Showing posts with label Tools. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tools. Show all posts

Friday, November 06, 2020

Insert From File and BIM 360

When we're working on a BIM 360 hosted project there are times we'd like to use the Insert From File > Insert Views tool. Unfortunately BIM 360 isn't an available path in the Insert From File dialog.

Yes, we can download a copy of the project or open both projects and use Copy/Paste but it would be nicer to be able to use the tool itself as it is an easier/faster (more obvious) process.

Saturday, November 30, 2019

Work Plane Based Families and Rotate w Copy

I participated in a thread at Autodesk's Revit forum and it took me far too long to catch on to the issue described at the outset. I should have retraced the thread sooner, but I did get there eventually.

I'm referring to the Rotate tool and its Copy option, this...


The issue boils down to this: the Rotate with Copy option works/affects a Work Plane-Based (and face-based) family differently than when a family is merely hosted by a Level (all non "based" families). Let's start here, imagine I want two screens on my desk like this.


These are stock families: TV - Flat Screen.rfa and Desk.rfa The desk has a top surface that isn't visible in plan view so it can't act as a face to host the TV. I changed that. The TV isn't a work plane-based family. In a plan view, when I place it on the desk it ends up eaten by the desk because it looks like this in a 3D view.


Sure, I can use its Elevation from Level parameter to put it on the desk (an illusion of a relationship). When I move the desk I need to remember to select the TV too (or make a group...or...I digress). I get the clever idea, "Make this family Work Plane-Based, that's easy!"


Using Rotate with Copy should give me the result I want in the first image and it does until I check the box for Work Plane-Based. The angle I decide I want between the screens is 22.5 degrees. I added a couple reference planes for the images to help see what happens, the desired result.


That's what I want except that they should be hosted by the desk, not relying on using the Elevation from Level parameter. When I use Rotate with the Copy option after editing the TV family to make it Work Plane-Based (also Always Vertical is checked) I get this result.


Notice the TV angle itself is correct but it's location is wrong...and a warning message appeared to help me notice... It's been moved/copied by double the input value of 22.5 degrees using the origin of rotation correctly and managed to maintain the angle I wanted. This next image summarizes what happened.


That's weird enough on its own but I can go weird by one more, un-check the TV's Always Vertical parameter. After running through the exercise again I get this outcome.


This time it applied the rotation input angle of 22.5 degrees x 2 = 45 degrees to both rotating the family and its position. This time it did it fully wrong while the previous time it only did it half wrong.

Introduce a Floor, instead of a desk family, into the mix and place the TV family before it is Work Plane-Base with Always Vertical and this happens. No rotation, just copy and in the same place no less.


When the TV family is Work Plane-Based and Always Vertical is used then it works wrong in the same way as relying on the desk's face as the host did.

I imagine Revit is attempting to relate the rotation and copy actions to the family's host, since that is the work plane the family is hosted by. Clearly it is unable to do so properly. I think it is reasonable to expect to get the same result whether level based or work plane-based. This post and the images are from using Revit 2020.2 but I did the same things in Revit 2016 with the same results. This has been around for quite awhile now.

If it is any consolation, the Mirror and Polar Array tools don't suffer from this malady but each have their own prep work required to make them a ready replacement.

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Moving a Viewport Error - Disjoin

The Move tool offers us an option called Disjoin. When it is used Revit deletes the original and creates a new element at the new location. That isn't obvious to us but if you examine the GUID (ID's of Selection) you'll find it has a new GUID after the Move is complete.


The option is sticky, we have to remember to disable it when we use the Move tool again. When we are working on sheets and adjusting views we now have an opportunity to run into a confusing error message.


If you run into this or people you support do, just remember to Disable da Disjoin.

Per a comment: My previous post on re Disjoin.

Wednesday, August 15, 2018

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.

Tuesday, August 14, 2018

Move to Room - Element ID - Review Warnings

If we use Review Warnings often enough, and we should be, we'll run into this warning eventually.
Check the item and Click Show to have Revit try to find a view to show it in. Once it is selected we can either drag the Tag where it is suppose to go or Click the Show Related Warnings button on the ribbon to show the dedicated warning it has again.
When this warning is isolated like this the dialog includes the Move to Room button. An aside, is it amusing or worrisome that Revit seems to think the best way to fix warnings is to delete the offending element (via Delete Checked)? Regardless, Move to Room will resolve the issue whether we can see where the tag is meant to be or not.
Another way to tackle it from the Review Warnings dialog is to make a note of the Element ID referenced in the warning. Now we can then use the Select by ID tool. Enter the ID value and click OK.
This will select the tag, even if we're not in a view that it can be seen in, and then we can use the Show Related Warnings button on the ribbon again followed by the Move to Room button.

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

Copy Monitor - A Different Way?

Morning musing...

It's my observation that there is a prevailing mostly ambivalent attitude toward the Copy/Monitor (C/M) features. I've said before that I think the order of the tabs in the Options dialog are based on the likelihood that we'll use them. Specifically they are listed left to right: Levels, Grids, Columns, Walls and Floors.

C/M isn't hard to use but once it is in play we've got some new rules and warnings to contend with. The process depends on us identifying the elements we want to live in the C/M system. I understand the logic of that choice. Revit asks us to tell it what is important enough to us to engage the system.

Perhaps we need a completely different way to attack the problem? One that doesn't require the advance work. One that is more a reaction to work as it is created and shared, that merely exists.

I wonder if it would be more betterer if we could run a Level or Grid check as a process. The application would compare elements and compile a report, observations and differences. It could be something we read afterward or presented in a dialog for immediate action.

For example, it could just start with: "Hey Steve, there are 27 grids in your model and 30 in theirs. You should look at them." Take it slightly deeper, "Hey Steve, there are three grids that share the same name but are not in the same location."

Does it matter that they used to be in the same location and they aren't now? The application would have to start storing records for past results to do that but it could be useful to determine when or how things got off track. The rules or conditions that are interesting need to be defined.

This sort of element review and comparison doesn't have to be limited to the five that Copy/Monitor were designed for originally (overlooking the MEP elements that have been added in some fashion). It still requires two or more elements though; mine, yours and theirs. The redundancy is annoying but it does provide us with flexibility within our own models.

I imagine much of what I'm describing (and more) is possible via the API and Dynamo. It just needs someone to decide it is an interesting enough thing to do.

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

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.

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Revit 2017 - Space Naming Utility Update - It is Available Now

The other day I poked Autodesk about this feature. As it turns out it is deployed slightly more automatically. The catch is that the latest iteration of Autodesk Desktop Application (I'm going to call it AdA) must be used to see these updates.

My first problem was that AdA wasn't working. It just displayed a blank white screen. I also noticed that there was no Autodesk (A icon) in the system tray for an active service. Eventually I used the wisdom of The IT Crowd; turned it off and on again. That restarted the service and AdA started working, displaying information.

The second problem was there were no updates to choose from. I logged out of A360 and closed its system tray instance. I also logged out of A360 via Revit, since I had it open. I closed the instance of AdA in the system tray too. I had a browser open looking at my Manage portal. I thought that maybe my access settings were wrong. I logged out and closed the browser too. Then I logged back into A360 and launched AdA...voila, updates appeared. It made no difference earlier that I used the right-click Check for New Updates option for AdA in the system tray repeatedly.

Once I got it working again this appeared in AdA.


This a tiny bit better.

People will still have to pay attention to be alerted to download and install it. If they don't have enough control over their computer they'll still have to get EyeTee involved. I'll have to see if I notice more people have it installed in the coming months.

Once it has been downloaded and installed you don't have to rely on AdA to pass it along to others in the office though. You can just capture the downloaded installation file from the location defined when you downloaded and installed it the first time (C:\Autodesk by default).

It is also a bit tedious that every one of the updates is a separate installation; must be run and completed before starting another. If you attempt to run them while another is running you'll run into messages about something already being in process.

By the way, when you run Revit after installing all the available updates you may be greeted by "Security - Unsigned Add-in" warnings. Nice...


I've got my Space Naming Utility! Do you? I hope so!

...and thanks to Paul Aubin for the heads up!

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Options Bar - Common Overlooked Options

The Options Bar is a part of the Revit user interface that is important but easily overlooked too. You can read through these selected examples but the moral of my story is "pay attention to the Options Bar".

Also keep in mind that, in general, it is possible to take advantage of the SHIFT and/or CTRL keys to interact with different Options. For example, when the Copy option is present, holding down CTRL will toggle Copy off. When using the Move or Copy tool holding SHIFT down will toggle on the Constrain option to limit motion to X or Y directions only.

For example, using the Mirror Tool the default option is to create a copy of the selected elements as well as mirroring them so the originals stay in place. Do you want Mirror/move instead? Uncheck Copy (or press/hold CTRL).


A similar option exists for the Offset tool.


Using the Move tool people routinely overlook the Multiple option. It makes it easy to continue copying the element(s) to more locations. Press hold SHIFT and Constrain is toggled on.


A similar option exists for the Align Tool. Press/hold CTRL and it toggles on Multiple Alignment.


Using the Rotate tool? It is also possible to copy the selected element during the rotation...just check the Options Bar.


When people use the Array tool they often also create the parametric relationship between the array elements, which is cool but often not necessary. Uncheck the Group and Associate option first.


Using the Split tool we often overlook the Delete Inner Segment option. Using the option makes it easier to split/trim walls to other walls.


When we place columns it is easy to overlook the option that determines whether the column is placed based on Depth or Height. That's a common cause for columns that don't show up when we place them and the annoying error message telling us we can't see them.


Using the Roof tool we can decide whether each sketch segment should be sloped or not, just remember to un-check the Defines Slope option.


Using the Room tool it is easy to forget that we can choose to place any rooms that have not been placed already...from the Options Bar naturally.


When applying dimensions don't forget that we can decide which part of walls Revit should prefer to make it easier to place them.


Have a favorite forgotten option?

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Create View Template - Tool Description

Oh so...subtle...

The command via the ribbon is called Create Template from Current View.


The right-click context menu offers this version of the command instead (Create View Template From View).


It's subtle because the right-click version is based on the fact that we've selected a view and used right-click. The context doesn't demand using the language Current View because it's based on the view we selected in the first place. The ribbon version leaves out the word View because it is listed as part of the View Templates button already. It also declares that it will create the template based on the Current View since it is possible to have accidentally changed which view has focus prior to using the command; for example if views are tiled or cascading in the drawing window.

My initial reaction was that they were inconsistent and wrong to use a different description for a command that will produce the same result. After mulling it over I think it is a reasonable subtlety since their use is different and the phrasing is intended to help us know what to expect in each situation.

Monday, May 11, 2015

Revit 2016 - Selection Box

You’re already familiar with this new tool, conceptually at least, if you’ve used the 3rd party applications COINS Section Box or Xrev View Box. Just select elements and click the button to generate a 3D view with a section box cropped around those elements.


You may not want to give up those other tools just yet because they may offer more control of the resulting view than this tool does. It carries out the action with your default 3D view so if you didn’t want to mess that one up you need to remember to save it before you use it. It is easy and fast, you decide if you agree.

Thursday, May 07, 2015

Wish - Create Similar for Lines

I primarily find myself wishing for Create Similar when I'm creating symbolic or model lines in the family editor. I try hard to not use just lines in a project, favoring line-based families instead...yes even in Drafting View details. That written if Create Similar worked on them in the project I wouldn't complain.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Revit 2016 - Place Rooms Automatically

If you've seen a demo of Revit MEP and Spaces or if you have used Spaces yourself then you may already be familiar with the new Rooms version of Place Spaces Automatically...called( shocking I know) Place Rooms Automatically.

This will create new rooms in all room-bounding elements on the same level with one click. It's like a shotgun blast of rooms, fill all the rooms. You'll find it on the Architecture tab > Room and Area panel > click Rooms then a button for Place Rooms Automatically will appear on the Modify|Place Room tab.


All the room-bounding elements that can define a room will end up with a room created. All the Rooms will share whatever Room Name is entered in the Properties panel when you start the tool. Their number will be increased incrementally from whatever the next available number is.

Practically speaking the Spaces version works better than this one because engineers need to create spaces where nearly all of the rooms are in the model (usually a linked model) already and the Space Naming Utility can speed up matching Space name and number to Room name and number.

If you are careful to create a list of rooms for your project in a schedule prior to having walls or at least at roughly the same time as walls are getting sketched this tool won't really help. If you import rooms from a list in Excel it won't speed up their placement because it will just blast new rooms into any valid room bounding area. It won't create rooms where rooms you've already placed are though.

If you're looking for a quick way to make rooms and don't care about naming (or other data) yet then this tool may be perfect for YOU!

Saturday, April 04, 2015

Survey Point - Post 2

Yesterday I ended the post with a list of steps that I'd take to create a relationship between my building project file(s) and the Master Site file. I started another pair of projects that I'm calling Tiny House A and B (inspired by Sean's Tiny House project). I can start a project with or without site context. Revit's bias is making the project easy to document, forget about True North initially. It is trivial to resolve that in the Master Site file once it is ready, regardless if it is created before or after the tiny house models are started.

Here's how far I took the design of Tiny House A before I decided to work out its location on site.


I closed Tiny House A's project file. I opened up my Master Site file and linked Tiny House A using positioning: Auto - Origin to Origin. The choice for positioning at this stage really doesn't matter since I'm going to move the file to another part of the site anyway; have to pick something so I just let the default option reign. In the following image you can see Tiny House A is sitting at/near the Master Site's origin, marked by the Project Base Point icon.


Now it's time to move Tiny House A into position. I moved it and then aligned it with the East boundary. Then I was careful to put it at 8'-0" from that boundary. I then made sure the closest corner (wall) of the house to the North boundary was also at 8'-0". Being fussy about this isn't particularly important, I'm just being fussy.


Now I want to make sure the house is at an appropriate ground floor elevation. I created a section view so I could see the site's contours and the floor of the house. I can see here that the house is buried under a fair bit of the site.


I decided that raising the house to 22'-0" feels good. I used the Move tool, and typed 22 into the temporary listening dimension that appeared.


I think I'm ready to deal with Tiny House B now. It's really just another project file saved with a new name. I was too lazy to make another design. If this was a real project I wouldn't be able to get away with that. I decided that this house has to be no closer than 8'-0" to the North boundary but I've also made the North end of the house parallel to the boundary.

I learned while reading the development's covenant and zoning requirements that these houses can't be closer than 15'-0 to one another. I decided to put Tiny House B 18'-0" from A. I heard that A's owner is a drummer so those extra three feet might help keep B's sanity. I also decided that the ground floor elevation for B should be 20'-0", a little bit lower than A.


Now that I'm satisfied with the positions of Tiny House A and B I'm ready to use Publish Coordinates. This tool will PUSH the site orientation information to each house's project file. Revit will use this information to shift the house's Shared Coordinate system to align with the Shared Coordinate system of Master Site. In yesterday's post, the Master Site was manipulated to be in alignment with a linked DWG file's WCS (the World Coordinate System in AutoCAD to be precise) through the use of the Acquire Coordinates tool.


When you successfully select a linked file to Publish Coordinates the Location Weather and Site dialog appears. This give us an opportunity to provide a meaningful name for the location we're creating for that model. I clicked Rename... and typed Tiny House A Location 1.

It's significant to appreciate that I could now create a copy of Tiny House A in Master Site and place this copy in another location. I could then use Publish Coordinates on this copy which would allow me to use Duplicate... and use another name like Tiny House A Location 2. In the Tiny House A project file I can now choose between these two named locations and make one of them current. Revit will reorient everything to show the building correctly for this location, all without really changing anything  in the model. It's pretty clever and powerful; actually doing it is something I'll save for another post.
I used Publish Coordinates again but on Tiny House B and used the name Tiny House B Location 1 when the dialog appeared. I'm ready to return to work on my Tiny House A design. I clicked Save so I can close the Master Site project. The following dialog appears twice, once for Tiny House A and the second time for B. This is confirming that I want to commit the location and shared coordinate changes I made while using Publish Coordinates. I clicked Save each time (2x), the top option in the list.

It is necessary to make sure others are not working on the Tiny House A or B now. The Save will fail if someone is working on them. Just ask them to close the project for a minute. When worksharing is involved the same is true but it is a bit more forgiving. Either way, if an error message appears you need to ask others to stop working on these files briefly; they need to Save and close them. Once my Save is completed they can get back to work.
When I open Tiny House A I find that the Site plan is oriented to True North. I changed the Orientation parameter to True North earlier (noted in the image at the beginning). All plan views in the stock templates are assigned to Project North, including the Site view. Changing it meant that I'd see the results of using Publish Coordinates immediately, or at least as soon as I bother to open the Site view. The reality of this is that the project is NOT altered materially, no physical change to any geometry, it is just oriented correctly based on my actions in Master Site. This trivializes the task of re-positioning a building on site, if that becomes necessary.


Taking things a little further, each Level type has a Type Parameter called Elevation Base. It can be assigned to either Project Base Point or Survey Point. When I change this to Survey Point I find that the levels are reporting elevation values based on how much I raised Tiny House A in the Master Site file.


Now I've decided I want to be able to see Tiny House B here too, for context, but while working on Tiny House A. I linked Tiny House B into Tiny House A using positioning: Auto - By Shared Coordinates. This is possible because I used Publish Coordinates, from within Master Site, on both Tiny House A and B. Their shared understanding of their position in Master Site makes it possible to link either file into the other using Auto - By Shared Coordinates and they land in the correct spot relative to each other.


I can also link Master Site into either Tiny House A or B and use Auto - By Shared Coordinates too. They all understand their relationship to each other because of Publish Coordinates and the work I did in Master Site to put them into the proper context with each other. Here is Tiny House A, with Tiny House B linked in. I also created a Toposurface and Building Pads for each house in the Master Site file, then I returned to Tiny House A so I could link Master Site in using Auto - By Shared Coordinates as well.


A Few Notes
  • Master Site is in CHARGE of positioning
  • Only move models in Master Site
  • Do not move linked models when viewed in other related project files
  • Acquire Coordinates created the relationship between Survey and Master Site
  • Publish Coordinates created the relationship between Master Site and Tiny House A and B
  • Respect this order and it is easy to maintain
  • It is technically possible to manipulate the relationship in either direction, DON'T.
  • You must Resist the temptation!

Multi-Discipline Comments:
  • Trades link the Tiny House A and B models into their projects using Auto - Origin to Origin, nothing else.
  • Do NOT start work without a preliminary model of the Tiny House. If you do, be prepared to move your work into alignment manually.
  • It is only necessary to use Acquire Coordinates on Tiny House A or B (whichever house you are designing for in your project file)
  • It is only necessary to use Acquire Coordinates IF there IS an expectation that your data must align in 3rd party software like Navisworks
  • The Tiny House projects will link your models using Auto - Origin to Origin too

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

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...

Friday, December 05, 2014

Changing Column Types and Copy Monitor

Using Copy/Monitor Revit does not complain when we change column families or types. It does complain if the column is moved. This is different from other elements like grids and levels. My understanding is that the way they expected Architects and Engineers to use the feature is a little different for columns, something like this:
  • Architect places schematic architectural columns (different from structural columns)
  • Architect sends model to engineer
  • Engineer uses copy/monitor to create structural columns where the architects schematic columns are
  • Engineer sends their model to Architect
  • Architect adjusts their columns to be masking only (unless they are left uncovered)
The disparity between column types is intentional because an Architect's needs for the column are often different, masking a structural element versus designing/engineering the column itself. It can also be argued that it would still be better to complain when the column family is changed or swapped for another type (size). Even if, as the Architect, I've shifted my focus to wrapping structural columns it is likely worth being warned if the structural column has changed.

To be warned requires me to have a copy of the column to monitor, which I'd prefer to avoid ordinarily. In general, I encourage Architects to remove their own columns (structural or otherwise, if they use them) in their model as soon as the Engineer is hired and they send them their structural model. Now the architect can focus on using walls to wrap columns as required by Design Development and Construction Documentation. I resist the natural temptation to have my own copy of elements if at all possible, striving to avoid redundancy. Using copy/monitor (the monitor aspect only) can still alert us to major changes to location of the grids/columns.

For now Revit doesn't complain if we change the columns, as long as that change isn't its position/location. If that doesn't fit our model view then we need to let them know.

I wrote this post in part because of a thread at the Autodesk Revit Structure online user group. I wrote this suggestion to work around the lack of warning.

Since Revit is sensitive to movement, we could agree to move columns that are changed like this. If the architect is redesigning a column they can swap out the type for a new type but also move it off grid by a specific value. This will prompt a coordination review when the file is refreshed in the other discipline's file. When they examine the column they'll see the change is more about the size than position. They can respond to the change and move the column back into position, which will prompt coordination review upon return. We could agree that such trigger movement would always be East to West and always a specific distance or something like that so each team knows what to expect.

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Roads Category and Spot Elevation

This is too weird not to write about it. I was asked to take a look at a file that would not let us apply a spot elevation. I did the usual things, check for the floor category visibility, no overrides to the linked floor(s), no filters, no underlay weirdness... no joy.

I compared it against a new view with no view template. The new view worked but the one with a view template assigned didn't. I tried turning back on all the model categories that were off in the view template. The Spot Elevation tool worked again. Hmmm...

I reset the View Template and then I turned back on each category that was off in the template, one at a time. When I turned on the Roads category the spot elevation started working again. WHAT??

That's more than a little bizarre since we've never been able to use the Roads category for anything. They don't even let us create an In-Place family using the Roads category. I imagine that it is something gone awry in this particular project file since this is the only one behaving this way but still...turning on the Roads category fixed it??

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Occupancy Calculations and JavaScript

The other day I read a post at Revit Add-ons about integrating Java Scripts into Revit. I was intrigued by an example it described which provides a connection between a java script calculation (formula) and assigns it to a parameter. A very common request among Revit users is to be able to associate with a formula with a Shared Parameter, and in this case occupancy calculations. Timing is a funny thing because an email came in the same day asking for advice doing these calculations.

The application is called LazJS and is currently offering a beta version 1.0. Fwiw, I created an Occupancy Calculation sample project years ago which you can download HERE. I thought I'd open that project and try LazJS out on it. Since we can't put a calculated value in a tag the example uses a schedule so we can transfer values manually. With the advent of the API there are more options but for anyone who is leery of programming it's still a bit intimidating.

I found it was really easy to get this installed and configure LazJS to fill in the values for me automatically and keep them updated if I make any changes. This is the dialog that appears for their ParamJS tool. I started by choosing the Rooms category. Then I chose the parameter that is in my room tag. Then I dragged the parameter whose value I wanted to be in the tag up to the code editor window. Once the code was present I clicked Run, seeing values in the results window I clicked Save.


Now whenever I add a room and assign a occupancy type its tag fills in the appropriate Occupancy Factor for me (the script does). Same for any editing I do of existing rooms.


Worth a closer look if only for this piece of their whole application.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

A Little Quick Area

If I need to find the area within some sort of boundary the first expectation among AutoCAD users is "Where is the Measure tool in Revit?" There is a Measure tool but it measures distance between a couple points or a chain of points. It doesn't deal with Area.

For that we can use a Region, either Masking or Filled. I sketched a Masking Region using an arbitrary boundary within a plan that isn't already clearly defined as a separate room or space that could easily provide an area to me. I'm imagining a quick draw response to my boss looking over my shoulder and asking, "How much area is there between this, this, that and that?" Start region, sketch with the Chain Option on, Finish Sketch - "There is 375.46 SF sir."


I can just delete the region once I've found the answer. If I create the region in a working view (one that isn't getting printed on a sheet) I can just leave it there for awhile so when the boss comes back and says, "How much area was that again?" I've still got it and only need to look at its Area parameter. A floor could do the same thing, same number of clicks and it also knows perimeter and volume.

No it isn't a tool called Measure Area but the task and click count is at worst an extra click, maybe two compared with the Measure Area in AutoCAD. A keyboard shortcut and it's no more effort at all. It's the same only different.

Edit/added: I mentioned in a comment that the reason Area exists/is a parameter for regions is in response to users requesting the Measure Area tool in AutoCAD.