A user emailed me this wonderfully obtuse Revit error message today:
Since when did Revit start handing out medical advice? Is this even advice? Is it saying “good job”, or is it telling me (much like my doctor does) that I need to pay attention to it?
The subscription prices may seem pretty high, but I do find real change with each release of Revit. I may not like the priority they are giving to some thing, but I can honestly say that work does get done every year on the software, and they make strides. Even if some of those strides are confusing and weird (I’m looking at you, Materials).
Now, I have been using the software for over half a decade now. For as long as I remember, Phases and more specifically, Phase Overrides have always been handled the same way. You want phased elements to look different? Use the Override. You want them to look different in a different view? Tough. Every override is the same in each view.
My friends, it is time for Phase Filters and the Phase Graphic Overrides to get some well deserved attention.
Why in the world can I not control the appearance of elements based on their phase in my usual View Filter? It makes so much sense there! But you can’t even access the parameters associated with phases. It’s like they… don’t exist…
I’m not even saying to change the entire phase system. The idea is sound and works about as well as it can, except for those stupid filters and overrides. Phase appearance should be controllable just like any other parameter through my View Filters. I think in the past, Revit was trying to be helpful and force some consistency, but now that I can lock down my View Templates, it’s time to let go.
And it only makes sense that the VG/VV window is your one stop shop for how this view looks different from the other view. Let me control phase appearance there as well. Don’t make me have to try to explain to someone how it works again. I need a flowchart. And it inevitably comes to blows (we are very passionate about our design software around here).
Granted, it’s not every view that needs to look different in terms of phases… demo is dashed… existing is light… new work is dark… MOST OF THE TIME. On each project there are one or two views, especially with more than one discipline, that needs to have the appearance of existing elements look just a little different, or maybe the scale is so small that the override line weight makes the lines get lost, so for this one view I would like to use a heavier line but the same line style, I don’t want to change the lineweight for all the views, but with the current implementation, I am forced to.
All I’m saying is, open up those parameters to the View Filters. Set them free!!
When we set up a new PC, one of the “highlights” is running through all the years of Revit, currently going back to 2009.
We have discovered that the installations are much happier if we go in chronological order. So, we start with the oldest, and work up one at a time until we get to the most recent version. If we don’t do this, at least one of them will get mad and just won’t run correctly. The splash screen will pop up and then just sit there. Usually it’s 2010. But don’t tell it that I told you.
We have a hunch that there is some wacky Visual C++ thing going on, but we have never found the time to drill down and actually troubleshoot it. The best thing we have is to just go delicately and put them on in order.
This is important to remember. Because it seems to be one of those pieces of information that I forget at least once a year. Why won’t you run, add-on that lives on the network?!!!
Anyway, this is a really good post summarizing the problem and the easy fix.
I think we might have stumbled across an issue in 2013 with the (much improved*) View Templates. Can’t find anything else on it, so I thought I would throw it out here and see who else has seen this or can replicate it.
It goes down like this: You create a schedule. You tweak that schedule’s appearance. You decide that you want to create a View Template based on this schedule’s appearance. Later on, you and that schedule have had a disagreement, so you decide to delete it. Hey, remember those View Templates we made based on that schedule? When you go to delete it, Revit tells you that it is going to delete them. And then it does. Poof. Gone. Any schedule that had that View Template assigned is now set to NONE. On top of that, any View Template that was copied from the prior ones are “linked” as well, so this could be pretty disruptive to your schedule View Templates.
I tried this out with a couple other view types, and did not have this problem at all. I tried it in our Project Template and the “none” Project Template and had the same issue. I think it’s a bug, but am curious if anyone else has seen it or could reproduce it. At any rate, heads up.
*You thought I was going to be sarcastic down here, didn’t you? Seriously. I love the new View Templates and how they work. I know there are some haters out there, but this is how they should have worked all along.
Just had one of those issues that makes you scratch your head a little bit.
Someone was working hard in Revit, and in their model, in any view, when they would place a detail component or some annotation, they would not get the “preview” of the element before they placed it. It would place fine. Once they clicked where they wanted it to go, it showed up, but that ghostly indication of the element prior to clicking was no where to be found, all they had was their crosshairs*.
Heads were scratched. Brows were furrowed. We looked at visibility graphics, we looked at graphics options ,we minimized, we restarted, nothing.
Then, bam. It hit me. The current Workset!
As expected, his current workset was some crazy workset that was not loaded in his current session. We turned his current workset to the proper one, and we got the annotation preview.
Here’s my guess at the long of it: detail and annotation elements don’t really live on the current workset. They have their own “secret” workset that gets created for each view and that’s where they live. When we were going to place the element, it was temporarily thinking it was going to go on the workset that was off, and if it were a model element, it would have placed on that workset, but then we would have gotten that awesome Revit warning that “you have placed the element, but you can’t see it”. In annotation and detail’s case, you place the element, and it hops on the workset you CAN see.
So that’s it. Check your current workset, which is really good advice for any day in Revit.
*The user actually didn’t say “crosshairs”… he said that all he could see what his “curser” which made me laugh to imagine a tiny foul mouthed individual yelling at him from his Revit model.
This is probably one of those things that isn’t exactly the right thing to do, but it has helped us out on several occasions.
For some reason, there is this one guy on this one workstation working on this one project (it actually happens on two projects, I just didn’t want to kill the narrative!) and every couple weeks he gets a warning that the Central File is missing. The warning says: “Central Model cannot be found” etc etc etc.
The funny thing is, the model IS RIGHT THERE! We follow the path that the error gives us and it’s sitting right there on the server. We copy a new local file and still get the error. Other folks can access the model fine. Just some bizarre combination of this guy and these models.
We used to have to take his local file and save it as the new central, and then all was happy! That took some time, and had the potential of losing other people’s work. Not a great plan.
We lucked across this little trick. We got everyone else to sync and get out of the model. Then, in the central file’s backup folder, we hunted down the SLOG file… and deleted it.
And that works. He opens his local file and all is right in the world. Everyone else hops in and all is still well. Revit generates a new SLOG file and people can get work done. And the best part is, he can do this on his own. He doesn’t have to wait for me to get up from my nap! I mean, out of my important meeting!
Like I said above, this is probably not sanctioned by Adesk. It is definitely a “try at your own risk” solution, but it worked for us so I thought I would put it out here in case it can work for you as well.
Did I mention I was going to start playing with the API? Hard to tell. Well, I have, and I’ve had…mixed results.
I simply don’t have the time to dive in and create uber-awesome and extensive add-ins, so I’ve been making little things that focus on one task or one annoying lack of functionality.
Where we find Revit lacking quite often is with the documentation end of things (last 10%). I understand that Revit is a BIM application first, and documentation application second (or even third or fourth) and the documentation end of things gets put to the side often. I get that. That’s why I wanted to go in and make some little programs that can help us speed up our more lengthy tasks.
Unfortunately (for me), a lot of the non-model functions get put to the side with the API as well. For example, it was only in the 2013 version that you could actually create a filled region. I certainly am no developer, so I don’t know the hurdles it would take them to incorporate the annotation tools, but I do miss some. Sometimes. Or possibly I’m just too dumb to figure out how to do it. There is a HIGH probability of this one.
I have had success with a couple baby tools, however. And now it’s time for me to get snobby.
I’ve looked at a lot of add-ins trying to figure this thing out and so many work AWESOMELY. But the icons they create for the tools? Ghastly. I’m no icon pro, but there is an Autodesk approved icon creation guideline out there, and I’m not sure anyone actually reads it. (Here’s a nice blog post discussing some of it)
Well, I read it. And I thought I’d show off my icons. I’m kinda proud of them.
Fun, right?
I guess the best test would be if you can guess their function. Without mousing over and peeking at the ALT text.
This post really has nothing to do with Revit. It barely has anything to do with technology, but bear with me.
I gotta tell you. It’s been a rough couple weeks at the office. I’m not going to go into detail, but let’s just say it all comes down to a word that rhymes with… um… OK, nothing rhymes with economy.
In order to keep some sanity, I took some “me time” and played with some toys I got for Christmas. I’m a little surprised that it took me this long to get them out of their boxes. But it was worth it.
Putting together Lego sets has always been therapeutic for me, and I have absolutely dug the Lego Architecture line. This Christmas, I was lucky enough to get the Brandenburg Gate, Burj Khalifa, and the gorgeous Farnsworth House. That last one took a LONG time getting all those little tiles to line up nicely.
It was nice adding them to the collection.
So, being the completist I am, I now just need a couple more sets and I am up to date.
Strange for a middle aged man to play with Lego sets to unwind? Maybe. Could some therapist have a fun time establishing a connection between playing with Legos now and attempting to retreat into a childlike state by fixating and obsessing over toys that someone might have enjoyed in his youth? I don’t know, but I bet that was a run-on sentence.
Sometime ago, I was inspired by my first Lego Architecture set and thought I would try my hand at creating our office building as a Lego set. Well, I didn’t have nearly enough Legos, but I did have access to Lego Digital Designer, which gives you a virtual box of unlimited bricks to create with! Beyond that, it will also let you upload your design, check if it meets certain criteria, and then get your own custom Lego set sent to your door.
This last step ended up being quite expensive, however, so instead, I tracked down an open source rendering engine that was specifically tweaked to render exported Lego models. There are many resources on the web to help a nerd out getting started in POV-Ray.
Anyway, after about a weekend of modelling and then another figuring out how to render, I came up with the below shot and was pretty happy with it. Thought you might get a kick out of it, too. It was fun abstracting the features down to toy-size and figuring out what was architecturally important and iconic. I had to stick our mini green roof in there, for example, and while there might not be precisely the right number of skylights, there are enough to properly evoke the design intent.
So, yeah. Some technology stuff sneaked in, didn’t it? Lego Digital Designer is quite the fancy tool. I would be pushing it if I tried to compare it to Revit, but they are on the same family tree… just on branches that are very very far from each other.
Quick edit: turns out you can’t buy your custom designs from Lego anymore. That makes me a little sad. Seems like it took a step backwards in time there.
Design Tech Field Guide 