Reset Shared Coordinates Update

During April 2012 I wrote about using a separate file as a diversionary tactic to allow us to reacquire coordinates from a model we used Acquire Coordinates on before; now that it has changed and no longer lines up with our own work.

In the years since that post Revit seems to have decided it should remember more than one file has had the Acquire Coordinates tool used on it. Revit used to be monogamous but that's no longer true.

The reset process is still necessary but an extra step is required now: we must deliberately disable the link's Shared Site setting first.

Usually it is necessary to move the linked file to align with ours and so its new position can be reacquired. If the setting isn't disabled first it will trigger Revit's desire to change the Shared Coordinate system of the link. Keep in mind that Acquire Coordinates is a pull transaction but moving a file that is sharing coordinates causes Revit to think it must push that change out to the related file. If that's what is really needed then consider using Publish Coordinates instead.

Select the linked file and in the Properties Palette click the Shared Site button (by default says Internal unless someone has changed the name). In the Choose Site dialog that appears click the radio button for Do not share site of selected instance.

It should say <Not Shared> like in the image above after choosing that option. It should be possible to move the linked file into the desired position so it lines up with our model correctly again. If it works correctly you won't get a warning to save the changes to the link nor will you get prompted to do so when you save the file.

It is now possible to link a Reset File to use the Acquire Coordinates on. As soon as that is done successfully the original linked file can be used to Acquire Coordinates again, from it instead.

If the disabling step was not taken we'd find that Revit remembers it has a shared coordinate relationship with both files, the original link and the reset file. Examining properties for both linked files would reveal a Shared Site setting in play (Internal) for both.

However, Shared Coordinates and its Survey Point only acts according to the last file Acquire Coordinates was used on regardless how many files Revit is keeping track of. Trying to use Acquire Coordinates on either file in this condition will just generate this warning.

It's almost as if Revit is treating using Acquire Coordinates like a marriage and keeping a record of each marriage, regardless how many divorces the file goes through. I'd recommend it moves on, focus only on the active marriage and make that work.

To recap - if you find your shared coordinate relationship has failed you'll want a divorce. Then you'll fall for someone else quickly, on a rebound, only to discover that your previous love was the best. Just remember you need to get a lawyer involved to disable your first marriage before you start your rebound. This way you'll legally be able to get married again when you come to your senses.

Revit 2018 - GEO Reference and Shared Coordinates

I replied to a thread at RFO that asked about Revit 2018 touting support for AutoCAD's GEO Reference feature.

On the surface, there is no obvious difference between how things worked in 2017 (or older versions) compared with 2018. Over the years you may have noticed that the Location Dialog, the one that allows you use a map to locate your project did not do anything at all related to the Shared Coordinate system. All that action did was provide a way for Revit to; originally calculate sun position (and therefore shadows) more believably and more recently to allow for energy analysis estimation to be done.

Now...in Revit 2018, assuming the source DWG file is using AutoCAD's GEO Referencing feature, it is possible for Revit to inherit this data to affect not only the Location (Sun and Energy Analysis) but also the coordinate location of the project (Shared Coordinates).

The thread at RFO also asks about the 20 mile threshold Revit has regarding model size and warning us about model accuracy. The following is a restatement of things I've written in the past. Specifically they asked if there was any change to this in 2018. There isn't that I know of. I included the following to superficially explain the reason it exists.

The 20 mile threshold is a math and computer science problem that Revit developers choose not to lie to us about. They want us to keep the model as close to the file's mathematical origin as possible. External files (and internal modelling) that have data whose extents are larger than 20 miles begin to influence the accuracy of the calculations required to generate and display the model faithfully.

More often than not a civil file is not really larger than 20 miles. It just has elements that are farther away from the origin than that. Revit doesn't mind that issue and it doesn't mind assigning very large coordinates values to the shared coordinate origin (Survey Point).

It only cares when there are elements that are beyond the threshold. For example a file that only has two short line segments that are 30 miles apart will cause a warning. A file with an entire set of contour lines 40 miles away from the origin won't cause an error IF all the contours themselves and other annotation don't cause the extent of elements to also be larger than the 20 mile threshold. Distance from the origin is one aspect and the total extent (X,Y AND Z) of the elements in the file is the other.

Ultimately, the error appears because they want us to know that this external data could negatively affect the accuracy of what we work with inside Revit.

I wrote THIS POST to discuss how I deal with survey files that violate the threshold. It starts out with one issue (transparent elevations/sections) that occurs when the threshold is crossed.

Active View can Matter When Linking Using Positioning Auto - Center to Center

If you link a model via Positioning: Auto - Center to Center in a plan view its zero elevation will align with the host model's zero elevation.

Do that in an elevation or section view however and the linked model may not rest at the correct Zero elevation. The discrepancy man be very subtle or quite obvious. It will depend on the adjusted extents of the view that is active.

The trigger appears to be the elevation or section view being cropped very shallow (only one level visible) prior to linking the model (tested as far back as Revit 2015). If all the levels are visible in the view it seems to be more reliable.

Far safer me thinks to just link via a plan view, something to watch out for. 

Navis 2018.1 Update and Autodesk Desktop App

I've had a few successes with AdA recently. It applied its own update and I've received a couple of notices for updates too. This morning I got such a message about Navisworks but when I attempted to install it it I was informed the digital signature couldn't be verified.

There didn't appear to be any way around this via AdA so I visited the Autodesk Portal for my account. I found the update at the top of the list so I downloaded and installed it successfully that way instead.

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.

Insert From File and a Worksharing File

I bumped into a subtle conflict this evening. I created a new file from a stock template. I then used Insert from File > Insert Views from File to acquire a few drafting views. When I closed this new project and decided to open the file the harvested drafting views are stored in this message appeared.

Keep in mind that no files were actually open at the moment. I was looking at the Recent Files list yet when I attempted to create a new local file for the project I just used Insert From File on the message popped up. This means that the file is technically still open in RAM as far as Revit is concerned, it's just not open for me to interact with.

I had to exit Revit so it could relinquish its hold on the file before I could start Revit up again to get back to work.

Revit 2018 - Insert Ribbon Search Field is Removed

When Autodesk Seek gave up on their mission and handed it over to BIM Object Revit 2017 started to redirect us to that site instead whenever we did a search. Prior to that it would take us to Autodesk Seek.

Notice anything missing from the 2018 Insert Ribbon image above? Well the post title gave it away but the search field has been stripped off. Remember this following image from way back when?

I realize it didn't make sense to leave references to Autodesk Seek in play. Now it's even less helpful to find external content. I guess it's more incentive to install BIM Object's Revit app? Probably what they intended.

No you're not imagining things, it's gone gone gone...

-- EDITED 5/2/2017 --

I installed the BIM Object Revit app.

Holy smokes that's a heck of a ribbon for the primary button I really want, Browse on the far left. Note if you launch any of the tools you can't do any work back in Revit until you finish interacting with their app. If you find that frustrating you could just open a separate browser.

It would be nice if there were some user settings to reduce the number of buttons to just those you're likely to use. I added the browse button to the QAT to get around accessing the ribbon tab each time.

Autodesk Desktop App Up but Mostly Down

I was pleasantly surprised when Ada started working right after installing Revit 2018. It managed to work long enough to get most everything else installed. I wrote long enough because it attempted to apply FormIt updates for 2017 and 2018 yesterday and ended with failure to install messages.

No sign of Ada since and now I get a nice FormIt error when I launch Revit. I guess I'll just have to get along without it or Ada...until Revit 2019?

Panel Name - Allow Unique Values per Group

Some time ago they added the ability to tell Revit we want a parameter to be able to store unique values even when the element is part of a group, like this.

That example is possible because it's a shared parameter. I find myself wishing that we could do the same thing for the built-in Panel Name parameter for electrical panels. These are unique identifiers in all the situations I've ever encountered. Never mind the unfortunate poor support for being in groups to begin with...

I wish that Panel Name could be like a Door's Mark parameter or a Room's Number...unique even when included in groups. I wish upon a star...

Smooth or Stepped Stair Setting

I want the concrete corner stair to look like this.

When I finished it looked like this.. sad face...

A stair Run has two options for Underside Surface: Smooth and Stepped. Smooth is what I started with.

There are occasions when I want the underside to look like the second image above, if so I'd probably tackle that like THIS POST. In this situation I wanted the following appearance. I got it by changing the Structural Depth parameter to match the height of the stair.

Edit Profile and Altering Base or Top Constraints

In this example I've got a veneer wall and I used the Edit Profile feature to alter its shape. I wanted it to go from the bottom of the building to the top but provide the overall opening it requires in the middle. As luck would have it the overall height has changed a little. The selected wall in the following image is one of several veneer wall segments. It needs to drop down by 6 inches.

All I need to do is edit the Top Offset parameter, changing it from 3'-6" to 3'-0". That was easy.

Unfortunately when I do that easy bit I notice the opening I created using Edit Profile has shifted down by the same 6 inches.

At this point I'd use Edit Profile and move that sketch segment back up to the proper location. Since I have several of these veneer walls to adjust; for one of them I accidentally used Edit Profile first. I decided to change the Top Offset parameter while I was there, noting that the sketch is still correct at the top of the window assembly.

When I finished Edit Profile I was pleasantly surprised to find that the sketch remained intact, the opening did not need to be altered. The Top Offset alteration took effect without changing the interior rectangle sketch like would have happened changing the parameter outside of the Edit Profile mode.

That was a pleasant thing to stumble into. For the remaining walls I just used Edit Profile first and changed the Top Offset parameter followed by finishing Edit Profile without having to adjust the sketch too.

Autodesk Desktop App - Sad Face

This so called application continues to disappoint. It has failed to let me know about any updates since installing Revit 2017...

Sad face...

Type Selector on Ribbon - Oops

I received quite a few comments on the last post. Most were pointing out that my powers of observation are failing me. It's a feature that has been in the product since at least 2011 according to one insider at Revit. Mea culpa!

Qualifies for Dept. of Subtle eh?

Revit 2017.1 - Type Selector on Modify Ribbon

Working with some new Revit users last week I noticed something strange happened to my interface and not theirs. I suddenly had a Type Selector on my Modify Ribbon tab, on its own ribbon panel.

I thought, "I don't remember that!" Then I thought, "It must be a new subtlety with Revit 2017.1 that I haven't noticed yet!" Looking at it again, once I remembered to be curious, I found that when I right-click on the Type Selector, in its long standing home on the Properties Palette, two options appear, the ribbon one being new. Those other users had Revit 2017 installed.

Now I don't see the What's New in Revit 2017.1 documentation page taking credit for this subtle change. I don't recall running into it while writing my What's New post for 2017 when that came out either, nor is it listed in that documentation section either when I scanned it again just in case.

I wrote strange happened earlier because I don't recall right-clicking and selecting that option unless I had a short term memory lapse. I suppose I might have been talking and clicking without looking, yeah I've done that while discussing a Revit feature plenty of times. What was I writing about? Oh...

Still I don't remember doing it. I also don't remember it being there all along since installing Revit 2017.1 in the first place and I'm pretty sure I've used it a lot since doing that. ...again with doubting my memory? I suppose it could just be the default location for the original install of the update and I just failed to notice it. I don't that's speaking well of my observation skills though. Well, never mind.

Don't worry about me, just take advantage of it if you like that as an available option too! Since Autodesk isn't claiming responsibility for it, who wants to?

Autodesk Seek is Dead - Long Live BIMobject

I've been busy, experiencing angst or lazy, you pick. Then again dear reader you may not have noticed that I haven't been posting as much lately. Apparently some readers are still hoping to be able to rely on me to try to stay current with things. At least that's what a few emails asking about this semi-recent change suggests to me. I do apologize if my reticence to post more often is disappointing. I have been busy as well as going through another spell of "What's it all about Alfie?". Oh I've given it away...or have I? (imagine Craig Ferguson was speaking).

Get on with it Mr. OpEd... At the moment the only place other than Autodesk sites that I recall reading information about this change is the Revit Add-Ons post on the day it happened, so well done Tim.

Specifically, you may have been, or will be, greeted by a message when attempting to search Autodesk Seek via Revit's Insert ribbon? The message begins with something like (I didn't capture the screen the first time) ..."As of January 18, 2017 Autodesk Seek has been transferred to BIMobject. At least I think the naming is BIMobject. It could be bimobjects because that's also on the site. I digress...yet again.

They've provided a transfer FAQ you can read but it's not really responding to any questions I have, as a user...UNLESS you are then careful to click the small link for User FAQ on the left side (link next paragraph).

I see they've set up a hotline for Autodesk Seek transition so look for that information there (via separate FAQ sections for User and BPM) too, it's the same telephone number for either category, user or BPM (Building Product Manufacturer).

I know nothing about BIM Object yet. I can say after arriving at their site via Revit once that the UI presented to us is a sight better than Seek. My first impression is that their customers are product manufacturers, selling the service of creating and hosting content for manufacturers, the same as for Autodesk Seek.

Assuming the somewhat jaundiced view of a Revit user, the user is the product they are selling to their customers, like Facebook for example. However attempting to be fair, users need good quality content to make quality building models so if these guys do well we BIM users ought to be winning.

Regarding my overall experience with Autodesk Seek, prompted by a post at RFO, I wrote this reply there a couple days ago, responding to Philip...(a bit more of the Opinion part of OpEd)

My own experience with Autodesk Seek began with hmm promising, let's see how this goes and ended with what's the point. If you consider RevitCity's content quality is ravaged pretty consistently by fellow Revit users, as such lately I have had the same dread reaction to resorting to searching Autodesk Seek. I even went there a couple times to pull down bad examples of content to show people I was mentoring on the subject...not a good recommendation eh? Inspiration for blog posts is one upside? Okay, getting snarkastic sorry.

My feelings changed sharply a short while after the Family Style Guide was published related to Seek. A great idea and initial effort but it was a bit plain to see the market/revenue generating bias of it toward Seek. ...and it too has died on the vine.

Overall, very disappointing. Especially considering I've heard it was no small investment of time and money by companies to get their content hosted by Seek. But then that's the secret about content it takes time and both involve money even if we don't look.

Back to BIMobject, I'm going to keep an open mind, more open than my obviously skeptical comments above suggests is possible. Let's see how this goes. Oh, I'll answer the question that's probably on any user's mind for them (from their User FAQ):

Do I have to pay for the BIM objects I download?

bimobject.com is a free of charge web service for architects, engineers, specifiers and all other disciplines in the AEC and Infrastructure industries.

They offer a free Revit app to directly integrate their content search and access into Revit too.

Feel free to use comments to share your observations and experience with Autodesk Seek (in the past) or BIMobject if you've been a using their content already.

View Reference User Experience Inequality

The View Reference feature reveals information differently according to how you access the feature. A post at RFO yesterday, and subsequent reply by pivoarch, made me see this subtlety finally.

When you create a new view and choose the Reference Other View option you get the sheet and detail number value (when the view is on a sheet) in the description in addition to the view name, like this.

When you want to fix or change a View Reference the sheet and detail number values are not presented to us, like this.

It would be very helpful to include the sheet and detail number values in every instance that it is displayed to us.

New Command Reference Book for Revit Architecture - Daniel Stine and Jeff Hanson

Daniel Stine and Jeff Hanson have teamed up to create a new book called Autodesk Revit 2017 Architectural Command Reference book. The inclusion of the term architectural in the book title means it does not delve into the Systems ribbon tab commands.

It has 13 chapters: Introduction, Application Menu and User Interface, Architecture Tab, Structure Tab, Insert Tab, Annotate Tab, Analyze Tab, Massing and Site Tab
Collaborate Tab, View Tab, Manage Tab, Modify Tab and Contextual Tab.

You probably already know Daniel from his pretty extensive Revit collection of books. You already know Jeff too assuming you've read any of the help documentation or watched the training videos Autodesk provides online. That's been his focus for many years now working for Autodesk.

SDC Publications, their publisher, offers the book via eBooks using Apple iBooks ($39.99), Google Play Books ($42.40) or RedShelf ($49.47). It is available in hard copy via Amazon USA print on demand ($84 on Amazon) or Amazon International options. They also offer training videos, via separate download, for those who purchase the book. The prices are those that I saw at the time when I followed the various link options for purchasing. Fwiw, the Redshelf link took quite awhile to load at first, subsequent tries loaded faster, though the fact that I've never visited their site before might be why.

An aside, I've warned Daniel that Jim Balding (The ANT Group) has long been suggesting to me, at least since 2003, just this sort of book ought to be written. He'll either be happy it exists now or sad that they've beaten him to it.

Congrats to Daniel for yet another book and to Jeff for his contributions as co-author. Starting a book is easy...finishing it and getting it published is no small thing.

Properties Palette and Project Browser are not Responsive

This issue tracks back at least a couple of years now but I've just been asked about it again the other day. People report that on occasion Revit refuses to acknowledge when you click on either the Project Browser or Properties Palettes. For example this thread at Autodesk's User Forum began in February 2014.

The suggested methods, in the thread, for fixing this issue include: Using Save As, Disabling Hardware Acceleration and clicking on the Help icon. One person posted that their screen went black first and then Revit crashed. That bit sounds like a graphics card/driver could be involved.

Those fixes resolved the situation but don't tell us specifically why it happened in the first place. Since it has not happened to me personally I can't say for sure why it happens either. I have heard that some errors generate a warning message that can get lost behind the Revit UI. Using ALT + Tab will allow you to cycle between open windows (applications) and you may find a message dialog lurking there. I wouldn't expect any part of Revit to be responsive as such. Interesting that users find that they can access the Help and Application menu (Big R) items despite the two windows being inaccessible.

Perhaps a reader has isolated the cause?

Publish Coordinates and Inter-related Linked Files

I frequently have models that are organized in/by what I call a Master Site model/file. This file is the Parent in the shared coordinate relationship for all the children/siblings models/buildings that I link into it.

When model positions are changed in this parent file I find it is sometimes (often) necessary to use Publish Coordinates on all the linked models, even those that have not been altered. I've observed inconsistent results where sometimes the location of a linked sibling does not adjust (update) when viewed (as a link) within another sibling model. Using Publish Coordinates seems to force these linked files to refresh properly when a model is opened, even though it might seem unnecessary for those that didn't change.

As such, it is possible that seeing other linked files appearing to be out of alignment for this reason may motivate us to try to reset everything. Pause, breathe...try using Publish Coordinates on all the links first.

Add a Comment using Synchronize and Modify Settings

Whenever we need to use Synchronize with Central (SwC) I advocate for using the button for Synchronize and Modify Settings every time.

Doing so allows Revit to present us with the Synchronize with Central dialog.

I encourage everyone to take a moment and type a brief description in the Comment field provided. What motivated you to use SwC just now? That's the gist of what should be recorded there. I find that people are more receptive to making a habit of it once they see it can prove to be very useful to just about everyone working on the project.

We can review the comments anytime we choose to, even if we don't have a project open yet. That means that anyone who can at least fire up Revit can review project comments even if they don't really need to do any work in Revit.

Yes, the Show History button on Collaborate ribbon is awake even if no project is open. Click Show History, browse to the location of the relevant Central File and click Open. The comments are presented to us like this.

I doubt it is hard to imagine how having everyone on the project team recording comments (time stamp and username are stored automatically too) can be helpful for diagnosing issues, checking the status of tasks, and even a quick review of user activity on a given project file. It will also become obvious who isn't playing along pretty quickly.

I also recommend that we never use the other button for Synchronize Now (that's why I put the red X on it in the image above). It doesn't present the dialog so there is no opportunity to store a comment and equally important is that is does not relinquish User Created worksets automatically.

If you pay close attention you'll notice that all of the other kinds of worksets are automatically checked when the Synchronize and Modify Settings dialog is open. Those other worksets are relinquished with Synchronize Now, not User Created worksets though. If you use Synchronize Now and you've ever been accused of retaining ownership of these worksets...that's likely why.

If it helps:

Green Arrows in Circle SwC = Good!!
Lighting Bolt SwC = Not Good!!

If you're interested in taking a peek at Kinship's features you'll find that these comments can be reviewed at will with just a browser.

Kinship and Autodesk University

My friends Jose Fandos and Gary Sprague have been working tirelessly to develop a product they call Kinship. It offers an intelligent way to organize, search for and place Revit content and even more compelling to me is the project insight it can provide us. After a couple years of private testing they are opening things up for real.

They were kind enough to invite me along with them to Autodesk University (AU) this year. If you are attending AU please stop by to say hello and find out more about Kinship. If you're not here at AU then let me encourage you to visit their site to learn more.

Multi-Discipline Shared Coordinates

In the past I've written that using or invoking Shared Coordinates is not required to keep project files aligned with each other. It only becomes an issue or necessary when each discipline's files are expected to align with models that are produced with software other than Revit and then viewed with other software like Navisworks.

It's my observation that the most common reason for invoking shared coordinates is trying to orient models with the site conditions. Civil and survey data doesn't come from Revit so that practically guarantees that the architectural model will need to deal with shared coordinates. It's only slightly less guaranteed that the other trades have to deal with it.

I briefly dealt with (a short summary) the inter-disciplinary relationship before in the second of these TWO POSTS and it's reasonable advice until the architecture team has to move their model again, relative to the site model. The Master Site and Building Model linked file strategy I prefer becomes tedious when the building has to be relocated; tedious more so for the other trades remaining aligned with the architecture model that is.

The root issue for this tediousness is the Acquire Coordinates tool. Once the trades use it on the architectural linked model any changes to the building location don't propagate to the trade's models well. The position of the architectural model shifts being respectful of the shared coordinate relationship instead of ignoring that and remaining in the same position based on the Project Origin, the way it was linked to begin with.

Coping with this tediousness, we can fix the alignment of models after the building has been moved by taking these steps:

• Remove the architectural link
• Reset shared coordinates
• Link the architectural file again
• Use Acquire Coordinates again

Alternatively the trades can avoid using the Acquire Coordinates tool in the first place. I did write about this in another POST before. It is a long post, and mostly words, so I'll take another run at describing it here with some images too.

The most important thing to do is mark a known location in the architectural model so the trades can adjust the location of their own Survey Point and then use the Specify Coordinates at Point (SCaP) tool. By known I mean, the North/South and East/West coordinates based on the survey data.

When the architecture model is relocated on the site the new Survey Point information needs to be captured to pass along to the team. In the images that follow I've used the same model (Tiny House) I used in the posts I provided links for at the beginning of the third paragraph.

In the following image we see a first pass at the location of Tiny House A. This image is taken from within the Tiny House A model after having used Publish Coordinates on it from within the Master Site model. In Tiny House A I opened the Location Weather and Site dialog to capture the rotation of the model (wrote it down). The coordinates I'm using are based on coordinates defined or determined in the survey by looking at the corner of the property boundary. In this example I made them up so the coordinate values were easy to remember.

Imagine now that the HVAC designer has already linked the architectural model into their own project using positioning option: Auto - Origin to Origin and started working.

The reference plane cross-hairs you can see under the Survey Point in the image that follows are in the architectural model. That's what I used to mark the corner of the survey's property boundary so I'd be able to tell the HVAC designer where that location is. Yes, I linked the Master Site model into the architectural model so I could see that location to mark it.

Earlier while preparing to start work they moved their Survey Point (un-clipped) to the intersection of my reference planes. Then using the coordinate values and rotation information I also sent them they use the SCaP tool to define the shared coordinate relationship it should have relative to site and the building (see following image).

In this case we also need to enter the elevation of 20'-0" because the building has been raised that much in the site model. Keep in mind that we will find that the building and HVAC model both are still at the project elevation of 0'-0". The shared coordinate relationship is where this elevation is defined.

Now we need to imagine that something caused the architecture team to decide the building must be in a different location. The model was moved in the Master Site file and its new location saved when prompted. Now I've opened up the Tiny House model again and I can see where the Tiny House is. I capture the rotation values like I did before. I moved the Survey Point (un-clipped) even though it wasn't necessary. I do need to move the reference planes to mark where the common benchmark is located now.

I've posted the revised building model for the HVAC designer and sent them the new rotation information. The coordinates of the benchmark remain the same...the site hasn't changed after all, just the building's location relative to the site. Using SCaP they enter the new information after moving the Survey Point (un-clipped) to the intersection of the reference planes.

From all three models (architecture, HVAC and site), I've exported NWC files from Revit for use in Navisworks to see how they line up. In the first design iteration they were all on the other side of the site and in this image I can see they (building and HVAC) have moved together to the new location. I've hidden the wall and roof so the duct is visible. The green sub-region is just to mark the property boundary.

If the design requires the building to be moved again, once it has been moved in the Master Site file it is just necessary to repeat the adjustments I've described. This way each discipline's models stay aligned with each other based on using the positioning option: Auto - Origin to Origin.

A summary of the process:

The architecture team is in charge of positioning and they:

1. Create Master Site
2. Link Building
3. Position, orient and elevate the building (or Reposition)
4. Publish Coordinates (or Save Change)
5. Identify a bench mark in the building model (or adjust to mark new location)
6. Capture (record) and then provide coordinates and rotation/bearing information
7. Share model with trades

If the building location has to be changed repeat 3-7 (differences noted with parenthesis).

Trades take the following steps:

1. Link architecture model using Auto - Origin to Origin
2. Place un-clipped Survey Point at agreed upon bench mark
3. Enter Coordinates and Rotation (bearing) using SCaP

When building is moved on site trades repeat steps 2 and the rotation part of step 3. Remember to use/specify Shared Coordinates when exporting from Revit.

It is important to note that ALL of the above is biased for separate firms managing model relationships.

When all the trades work in one firm the Acquire and Publish Coordinates tools work better because all the files belong to us and we have concurrent access to them on our network. This allows us to link trade models to the architecture model and then use Publish Coordinates to pass along the information we have to manually keep in sync using the approach described above.

In the single firm the process and position logic can play out like this:

Files:

• Master Site > Acquire Coordinates from Site/Survey
• Master Site > Publish Coordinates to Architecture Model
• Architecture Model > Publish Coordinates to Trade Models

Positioning:

• Master Site - Survey positioned using Auto - Center to Center
• Master Site - Architecture Model positioned manually
• Architecture Model to Trade Models positioned Auto - Origin to Origin
• Trade Models to Architecture Model positioned Auto - Origin to Origin

Structural Plan View - Column Symbolic Offset

From the Dept. of Subtle we only find this parameter in Structural Plan views.

The help documentation says we can use this to "Specify the offset of a beam join to a slanted structural column. This only applies to coarse detail levels.". I've mocked up some framing to see what it does.

In this next image I've changed the offset value to 5'-0". You'll notice that the column symbol moved down toward the bottom of the column.

In this next image I've changed the offset value to -5'-0". You'll notice that the column symbol moved up toward the top of the column.

If a column doesn't pass beyond the view's level a negative value doesn't do anything to change that column's symbol location. Pretty subtle...

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.

Revit Roadmap

Autodesk's Sasha Crotty discussed the big picture for Revit's development at RTC in Porto. Sasha is the current Revit Core Product Manager which means (from her bio) she is responsible for the direction and evolution of Revit's multi-disciplinary tools, performance, and the API.

If you're curious about that you can check out her post HERE.

The Family has been Renamed

This warning message is probably familiar, troublesome and annoying.

I was reading a couple threads at RFO; THIS ONE and THAT ONE.

Apart from workset related issues I've written about before, I believe the underlying cause of renaming is that Revit perceives a family as different. That's not very surprising but I think that the actual difference is the result of different versions (2016 vs 2017) or having Save As used on the family (to put it in a different folder)...AND any operation that involves Copy/Paste, which includes the Insert from File tools.

When Load from Library > Load Family is used I only see it occur when worksets are being used (see the links at end of this post). The families merely having some different parameters (either instance or type) generates the dialog asking how we want to deal with the existing definition.

Using Revit 2017.1 and passing a family from one project to another I observed the following:

Family is renamed but no warning message:
If the family being introduced is an older version (upgraded) of one already in the model
If the family is same version but has had Save As used on it, i.e., to put it in a new folder location

Family is renamed and the warning appears:
If the family is an older version or Save As version AND Insert from File is used

Family is not renamed:
If the Family is copied from same library folder to a new folder
If the Family is from the same library folder
If the Family (existing) is reloaded from older version before using Copy/Paste or Insert from File.

The issue can be avoided if we are meticulous about using families from the same library and version. If we load office details from a detail library project file using Insert from File and the families (some or all) involved are based on older versions while newer versions are already present in the project we'll incur the renaming penalty.

The detail library should be updated, have the newer versions loaded first so they will be the same as those in the active project. If we need to keep the detail library in more than one version then we'll have to decide how to manage that and for how long. Merely upgrading the detail library model does not appear to be sufficient to avoid the issue.

I ought to mention that I can load a family and let it upgrade. Then if I use Copy/Paste to pass it along to another project file it does not get renamed unless the existing family in that project is based on a different version than the one I just upgraded. Upgrading a family does not seem to create the same problem that using Save As does for a family, at least not in the context of Revit treating it as a rogue family competing for the same name/existence in the project.

Regarding the workset issue I wrote three posts about previously, they describe how families can get renamed when worksets are being used and more than one person loads the same families and synchronizes their work in a specific way. The posts are:

FIRST post
SECOND post
THIRD post (references the first two as well)

Schedule Linked Files and Current File

I wrote an earlier post describing a way to create a schedule of linked files. I read a thread at RFO asking about including the current file in the schedule too. I can use the same approach to get that result too. This is a schedule of Levels (since all projects have at least one).

The schedule will naturally reference levels in the active file and I only need to check the Include elements in links option to get their levels too.

The query at RFO also dealt with custom file naming so I took advantage of the built-in Project Information parameter called Building Name. In each project file I've entered a custom File Name in Building Name. This example is using the format described at RFO. I also unchecked the option for Itemize every instance to avoid having many rows for each and every level in the files. I used Clear Cell to eliminate the Title (also turned off that option in Appearance) and used Hide Column for all the fields except Building Name. For this to work long term we need each trade to include this same piece of information in their model/file and update it when they post their next version.

Revit 2017.1 and Space Naming

While I was on a job site yesterday Autodesk released Revit 2017.1. In the past they've called this release R2. I think 2017.1 is better.

Finally the Space Naming Utility is just Space Naming and built-in. I've been complaining about the illogical segregation of this crucial collaboration tool for a long time. So many engineers I've met didn't even know the tool existed and that's silly. When they get to use 2017.1 it will just be waiting for them on the ribbon, no extra installation for EyeTee or Revit Managers to remember to deploy. Yay!!

As for what features are included with 2017.1 you can check out the Inside the Factory blog post. As usual Luke has shared some very useful links on his What Revit Wants blog.

Imported or Linked DWG Appearance as Generic Model Broken in 2017

Using Revit 2017, I have a 3D DWG file for some framing that I want to use as a coordination reference within a project file. Initially I linked the file directly to the project but that approach (unfortunately) doesn't respect the cut plane of a plan view which, for example, means cripples above a header show up in the plan view too (header as well).

I decided I'd use the old create an in-place Generic Model family trick.

If you're with me so far you're probably expecting what I expected; to find that Revit regards this imported 3D geometry as generic model (cuttable) category information, giving me the look I wanted. However, when I clicked Finish Model the linked file disappeared entirely.

I thought for a moment, "Am I just imagining that I could do that? I swear Revit used to do this?!?"

Hmm, I decided I'd create a component Generic Model family instead and use Import CAD. This way I could replace the source CAD file if necessary.and just reload the family later...if necessary. Also thinking, "...maybe it'll work this time, this way...?" Nope...

I gave in, I did a quick search using Revit Help and noticed a result called "Regression Revit 2017 - Cutting 3D DWG with section results in inconsistent model display".

NUTS! ...at least I'm not crazy (about this at least)...

Well I'm writing to declare that it's not just an issue in section views. The damn thing doesn't show up in a plan view at ALL.

It works as I remembered in Revit 2016...project is in 2017 though.

I did try creating the family in 2016 and let Revit upgrade it in the 2017 project...no joy...busted. I also created a Specialty Equipment family (in-place too) and it shows up in plan view but since that category doesn't cut...it's missing the point, my reason for traveling this road in the first place.

sigh ... next service pack, update release, patch...(whatever they're going to call...)

Survey Point Values after using Publish Coordinates

A RevitForum member remarked that it was confusing to see that the Survey Point shows 0,0,0 after using Publish Coordinates.

The image above shows the initial position, in a Building file, of the PBP and SP after using Publish Coordinates to pass the Shared Coordinate system information from a Site file to it. You can't see a building because they are quite far apart...which is why the icons do not change size when you zoom in/out.

When we open the Building model the Survey Point (SP) is marking its own origin, which is 0,0,0. When we examine the Project Base Point (PBP) we'll find coordinate values that indicate how far away it is from the SP. If we un-clip the SP we can choose to move it closer to the building and we'll see the coordinate values change to show how far the icon is moving away from its origin .

When we use Acquire Coordinates Revit moves the SP (when it is Pinned) to mark the location of the World Coordinate System origin (WCS assuming a DWG site source). When we use Publish Coordinates on the linked Building file it does the same thing but remember the SP is marking the WCS origin, which is 0,0,0 in the DWG...and for the SP of the building model too.

I hear and read the following a lot...

I then test it by removing the linked building model and re-link using shared coordinates and it works.

If you're tempted to do that, just don't do that on real projects since it opens the door to messing up the work we've just done. Just link the building model, re-position it and use Publish Coordinates. Then leave it alone; unless design changes require it to be moved again. A better test? Link the Site model into the Building model using By Shared Coordinates. That doesn't change anything you've done and you'll see they line up properly.

Placing a few spot coordinate annotations on this fine building design, after zooming in closer, looks like this. Also, the one closest to the PBP is assigned to PBP while the others are assigned to the SP.

2016-17 Door Library - Head Height

A comment was submitted to an earlier post about the new library of door families that came with the 2016 release. The question had to do with changing the head height of these doors. There are two folders (see the images in the other post): Residential and Commercial as well as a smaller collection of doors that are more similar to the past door library we had, but using a new naming convention.

The doors in the Commercial folder have an Instance parameter called Masonry Frame which toggles on/off a solid form that adjusts how thick or high the head of the door is. This image is the same door side by side but with the parameter off on the left and on for the door on the right.

The doors in the Residential folder don't share this family strategy. Neither do the individual door families that are found in the root Doors folder. What is visible on the residential doors is trim, not a frame. The trim is designed to turn off if the Door Offset parameter is not set to zero. The frame form they do have are based on a sweep that doesn't allow for varying its dimensions.

Like all families, how they were conceived of and then created greatly affects their usefulness. In the case of the comment posted, the commercial collection of doors may work for them where the residential ones probably won't; not without some fundamental changes to the families themselves first.

Trim Multiple and Multi-Select

I find that I consistently forget this is possible, to use a crossing window to select more than one element to trim or extend multiple elements at once. Don't forget Steve! Maybe now that I've written that I'll start remembering more often, hopefully. The following video is just the tooltip video that runs if you hover over Trim Multiple long enough.

Fill Pattern Alignment

I responded to a thread at Linked In this morning, something I almost never do. I find LI too frustrating to spend much time there. Regardless, the sought after result was to get horizontal and diagonal patterns (part of a material assignment) to line up, to appear to connect to each other. This is an image of what was shared in the thread.

The Fill Patterns (Model) need to use spacing settings that will allow their endpoints to meet. For example, if the parallel horizontal lines are 300 mm apart then we can use trigonometry to determine the parallel spacing of the diagonal pattern.

The formula b = c * sin(B) where c = 300mm and angle B is 45 degrees returns a length of 212.1 mm for the length of b. The diagonal pattern will need to use 212.1 mm for its spacing so it will align with the endpoints of the horizontal pattern at 300 mm.

Once the patterns work, it will still probably be necessary to fine tune each pattern's position on the surface of each wall so they each start at the correct location. That's because each wall will place/start the pattern you assign according to its own extents.

I like the the Align tool, I pick a segment of the horizontal pattern first then the diagonal pattern and the diagonal pattern will shift to line up as desired. That's how I aligned the patterns in the second image.

Alternatively we can use the TAB key to select one line within a Model Pattern and then use Move to adjust the pattern's location. If the walls are not parallel to each other it may be necessary to create a section view that allows us to see both patterns and use the Move tool. It may also be necessary or helpful to sketch a Detail Line from one endpoint of one of the patterns so we can snap easily while moving the other pattern's position.

Also, the taller the walls (the bigger the overall pattern) are the more important your choice of rounding (decimal places) for your calculated pattern spacing will be. You may find that the pattern begins to slip past or fall short of the adjacent horizontal pattern the bigger the pattern gets.

Selection Box and Linked Models

I was just thinking that it seems unfair that the Selection Box (reasonably new feature) goes to sleep when you select just a linked file. Maybe I want to crop the 3D view down to just that link? That's when I realized that I happen to have a scope box around the link already. Select the Scope Box and then use Selection Box - et voila!

Yeah, I'm writing as if I didn't just go two months without so much as a by your leave...things have been...hectic, yeah. That's my story...

Revit Safe Mode - Wish Fulfilled

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

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

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