Group Exclude Element and Rooms

We can use the Exclude Element feature on the parts of the model we assign to groups, like this for example (a workstation with chairs).

We can also include rooms in groups. Just be careful if you use Exclude Element on the room(s). If you do you'll see a hint of a room when you pre-select (highlight) the group but you won't find it among the rooms in a room schedule...because it/they is/are excluded.

A potential gotcha for users.

Revit Extension and the Big Pause

I've noticed that when I start sketching walls in a new project that at the third segment Revit decides it needs to PAUSE before continuing. It seems it has something to do with having Revit Extensions installed. It thinks needs to add some parameters and interrupts my sketching to do that. Bill (Mr. BIM Thoughts) helped point me toward this bugger the other day when were discussing a few workstations that were pausing to install/update the extension...much worse pause.

If you experience this too...might be the same situation for you.

Revit Version Build Update and Service Pack Naming

Bill (Mr. BIM Thoughts) shared this subtle bugger with me the other day.

Oooh boy... so Revit 2016 R2 is called Update3 behind the scenes if you look at the Control Panel\Programs\Programs and Features > View Installed Updates and Revit 2016 R2's update is called Update 1 for R2...

Phew...just when I think I understand the naming...

Worksharing - Loading Content Part 2

In my previous post I recommended a point person be assigned to manage the loading of content for a team. That might sound like a beauracratic minded recommendation. Not me at all. It is more a matter of self preservation, wishing to avoid having to fix the resulting duplication before it becomes a bigger problem. As such there is a another minor measure we can take to help catch the issue when it occurs and fix it.

Always use Synchronize with Central (SwC) immediately after loading new families or types (or duplicating system family types). Don't place any instances.

If we can't get a single person to manage this loading then using SwC immediately afterward will increase the odds that a warning message will appear as soon as the transaction is completed. This does assume that we all develop this habit. If the warning appears than we need to examine the new family(ies) and or type(s) in the Project Browser and resolve the issue.

The goal is to avoid creating the duplicates and even more importantly using them in the project.

Worksharing - Loading Content

I read Jason's post this morning and he describes a classic worksharing gotcha. Unfortunately he hasn't identified the true culprit. I'm referring to this part of his post specifically.

One of our most notorious examples is the infamous Break Line. Each drafting view we imported had a copy of the break line family. By the time anyone noticed, the project model had “Break Line (1)” through “Break Line (22)”.

What he describes is the result of worksharing and multiple users loading the same family in their own local files. Revit sees multiple versions of the same file being loaded from different local files (users) and seeks to protect them by renaming the other versions it encounters. We see this sort of message when it happens.

This error and situation is easy to replicate.

• Two users open local files for the same project
• Each user loads a new family and the same type
• Each uses Synchronize with Central (SwC)

The first person to sync will be successful without an issue but the second person will receive a warning about the family being renamed. If this is repeated enough, and by enough users at the same time, we could end up with family22 like he described.

For example, if eight people all introduce the same new family to the project then by the time the last person uses SwC there will be eight versions of this family listed in the Project Browser. This is what the Project Browser looks like after just two users think they both need to load a new double door and type.

Jason's post is focused on cleaning up after oneself and it IS important but it is also important to manage the loading of content and harvested details. It is equally important that people understand why these extra versions show up in the first place. Each time someone uses Load Family or Insert from File they must reconcile the warnings that appear before anyone has a chance to begin using the wrong version of the families that are duplicated.

I think it is worth restating that the subtlety of this issue is that this only happens when more than one user is introducing the same new family to the project (via their Local Files).

Once the family is part of the project (defined in the Central File) Revit doesn't get confused anymore. Here's what happens when I introduce the Break Line family he mentioned to the project via two users. Keep in mind that there is no Break Line family defined in the Central File at the moment. Each user loads the family, into their Local File, unaware the other user is doing it too. The first person to use SwC is fine but the second user sees this message (I expanded the warning to see the family description).

When the first user uses Reload Latest or SwC they'll both be able to see this in the Project Browser, listed beneath Detail Items.

Subtlety compounded with yet another subtlety...if the family is already defined in the project (Central File) but a new TYPE is loaded by more than one user then we end up with this situation in the Project Browser.

How do we avoid this situation?

As soon as we think we need to load a new family or type...STOP.

Who (on our team) is responsible for ensuring the content we need is available to us? There ISN'T any ONE person assigned to this? There should be. All new content should be requested, requests sent to or asked of this person. That person can delegate the task.

The goal is to avoid the situation where more than one user is loading the same new content.

Only ONE person needs to load the family(ies)/type(s) and then use SwC to make it available to everyone else on the team (they use Reload Latest). We are working on the same project after all.

To close and return to what inspired my post, Jason went on to write that they've abandoned using Detail Components in their details because of this issue. Tragic. They (the detail families) aren't the problem; Revit's worksharing behavior and user habits are. I hope he'll revisit that decision.

Pre-Selection and Selection Color

I always change the default color that Revit uses for selected elements. I use Red.

The default setting is the same blue that is assigned to Pre-selection. I don't recall when that changed but somewhere in the fog of time it used to be assigned to red. I happen to like the visual confirmation, the difference between what is highlighted and what is selected. To each their own.

If you want to change it too: Application menu (Big R) > Options > Graphics page

Revit Version and Build History

Philip and Luke both mentioned this on their blogs so I'm just echoing their mentions of this recent development. Autodesk put together a list of versions and builds going back to Revit 2012.

It's important to keep everyone that works on the same Revit project(s) on the same version/build, perhaps this will help?

It was fun discussing (while talking to a friend on the phone) the version/build/service pack/update naming yesterday, he'd missed the recent Update Release 1 for 2016 R2...damn it gets confusing.

View Range Dialog

I hinted at this change when Revit Sunrise became available at the end of last summer. In 2016 R2, when you open the View Range dialog box and click the Show button this version will appear.

It's intended to provide more information about what the settings within View Range mean.

Fwiw, I still think this version would be better for View Range and Ceiling Plans.

Text Box Boundary Quirk

I read a thread at AUGI describing an issue where the Show Border option to create a box surrounding text fails to completely surround the text it contains. First, if you weren't aware of it, each Text type has a type parameter called Show Border.

The Show Border feature worked fine until I used the Underline override to put a line under the NOTES: heading. It also happens if I use any of the other overrides; Bold or Italic.

I created the following video to show what happened.

Seems easy enough to resolve, just use separate text for the heading. Unfortunately I found that Show Border fails to work properly if the text is altered later too. Just adding a new line to the text is enough to confuse the border/box. Sadly this means the concept of Show Border is fatally flawed...

Revit MEP System Browser - Systems and Families

When you examine the information in the System Browser there are separate items for Systems and the Families that are related to them.

We can delete a System if necessary via a Right-Click.

Be careful though, you can also delete a family the same way!

Doors and a Sliver of a Room

Following on my post yesterday regarding Doors and Rooms, if you happen to have a room that is NOT at least 14 inches deep you will find that Revit is unwilling to report either its To Room or From Room parameter. If you've been reading this blog a long time you may remember a post I wrote which included a short video that mentions this issue?

A room like pictured below will work because it is 14" deep.

However the room pictured below won't be recognized and the corresponding parameters will be blank, in this case the To Room parameters.

If you are familiar with the Room Calculation Point (I call it RcP) feature it can be used to influence this issue.

Keep in mind it will also negatively affect which room you can regard as the To Room, if not for this door specifically any other doors that need the opposite behavior.

The Room Calculation Point (RcP) feature was added to doors to provide a way to change how the To Room assignment is controlled. Originally the To Room value for a door was (still is without the RcP being enabled) decided based on the side of the wall the door swings in toward.

There are doors which must swing out of a room but still belong to the room they swing from. For example a classroom's door (like shown in the images above) often swings outward to the corridor (often set into an alcove), for exiting requirements usually. However we still think of and document the door as belonging to the classroom, not the corridor.

If the door is placed so that the panel swings into the classroom (using stock doors) then the To Room parameter is assigned to the classroom. If we then flip its orientation so the panel swings out of the classroom the To Room value remains associated with the classroom (check out the post I mention above for a video of this behavior).

The RcP feature changes that behavior to alter the To Room value to follow the flip of the door orientation regardless, which means in my example, and the images above, the To Room value would change to reference the Corridor instead.

May you have sliverless designs...

Doors and Rooms and Rooms and Doors

In the year 2016 we find Revit is still utterly clueless about the relationship between doors and rooms. We have this quirky documentation habit of using a room's number to derive a door number, not to mention it's room name to define its location in a building. I know they've noticed because each door has a From Room and To Room parameter.

Recently Elon Musk and his SpaceX team sent a rocket to space and returned the first stage to an upright position back on earth. A feat engineers have long dreamed of accomplishing.

Yet after 15 years Revit continues to rely on third party applications to bridge this feature crevasse.

Don't get me started on the Space Naming Utility being a separate application...grumble grumble...

Who's Your Daddy? Logical Relationships in Revit MEP

This is an echo of a post from October 2011. I emphasize this concept in every session I do that is focused on Revit MEP and I think it's worth stating again.

Revit MEP elements, like electrical panels and receptacles or HVAC equipment and diffusers, have a Parent - Child relationship. Revit calls this a Logical Relationship. In contrast the physical relationship is described with duct/pipe but there is no equal for electrical systems. It could be with conduit or cable tray but no such relationship exists yet.

The other day we were chatting about this in class and I blurted out "You know, like who's your Daddy?" I was kidding but one of the guys said that it will actually help him remember to start with the "child" part of the relationship. For example, you start with a receptacle and create a power circuit (system), then choose the Daddy, the electrical panel it gets power from. This relationship continues up through the grandparents, great grandparents etc. When everything is assigned correctly you can see this family tree in the System Browser.

So if it helps, when you are creating relationships between elements with Revit MEP, just remember "Who's your Daddy"! START with the child and then assign the Daddy.

Update Releases and Color Fill Background Processing

I was reading recently (in a couple forums) about a problem with background processing and views using Color Fills. Autodesk acknowledged the issue and they've just issued an update for called Revit 2016 R2 Update 1, and there is an Update Release 11 available now for Revit 2015.

In the release notes they reference color fills when closing a document that uses them. That doesn't sound like the issue I read about specifically. Those seemed related to printing views that have a color fill applied but maybe that's a minor difference from the code's perspective. Hopefully this update does resolve the issue they were having. It did seem that users could avoid it (the background processing error) if they were careful to save their project, close Revit and restart it before attempting to print those views.

Download Revit 2016 R2 Update 1
Revit 2016 R2 Update 1 - Release Notes

Download Revit 2015 Update Release 11
Revit 2015 Update Release 11 - Release Notes

If you have Autodesk Application Manager installed, and if you'd like to see if it will let you acquire the updates, you can try a right-click on the icon in the system tray and choose Check Now.

Oh Project Browser and Properties Palette Where Art Thou

It is easy to close the Project Browser and Properties Palette, just click the little X in the top right corner of each window.

It is a little less obvious how to restore them. The formal Front Door is via the View ribbon tab > Windows panel > User Interface.

A bit less obvious is the access to Browsers via the right-click context menu, for the Project Browser at least.

I'm sure you noticed that the Properties Palette can be restored via the right-click context menu too.

It is also available on the Modify ribbon tab > Properties panel > Properties.

The Properties Palette also has two keyboard shortcuts: PP and CTRL+1, at least that's true of my configuration (stock install). There isn't one assigned to the Project Browser but we could opt to do that too.

Oh, Revit MEP users can close and open their System Browser with F9 as well as access it in the same way the Project Browser can be (described above).

Wish - Transfer Project Standards Organization

Whine Mode On

This is a minor thing but there are times I really wish that the Transfer Project Standards list was sorted by Discipline instead of alphabetically. When I want to transfer just electrical settings to another file it is tedious to have to be careful to parse the whole list for related items that start with C, E, D, V and W...

Whine Mode Off

Revit 2016 - Project Address

In past releases the Project Address parameter that is baked into Revit has always required using the Project Information dialog to enter a proper address format. The usual techniques to force a hard return (like CTRL + Enter or CTRL + M) fail to deliver (for me they've never worked).

In 2016 (using R2 now) when I click on the Project Address parameter within a title block family a special dialog appears to add/edit the information, much more bettererer.

Feature Request - Tell me Link Files Have Changed

Working with a group of people today several echoed a request I've heard quite a few times over the years. They'd like Revit to let us know when a linked file (Revit/DWG) has changed so they know to use Reload to see the changes. The precedent for this idea is...yeah AutoCAD.

I suspect that it might negatively affect the user experience when Revit pauses to check for changes, assuming it can't be done as a background process (or multi-threaded). In that case I'd prefer Revit stay nimble and leave it up to me to decide when to check for changes. If it could be done without harming performance then I'd welcome it too.

Something for under the Xmas tree...

Stretching Schedule Properties Dialog

When we stretch the schedule properties dialog only the Available Fields list gets wider. The side dedicated to the parameters assigned to the schedule gets no love.

It's been this way for quite awhile but it still seems strange to me...

Insert Data Row is Disabled

While working in a Room Schedule we can create new rooms via Insert Data Row versus placing a room in the model and having it appear in the schedule. This allows us to assemble a project's programming requirements early or at least at the same time as modeling activities are creating the building. There are two settings that will disable the Insert Data Row tool (using Revit 2016 at the moment). This is what it should look like.

If we don't check the Itemize every instance option on the Sorting/Grouping tab the Insert Data Row is disabled.

The other culprit is using the Embedded Schedule feature.

Careful out there...

Deleting All Levels

I have been telling people for years that Revit needs at least one level to function. As proof, if you only have one level you'll find that Revit won't let you delete it, the last one. The Delete button is disabled and it ignores you if you tap the Delete key.

I find it disturbing and interesting that it IS possible to delete all the levels as long as you select all of them and delete them together, at the same time. No complaint from Revit at all.

That seems like more like a bug than a feature to me. It works this way as far back as v2013, as far back as I've tested it.

What if you've done that, deleted all of them? You'll probably be a bit disappointed at the condition of what was your model...but just open an elevation view and create a new level(s).

Ooh Spelting Errrs - Descendnig

Daniel Stine found this one and passed it along to me so I'm not being so picky, he is :)

Silly develepers, thats not how your spell Descending.

Just more proof they shouldn't have changed the Family Types dialog ;)

Walking and Relative to View

When we turn on shadows in a camera view they are affected by a subtle setting called Relative to View.

This setting is part of the Sun Settings dialog. When we turn on shadows in the view, activate the Steering Wheel and use the Walk feature the shadows will move as we walk when Relative to View is checked.

This caught me off guard today while discussing it (the Walk feature). One of the guys noticed the shadows were moving and remarked, "Why are the shadows moving? That can't happen as you walk through a building or around it!"

I wasn't focused on it, didn't even notice it... It took me a moment to get out of my fog, and in that moment, I even imagined Walk was moving the building instead of the camera (walking to and from the building). Then I opened the Sun Settings dialog to check things and another person said, "Oh it's got to be that!" (Relative to View). Yep...

When the option is not checked the shadows stay fixed relative to where the Sun is located. Crisis averted :)

Spacebar and Titleblocks

Titleblocks are families. The Spacebar will rotate a selected family (90 degree increments by default). Remember that when you have a titleblock selected. Today that startled a person when they thought they were tapping the space to insert a space in a text field but it was no longer selected. The titleblock spun out of view. What the...? OH...

BIM Workshops Sessions and Data

I gave presentations at three of the four BIM Workshops this year. The first was in Omaha (August), the second in Anaheim (September), the third in Phoenix (October) and I wasn't part of the fourth event in Honolulu.

Indulging in a little historical review, the Omaha event is four years old now. However for its first two years it was called Central States Revit Workshop. It's founder, Carla Edwards, lived and worked in Omaha at the time. She attended the first Revit Technology Conference in North America hosted in Huntington Beach, CA in 2011. She told me that she was inspired and determined to bring that feeling home to where she worked and to provide that kind of experience to others but with a local focus, the region near Omaha. She found that there were many people eager to help her make it happen as well as sponsors willing to support it. I was happy to be able to speak at her first event too, and each of them since then.

A year later, after wrapping up the second event, she made a big life decision; moved to California and joined U.S. CAD, an Autodesk reseller based in California. She brought the event with her. Now in it's third year, with U.S. CAD's help they expanded the event to two cities; Omaha and Anaheim...and that brings us to this year, the event's fourth. Phoenix and Honolulu were both a single day of sessions while Omaha and Anaheim were two days of sessions.

This year the following people were designated with a national speaker role; Andy Jizba, Bill Debevc, Brandon Pike, Brian Mackey, Carla Edwards, Chris Faklaris, Chris Keck, David Magid, Eric Chappell, Kelli Lubeley, Lonnie Cumpton, Paul Aubin, Robert Bell, Me, Steven Shell and Tom Whitehead.

This meant each of us agreed to give presentations at two or more of the events. Each location also featured a selection of local/regional people who were chosen after being invited to send in their session ideas. That gave each BIM Workshop a broad reach while drawing on local talent too. It was a good mix this year as it has been for each of the previous years.

It has been my intention all along to post the files associated with both of my sessions here so people can check them out. I just waited until the last event was concluded (and I needed a little time to update the documents a bit)...and here they are.

Session: Who Moved my Cheese?
Description: There are over 30 ways to lose something you’re sure was just there. Revit offers so much control over the way things can be seen that we need a chart or list to figure out what happened to them. This session will explore those and provide an opportunity for some group therapy (troubleshooting).

I organized this as a game show to get people directly involved in the class. I selected two contestants for each visibility problem (25 problems in all). They competed for Smarties (yes the little discs of sugary goodness). I was inspired by a challenge that some of the Autodesk Revit technical support team created for a past Autodesk University. They had a booth outside of the classroom areas where people could stop by and meet them. They encouraged us to take part in this Find my Chair challenge which included some pretty diabolical, even despicable, ways that someone could hide a chair. For example, one chair was a family that had been completely stripped, just an empty file now, and reloaded. If someone did that in your office you might be inclined to encourage HR to get involved?

My session wasn't nearly so mean. It was fun to do it. I've heard from quite a few people since that they enjoyed it too. Thanks!

THIS is the HANDOUT
THIS is the DATASET

Fwiw, since I ran it as a game show with a winner and loser for each round, more than a few people suggested that I should have awarded each round's loser with a Dum Dums, I did think of it...but I didn't want to harsh anyone's mellow.

Session: Shared Coordinates: Stay Out of the Rabbit Hole
Description: It seems simple enough. Then something goes wrong. There are a few too many ways that we can manipulate this information. People often make assumptions about how it should work but don’t fully appreciate the consequences. Let’s explore the subtleties and avoid falling down the rabbit hole.

In this session I described and demonstrated using a master Revit site model to provide the basis for the real world location of a building or buildings. Then I linked separate Tiny House models (yes, inspired by Sean Burke's own Un-Boxed House project). If you've been reading this blog for long you'll probably recognize the information as being derived from a series of posts I've written here before. As much as I'd like to think every Revit user has read my blog, there are a lot of people out there who have no idea just how much information about Revit is lurking out here in the internets. Then again, maybe they just have a healthier balance in their lives?

THIS is the HANDOUT
THIS is the DATASET

I hope that these prove useful or interesting. Let me know if you have your own Who Moved my Cheese Game show sometime.

Oh, Carla recently let me know that she's decided to accept a position with an architecture firm in Denver so she can get closer to project work again AND importantly be much closer to her family. There is that notion of balance again... I wish her all the best and I'm sorry she'll have a lot more snow to deal with there than here in Southern California.

Keep an eye on the BIM Workshops site for next year's details as they become available.

Revit 2016 - Licensing Access has Changed

Prior to Revit 2016 we could either take the Application menu > Licensing or the About Revit route to review our licensing information. Here's the first in 2015.

In 2016 they've removed the Application menu path leaving just the About Revit route.

Not a real hardship, just a big confusing if you were expecting to find it under the Application menu like in the past.

Thanks to Dave for the prompt!

Revit 2016 R2 - Changes to Underlay

They've reconfigured the Properties Palette and changed how they describe and provide access to the Underlay concept.

As you can see above, the Underlay concept now has its own Group Header in the Properties palette. They've renamed the Underlay parameter itself to Range: Base Level. The new Range: Top Level is a read-only value that just reports the next level above the Base Level. That can be helpful when it isn't the one you expected, for example when there is an intermediate level for a stage .

Keep in mind that if a view is created for a level we can't prevent that level (like Stage above) from being the next one, the one that appears in Range: Top Level. I think it could be better if a Level's Building Story parameter could influence this condition so a view could exist for the level but not be factored into the Underlay's display process, allowing it to skip past or ignore the Stage level.

The Underlay Orientation parameter kept its name but the words used to describe its choices are now Look up and Look down. The plainer language seems to help people understand what Underlay is really doing. At the very least Look up is more accurate than implying it is really generating what we have learned is meant by Reflected Ceiling Plan.

Also very worthy of a mention is that new plan views have their Underlay - Range: Base Level assigned to None instead of the Level Below like in earlier versions.

Hmm, writing that last section, it occurs to me...this feature used to just be called Underlay, a parameter AND concept on its own with a second related Underlay Orientation parameter. Now we have a concept of Underlay with three parameters.

Experienced users will now confuse new users by asking them, "What's the view's Underlay assigned to?" or telling them, "You need to change your Underlay setting."  ...ah progress...

Oh, and Hat Tip to Niklas Strannefors, an Autodesk Application Engineer in Sweden, for prompting me to write about this subtle change.

Copy Monitor Wall Location Line Selection

I mentioned in a previous post that 2016 quietly introduced a parameter that lets us choose which Location Line is important to reference when we use the Copy part of the Copy/Monitor features.

Now that I've been trying to use it regularly I'm running into a quirky situation since installing R2 (I can't say for certain it doesn't happen in the previous version too). When I select a wall it works on the just the first wall. When I choose additional walls I get this warning.

Initially I thought it was happening because I thought it is important to assign the Location Line of the walls in the source linked file to be the same as intended in the host file, but then I don't remember having to worry about that earlier...pause...

Then it occurred to me that whatever Location Line setting I used for the last wall I sketched, in the host model, might somehow influence the process. I tried that and I don't think that matters at all; and it shouldn't in my opinion.

After experimenting a bit further it only works reliably when I use the Multiple selection option to choose all the walls I want to use Copy/Monitor on. I've repeated this using stock content (Imperial) and Architectural and Structural templates. If you'd like to corroborate my findings please try these steps:

• Start a project with the Architectural template
• Create six walls with: Basic Wall Exterior - EIFS on Mtl. Stud
• Use Location Line: Wall Centerline
• Save the file as Test CM

• Using the Structural template link Test CM
• Create a Stud 2x6 wall type (6" because the stud layer in the linked wall is 6")
• Start Copy/Monitor
• Map the linked wall type to the host's Stud 2x6 wall type (in Options)
• Choose Location Line: Core Face: Exterior (in Options too)
• Start Copy and select one wall (no message)
• Select another wall (Error message yes?)

I suspect the nature of wall joins is affecting whatever method they are using to evaluate the wall for the C/M process.

• Use Undo and Start again before using Copy/Monitor
• Set Options again, just to be sure
• Start Copy
• Select Multiple
• Select all six walls
• Click the little Finish button (no error?)
• Click the big Finish button

Earlier I mentioned being concerned about the Location Line setting of the walls in the linked model. I tested for that by starting with walls in the linked model assigned to Location Line: Core Face: Exterior. It didn't make any difference in my testing (see next image). Fwiw, when I first saw this new option appear I did think that was what they intended us to do but Revit just places our version of the wall according to the chosen Location Line position, not according to what the source wall is actually assigned to.

Thinking about it further I realized that if we really could influence this by changing the value in the linked model it should have already been easy for us to use C/M; if they just allowed us to swap wall types based on their setting. Revit was biased to only use Wall Centerline, ignoring the others.

I was nearly convinced that all I had to do was make sure to select the walls using the Multiple option but then in another file it didn't seem to matter or help regardless. Then I noticed any wall I was successful using C/M on (picking them individually) but was touching a wall that generated the error message also needed to be eliminated so I could start again clean. When I used Multiple after getting back to a clean slate I was able to use Copy/Monitor without an error message.

I conclude that the safest way to ensure Copy/Monitor doesn't generate a confusing warning is to isolate all the walls we want to use C/M on and choose the Multiple option. Remember the little Finish button before using the Big Finish button!

Also remember that anytime C/M gets ornery we can just use Stop Monitoring on the affected elements. Fix the problem elements and then use the Monitor part of C/M to let Revit start watching them again.

Preserving the Active Workset

The Active Workset is a user setting. We can each work using a different Active Workset.

However there is a circumstance where I can affect what the Active Workset is for others.

When I Synchronize with Central (SwC) my Active Workset will be the one any user that OPENS the project afterward will see. That is true until another user uses SwC. Then anyone who creates their local file after them will inherit their Active Workset...and around the bush we go.

It's important to remember to check the Active Workset as soon as your Local File opens.

Keep in mind that other users that are already working in the file will not see a change, their own preference will remain the same. It affects anyone who creates their local file later.

We can agree as a team to always use SwC with a specific Active Workset in play. I can't really expect that to happen every time if I have difficulty remembering to set the Active Workset correctly for my own purposes. I just try hard to remember to check the Active Workset setting before creating any new elements AND especially as soon as I get my Local File open.

We can also remember to take advantage of the Gray Inactive Worksets feature (see image above) to help make it more obvious that we aren't using the correct Active Workset.

Revit 2016 R2 - Detach from Central Filename

When you use the Detach from Central option Revit will append the word _detached to the filename if you decide to save the file.

You'll also find that the Titlebar shows the original file name with _detached appended to it instead of the blank description it displayed in the past.

How's that for subtle? Thanks to Jean-Marc for the push to post this.

Revit 2016 R2 - New Family Types Dialog Format

My friend Rolly sent me a screen capture of the new Family Types dialog. It's been revised to use similar buttons as some of the other dialogs, like the Filters and View Templates dialog for example.

It is slimmer now. I liked the larger buttons with words personally. I struggle (a little) with the tiny pictures (see what I did there) on these icon only buttons. At least I can rely on muscle memory to click on them after awhile. It will be helpful require less screen real estate for the interface and allow for more practical editing of those really long pesky conditional formulas...if dabble with those.

It seems I have a growing number of friends who are concerned about my lack of new blog posts :) Thanks Rolly! It's so much easier when you send me pichurs :)

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.

Revit 2016 R2 is Available and Update Release 10 for Revit 2015

When I wrote about Revit Sunrise earlier I hinted that we might see a repeat of last year when Revit Sundial was followed by Revit 2015 R2. That's come true today.

You can CHECK OUT some VIDEOS about what is new in this subscription customer only release.

These are the features they've chosen to provide videos for:

• Draw Visible Elements Only (performance)
• Global Parameters
• Family Element Visibility Setting (Family Editor)
• Thermal Zoning (Analysis)
• Enhanced Revit Links
• Cancel Multi Sheet Print or Export
• View Filter UI Improvements
• Revision Enhancement
• Isolate Solids/Voids with Filter Tool (Family Editor)
• Per User RVT Link Unload
• Improved Project Browser
• Name Reference Plane
• Autodesk Raytracer
• Railing Preview
• View Underlay and Orientation Improvements (descriptive language)
• Enabled Copy Paste in Perspective Views
• Choice to Select Wall Join Type (behavior) during Wall Creation
• Fabrication Part Modeling Enhancement
• Electrical Design Enhancements
• Mechanical Design Enhancements

There is also a Update Release 10 for Revit 2015. For what it is worth, the Autodesk Application Manager is two for two now. It let me know about the last web update (service pack) and it let me know about both 2016 R2 and 2015's Update Release 10. That's encouraging, certainly better than my experience with it in the past.

When Upgrading is a Downgrade

Dan Stine shared this dialog with me this morning. The wording it contains makes one think Revit is attempting to save in an older version, but that isn't possible.

In this case he had Revit 2015 open already and inadvertently double clicked on a Revit 2016 project file. He eventually saw another dialog that confirmed the file could not be saved in an earlier format. He, like me, thought the dialog was mildly amusing and passed it my way.