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.