as well share it here too. I used shape editing to create the bay roof condition shown in this image.

It's based on an image of a DWG roof plan that was shared in the original post in the discussion. The sketches of the main and bay roofs look like the following image. It also shows the sketched Split Line elements I added to make raising the bay ridge up easy.

Here's the screencast I created to post at the forums.


FWIW, I made the main roof partially transparent so I could see the walls more easily. In the video I commented about using the Two Cut Plumb setting with a 12" value. The Shape Editing disables that for the bay roof but it did start out with that setting in play so it all worked out as I intended even though I was confused about it at the time.

Sketching Tangent Lines

A post based on my responses at the Autodesk Forum: Tangent Circle to Tangent Circle.

It could be easier...

I see Revit behaving this way, they regard the first point as ineligible to being tangent because it depends on the bearing of the line, With that assumption or bias, the first point is necessary to make a tangent condition possible. I can easily snap to a location on the circle (a pulley for example) that couldn't be tangent to the next pulley.

AutoCAD deals with this in a clever fashion (when we invoke the tangent snap) by fixing (changing) the first point to be tangent after the second point is placed. If we aren't careful with our second pick point (snap tangent too) the tangent line might end up on the opposite side of the pulley.

In contrast, Revit handles it naively, because it regards our first point as ineligible to tangents because it isn't considering this particular end result: "I want to draw a line tangent to two circles". AutoCAD appears to know this by virtue of snapping tangent for the first point so it can adjust the final bearing, and attachment to the circle, of the line.

To get around this naiveté, I place the first point on the pulley where it looks like it can be tangent, to my eye. The second point snaps to tangent with the icon. I return to the first point and grip/drag it away and back to let the snap icon appear, to fix it for tangent, just to see if I was close. If my guess wasn't accurate, it is now.

After reading a reply to my comments I did a quick sketch in AutoCAD and then did the same sketch in Revit using the same pulley sizes and offset from one another (see Footnote). The tangent lines have the same x/y properties for start and end as the AutoCAD version, that I made using its snap tangent.

This is the native DWG sketch and properties screen captures for each element.

This is same information but for the Revit drafting view exported to DWG. When I create an External Reference of the exported Revit drafting view it lands right on top of the native sketch. If you look really closely you'll see a value is slightly different in the Revit version. I think that might be my fault, sketching. Regardless, I think close enough is fair.

Footnote: Regarding a drafting view aligning with a DWG file after export: It might not be obvious but drafting views have an origin. To test that claim link a DWG, that has a marker at the WCS origin, into one and you'll see where the origin is. I did that before I did any sketching so I'd know how to place the pulleys in the same place. That made it possible to compare the tangent lines after exporting it to DWG.

Also the Start and End X/Y values are reversed. That's either just how Revit interprets the vector of each line segment or it's because of the direction I chose to sketch them in Revit. In AutoCAD I started at the smaller pulley. I didn't make sure to sketch in the same way in Revit, sloppy scientist.

Shared Coordinates - Autodesk Reference Information

It's September already...no posts in August...time flies.

This post is brief, merely a referral. If you struggle with understanding Revit's coordinate system then THIS LINK, at Autodesk's Knowledge Base (KB) site for this subject might be helpful. I like the images and some of explanations or interpretations it offers.

Check it out, it may help!

Edit: I wrote this on Sept. 7th originally, received an unflattering comment about it, returned it to draft, revised it, and restored it to published on Sept. 14th.

I was lazy. I thought the information was an addition to their formal help documentation. When I saw the comment I read through the KB article again and realized that it was written by an Autodesk User Group member and submitted to their Knowledge Base system, which happens to be curated by different people than the product documentation group. I might quibble with some subtlety of it here or there but its approach may help someone get a grasp on the bigger picture. Just keep in mind that its claims are not gospel, nor written by Autodesk's own people.

Recover or Acquire a Shared Parameter

I wrote THIS POST in January of 2012 but the interface has changed quite a bit since then. I happened to see a reference to the older post and realized how dated it is. I thought about replacing the screen captures to just update it then decided to echo the post with current pictures instead.

When you don't have access to the original Shared Parameter's file there are two ways to get to it, via a family or in a schedule. Either way you need to be able to touch the parameter so you can use the Export option for shared parameters. Revit will add the parameter to the current shared parameter file you are using.

In a family you need to open Family Types, select the parameter, choose the Edit Parameter button.

In a project schedule take a look at the View Properties for the schedule, Click the Edit... button next to Fields, pick the parameter, then click the Edit Parameter button (note the Export button in the next image is not active/enabled).

Click the Export button when it is enabled and Revit will pop open this confirmation. It also tells us where to look for it in the Shared Parameter file.

If the Export button (like in the previous image) is not active that happens because Revit is not associated with a shared parameter file yet or, less likely, the Shared Parameter is already in the Shared Parameter file this session of Revit is aware of. You’ll need to choose a different file or create a new file first. You can do this via the Manage Ribbon > Settings panel > Shared Parameters button, browse to find it or create one from scratch.

It is worth noting that a titleblock family does not conform to this scenario. Shared parameters that are used in titleblocks must be connected to a project too, by adding the shared parameter to the project as a project parameter and choosing the Sheets category. It might help to consider a titleblock is very much like a Tag except the element it tags is a sheet view, not a door or wall for example.

Load and Place a Family

Perhaps it isn't obvious enough but Revit is designed to deal with loading and placing a family according to context determined by our actions. Did we start a placement process or an admin process?

The component tools like Door, Window, Component, Detail Component, Air Terminal and so on provide Revit with placement context. The Insert ribbon tool Load Family is an administrative task which does not presume placement as a priority.

IF we start the Component > Place a Component tool first. Choose Load Family from the ribbon. In this context Revit knows we intend to place something but using Load Family tells it we need something that isn't already loaded in the project yet. If we choose to load multiple families it is ambiguous to Revit so it chooses for us which family to offer as the family to place now.

When we use Insert ribbon > Load from Library > Load Family separately it is regarded as an administrative task, i.e. "I need to load some things so they are available to everyone." Personally I have had many situations where I need to load families in this way, not place them immediately. If I do want to place a loaded family right away then I start the Component (or Door, Window etc.) tool first.

Tags Dimensions and Linked Files

I've mentioned this subject in the past. I'm writing to bring it up again and to focus on how Revit deals with tags and dimensions differently when we apply them to elements that are in linked files.

First as a reminder, when a linked file changes and a user reloads that link in their Local File other users are not necessarily seeing the same version of the Linked File. That's because reloading a link is a local change, a personal action, that doesn't get passed along to the Central File when we use Synchronize with Central (SwC).

Let's imagine User A has reloaded a linked model and they've placed tags on doors and rooms that they observe are now present in the link. User A uses SwC to share this new tagging effort. Now User B, who already has a Local File open, decides to use Reload Latest or SwC to share something they've done or see what work other users have contributed.

It's important to note that User B did NOT use Reload in Manage Links or via right-click on the linked file in the Project Browser FIRST. As a result User B gets the warning in the next image. Don't be confused by the mention of Coordination Monitor which can be confusing. It can make us think we're dealing with something that has been involved with the Copy/Monitor tools.

The Tags are Orphaned, they've lost their relationship with the linked file's elements they are supposed to identify. You can see one tag is highlighted in orange in the image above. In the next image we can see what the floor plan really looks like in the linked file (and what User A sees). It's not quite the same as what User B thinks it looks like is it?

Let's now imagine that User A continues to work by adding the dimensions you see in the image above too. After they finish doing that they use SwC.

User B now decides to use SwC or Reload Latest, AGAIN without using Reload on the linked file. Their reward is a larger collection of warnings (see next image). The first three warnings are dedicated to the dimensions User A added to their Local File. There are no equivalent elements in the version of the linked file that User B sees so Revit's only recourse is to delete them ... or ... choose Cancel ... which is actually a better choice. If User B cancels and then Reloads the linked file first that will eliminate the warnings entirely.

The remaining warnings are focused on the newly orphaned door and room tags that can't find their parent elements. If we select one of the orphaned tags we can either use Pick New Host or Reconcile Hosting. The former will need us to pick a door to associate the tag with. The latter will open the Reconcile Hosting browser which shows us everything that has been orphaned so far. We can select individual items and right-click to use Pick Host or Delete the tag if that's a better choice.

Keep in mind, once this orphaned status occurs it sticks. Merely reloading a linked file afterward isn't going to fix it. We'll be forced to deal with Reconciling Hosting. In some situations it might be faster to delete the tags and use Tag All to place them all over again.

This might be an opportunity for an enterprising developer to write a routine that looks at orphaned families and picks the closest possible host? Better still...Autodesk?

My recommendation, if you MUST use tags and dimensions on linked files?

Develop the habit of reloading the necessary linked files BEFORE using SwC or Reload Latest.

If you get the warning messages in the images above, use CANCEL. Make a note of the elements the warning(s) is(are) focused on. Most likely the warnings are being issued because you need to use Reload on the linked files first.

I'd also consider a moratorium on applying tags or dimensions to linked elements while the link is being changed aggressively. For example, if we know that the link is going to undergo some massive redesign we should just agree to stay away from tags and dimensions until it settles down again.

It's also a good idea to let other people know that you have changed an integral linked file so they can all use Reload (link) to catch up together.

Revit 2017 - Calculated Values in Tags

This addition permits us to do the same thing to tags that we've been using in schedules. For example, in a tag I'd like to show the difference between the client required area and the actual area of a room. That wasn't possible without some export/import or Dynamo shenanigans. Now it is possible, right in a tag.

This starts in the Edit Label dialog via a new button, then it is the same as the dialog we've seen in Schedules.

Since these can be used in schedules and tags, and it has to be done separately for each use, it probably makes sense to document all of the formulas we use so they are easily harvested for another project. Build them into a template and there is less need to do that at all. Regardless it wouldn't hurt to have a Drafting View set aside with the text versions of all the formulas we use stored there. That way a simple Copy/Paste operation can harvest a formula to use in a tag or a schedule or both.

Revit 2017 - Enabling Worksharing

The process for enabling worksets has changed with this release because Collaboration for Revit (C4R) has been incorporated into Revit directly. This allows someone to subscribe and begin using it quicker. They might even be able to do so without any (or much) EyeTee intervention.

The first evidence that there is something different is on the Collaborate ribbon tab; there is a Collaborate button next to the disabled Worksets button. There is a new Communicate panel too.

In the past enabling worksets began with clicking on the Worksets button but now we start by clicking on Collaborate. This takes us to the fork in the road necessary to permit sharing the project via A360/C4R whether we are able to use it or not, just in case. If the file hasn't been saved before clicking Collaborate we get a message asking us to do that.

Then the Collaborate dialog appears asking us to specify which method of sharing the project we need; Collaborate within your network or Collaborate using A360.

When we choose Collaborate within your network Revit enables and creates two User-Created Worksets called Shared Levels and Grids and Workset1 (like in the past) but it doesn't open the Worksets dialog (like it used to). This allows us just to get on with our work using the Active Workset (Workset1 by default). If we need to create additional worksets then we'll find the Workset button is enabled, just click it to open it (Workset dialog, as in the past.

The Communicator button is tied to using C4R. It is a separate window (dialog) that can display information about your project team activity, if you're sharing the project using A360. Imagine concepts from Worksharing Monitor combined with Instant Messaging features and that's what you've got. FWIW, it used to be able to dock inside the Revit UI but it doesn't do that now. If you've got two or more monitors you'll probably prefer it on one of them instead anyway. This is what it looks like if I'm not logged into A360 and not using it to share this project.

At some point we'll need to Save the file and like in the past we'll be warned that this is the first time we've done that since we enabled worksets; click Yes.

Remember, if you'd like to set the default Open option to Specify remember to use Save As instead of Save. You only get a chance to do that with Save As. This allows us to choose which Worksets Revit should load before it opens the project entirely. This can have a significant impact on how long it takes to load a project.

At this point we are still working in the Central File, which isn't practical to share the project nor is it advisable. I can determine that by looking at the Save icon on the Quick Access Toolbar (QAT), it is disabled and the Synchronize and Modify Settings button next to it is enabled. The project's file name listed on the Title Bar doesn't include my user name either. By the way, we need to SwC to relinquish our ownership of the User-Created worksets properly. The only way to do that is to use SwC (Synchronize and Modify Settings), via the dialog that appears. The Synchronize Now button does NOT do that.

Now that worksets are enabled and relinquished we need to close the project so the team can get started by creating their Local Files. When I browse to the Central File to start work I need to make sure that Create New Local is enabled and double check the Open option is assigned to Specify.

Remember doing so will cause this dialog to appear before Revit begins opening the project further.

Okay, now get to work; in your Local File!

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.

Finding Families - IDs of Selection

When we need to track down a family that might be loaded into one or more project files we can use master schedule project that includes links for all the relevant project files. If one of the project files already has links to all the others then we can just use that one for this instead.

A schedule focused on the relevant category that also uses the option Includes elements in links can be quite useful.

It can help us track down which models and how many there are in each of them. A little clever use of the Filter tab in the schedule can be a big help. Once we've figured out where the family is we can deal with each of them in each project.

We can search through the Families branch of the Project Browser and then use the right click option for Select all Instances in Entire Project.

Now I can reach for IDs of Selection.

Revit provides a list of Element ID numbers for each family.

It is not unusual for the list to be quite long so I often reach for Notepad (or better still Notepad++...which reminds me I need to install it on this new PC). I use CTRL+C to copy the element IDs to the clipboard and then CTRL+V in Notepad. Notice the commas between the Element ID numbers.

In Notepad I can be selective about which ones to start examining more closely. I just select one or more of the element IDs and then use Select Element by ID (CTRL+C and CTRL+V again in reverse).

Notice the instruction in parenthesis (in the image below)? It says to use a semicolon between the numbers but Revit used commas earlier. Odd.

...and...believe it or not, this is the reason I decided to write this post... commas work too. Yeah, that's definitely subtle.

As for the element hunting and selecting process, I'll be interested and waiting to see what sort of Dynamo approaches pop up in comments.

Temporary View Templates

View Templates are quite useful and potentially powerful when they are allowed to be aggressive, placed in charge of Views. To make a View Template the Boss we just need to assign one to a view via its View Template parameter.

Using the Right Click option to Apply Template Properties does not a boss make. It just applies the template settings but then leaves the view open to abuse.

When we do take advantage of placing a View Template in charge of views we bump into this Boss and its rules whenever we want to change the way the view looks. Normally that's good because the View Template is preventing arbitrary changes. In the following image I've mocked up structural walls and separate Veneer walls because I want to accentuate the structural wall in plan views (a common request). It also allows for fussy exterior finish changes (though these are hardly fussy).

In the plan view I've reduced the intensity of the veneer walls. When we need to change the way a view looks and it has a Bossy View Template we can use the Temporary View Properties button on the View Control Shortcut Bar. Usually it is sufficient to click Enable Temporary View Properties. Notice the other choice; Temporarily Apply Template Properties.

If we often find ourselves needing to apply the same kind of override to certain views it makes sense to create a View Template for that and then use it to apply an override to the view, like this next image. I've changed the appearance of the veneer walls to make them stand out; so it is easier to adjust them.

I created a Filter that is looking for a specific value in Type Comments. I picked that because it was easy for this example but it could be any parameter you like, as long as it sets the element(s) apart from others.

I also made another Filter to change the wall the other walls look so they don't compete graphically with the veneer walls as much as they would normally.

When I'm done adjusting the veneer walls I just need to click Restore View Properties and the Boss is back in charge.

Next time you find yourself using Temporary View Properties and Visibility/Graphics to tweak a view again, for the same reason as the last couple times, consider creating a View Template for it.