Revit: Do You Proofread Your Prints Before You Show Them to Anyone? You should!
I’ve been doing something recently on my Revit project that I shouldn’t be doing. The fact that I do it actually reminded me of something I would do when I was in elementary school. I would have to write reports on various topics (two of which I have particularly fond memories were, “A Biography of Reggie Jackson,” and, “How the Television Works”) throughout the years and when I would finish writing, my parents would ask if I had proofread it. While my answer would be, “yes,” it was clearly not true.
Why am I telling you this, you might ask. Well, I have repeated this lack of proofreading when cutting sections of my Revit model. I’d cut it, quickly glance it over, fix any glaring errors, print them and show them to my project manager. While there were too many comments to list here, the majority of those comments were graphic-related. It wasn’t that I didn’t know that I was supposed to include those particular things in the drawing, it was that I was a little too anxious to get the it out.
Here’s the thing, while Revit might take your drawings 75% of the way, you still need to look them over. For example, when cutting a section, Revit will thicken the lines that represent the objects it touches. Often times, graphically, it looks better to fully fill those objects (ex. walls, floors, roofs, etc.) with black.
My point is, proofread your drawings before you show them to anyone. You’ll save yourself a lot of aggravation.
Can you think of any other examples of graphical techniques that Revit doesn’t quite do?
– Posted to CADuzer.com From My iPod Touch
Tags: BIM, Commentary, Revit
Have a Cup of Morning Revit…and don’t share it with anyone else!!
Sep 4, 2009 BIM, Customization, Revit
Hey All. As we prepare for the long Labor Day weekend, I had a thought: let’s stop selling Revit. I’ll be more specific: let’s stop “preaching” Revit. The different groups have been established and have pretty much dug their feet in. First we have the, “Early Adopters”. They’ve been using Revit since the Hoover Administration and bleed Revit purple (or dashed blue). Next, we have the, “Whatevers”. Their motto is, “You want us to use software package B now instead of software package A? OK. Whatever!” After them we have, “The Tryers”. These people recognize the benefits of it and are willing to try it. If they like it, they’ll not only continue to use it, but they’ll insist on using it for all of their projects. Finally, we have the, “Nay Sayers”. They don’t want to be bothered. They aren’t interested. To put it bluntly, they don’t care. From these people you’ll hear phrases like, “I don’t have the time,” or, “I’ve heard it takes too long to learn and use,” or, the one that gets my blood boiling the most, “I know Revit is a cool tool, but…”
As Ayn Rand once said, and I’m paraphrasing here, “I’m not here to convince you that this philosophy is the best one or is the one you must adopt. It is logical.” As James T. Kirk once said, “People can be very frightened of change.” (He also said, “What does God need with a starship,” but we won’t hold that against him because he also said, “FIRE!!” and “KHAN!!”). Anyway, the point is, do you think there’s anyone left who doesn’t know what Revit does or how perfectly suited for Architecture it is? Let’s move on to what it took us a long time to realize that AutoCAD needed: standards and best practices. Basically, what Revit needs to be pushed ahead is a better architecture firm framework within which to work and excel. Now, here’s the stimulus package-sized dollar amount question: Which of the previously mentioned groups are the best to do this? The answer is, “the Tryers”. They’re the ones who will adopt the software as time goes by and will tell the BIM Managers (who came out of the Early Adoptets group…you know who I am…I mean, you know who you are!), what features and standards they need. Their the ones who will develop the best practices simply by using the software everyday and participating in round tables and user group meetings. Also, they’re the ones who already work with the Nay Sayers, and know how to communicate with them best. Let’s face it, as Early Adopters (of which I am one), we tend to say phrases that sound to the Nay Sayers as, “You absolutely must use this! It’s the greatest thing since sliced bread! It can do anything and everything.” Clearly that’s not what we mean, but that is most definitely what they hear. Let’s try this phrase on for size, “You know what Revit does, I’m not going to try to sell you on it. Use it or don’t use it. And, if you decide you want to use it, I’m here to help.”
What do you think about this? Let me know.
– Posted to CADuzer.com From My iPod Touch (proof-read on my PC)
Tags: BIM, Commentary, Revit
Revit 2010: Think Long and Hard Before Linking Multiple Files Together
Sep 3, 2009 BIM, Commentary, Revit
Hey all. Here’s an update on my project. Within the first few hours of starting the project, I decided that since the were multiple parts to it (a site, four buildings, and walkways and courtyards which connect them all), I would separate them into 5 distinct Revit files. Specifically, the four building files would be linked into the site file. I actually started with a single file but thought that since not all of the levels were the same (ie. level 01 for one building was 110.5 meters while level 01 for another was 113 meters) it would be easier to keep them all separate. Well, that was a good idea for about two and a half weeks, which was when I had to do some serious printing of sheets. Trying to get the right things to show up on the right sheets was a bigger pain than I had originally anticipated. For example, I had to employ many work-arounds to get objects from a linked file to show as solid black where it was being cut by a section (and, yes, I did go into the “Visibility/Graphics” dialog box, overrode the, “by host view,” setting and set the cut pattern for those objects to black). Sometimes it worked, other times it didn’t. When it didn’t, I met my new best friend: Filled Region.
Another time I had to employ manual, almost AutoCAD-like, methods (oh yeah, I went there) was with grid lines and their associated bubbles. If the grid lines either didn’t show up or showed up on the wrong side of a linked file, I literally drew lines (with the “centerline” line style) and circles. I also created extra levels in the view so they would show up as I wanted them to. And, worst of all, all sheets were NOT in the main file (the site file), as I had originally intended. It was just easier to create them in each of the separate building files and link in, as overlays, the other building files (or even the site file in some cases) when they needed to show up. Of course the problem here would be that if I had over one hundred drawings (and it this case I didn’t), I’d have to open up each file individually to print the sheets located within it (which inevitably meant I had to keep an Excel chart of where each sheet was located).
Speaking of opening each file, often times there are problems with your model you might not notice until you cut a section or create an elevation. Therefore, I’d have to open each file each time I noticed a modeling problem in a section view where that particular file was not the actual one I was working in. You also get a bunch of errors when trying to open local files with linked in central files which might not be in their latest form because their local file counterparts hadn’t been saved to central (I’m sorry, synchronized to central) recently.
Anyway, yesterday I decided I had had enough and began the process of re-combining the separate files into a single file. I tried using the “Bind” feature to merge in all of the building files into the site file. For some reason this didn’t work (it appeared to bring in the file, but no actual objects showed up). So, instead, I very simply copied and pasted all of the objects in. I definitely ran into problems of the heights of things (ie. walls, columns, etc.), however, as I’ve been working it was easy enough to change their top constraints to the appropriate levels. Speaking of levels, specifically the fact that there would be multiple “level 01’s”, I made the names of those levels more specific. For example, I might have “Level 01 – BLDG A,” “Level 01 – BLDG B” and “Level 01 – BLDGs C, D & E”.
It should be noted that even after copying and pasting all of the files back into the site file, the entire model was only between 25 and 30 megabytes. Another project I know of, however, has 4 buildings and a site and is contained within a single file and is somewhere between 250 and 300 megabytes.
I think the practice of linking multiple Revit files into a single one is a very good idea. I also think, however, that careful consideration has to be made before doing it and a set of “Best Practices” needs to b established in order to avoid some of the pitfalls that I encountered
Id like to hear some of your stories regarding this topic. Let me know some of your Revit, linked model war stories.
– Posted to CADuzer.com From My iPod Touch (proof-read on my PC)
Tags: BIM, Commentary, Revit
