Keyplans are one of those functions that I hope and hope and hope one day will have an easy way to get working in my project.
Right now, we have an 8 step procedure that we try to teach people how to use. “8 steps,” I hear you saying, “That’s not bad.” Except that each steps seems crazier than the last, and it involves multiple pieces of software, and the ability to edit families and understand parameters. These are not easy Revit tasks, and the more I can keep our typical user away from them, the happier I am, but if I don’t show them how to make keyplans, then I have to make them, and that would mean less napping and looking at cats on the Internet!
Basically, our mess involves exporting the plan to DWG, tracing it to get the simple shapes, importing those shapes into a new Revit family, adding filled regions and text, making parameters to control the visibilty of the filled regions and text, putting THAT family into the border family, making parameters in the border family to talk to the plan family, then re-importing the border back into the project.
Still with me?
There are plenty of stops along that wild ride that you could do something different, but ultimately, to get the flexibility we need, the number of steps stays pretty consistent.
I don’t even know how a better tool would work. Maybe some kind of Area Plan that can live on multiple sheets. Maybe a view that has a designated area on the border. Who knows. All I know is, whenever someone asks me how to make a keyplan for their project, I hit the MUTE button on the phone, let out a deep sigh, and then tell them how to do it.
Then I get angry because I forgot to UNMUTE the phone first.
If someone has a nice easy way of Keyplans, I would love to hear 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!!
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.
Wait. I didn’t want to delete you!
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.
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.
We are working on getting our installation for Revit 2013 ready and have stumbled across an issue that the deployment can have.
Leveraging the power of the “One Box”, we planned on putting the deployment files on the server, and simply tweak the deployment for multiple disciplines. Save a ton of server space! High five!
Well, everything looked good, and we had five shortcuts with five different ini files saved in the “CustomSettings” folder. Things were going smoothly.
Then we went to install. For some odd reason, only the first deployment we created had the entire set of customizations, the others only got the license file; file location settings were missing, tweaks to options weren’t there. Basically, the installations were ignoring the custom ini file.
We contacted Autodesk, and they confirmed that this is an issue.
I never know if I’m supposed to feel better or worse when they tell me that.
No fix, of course. And I’m not holding my breath on there being a fix.
The workaround involves tweaking our install script so it copies the tweaked ini filed from the AdminImage\CustomSettings folder to the application data folder for the user’s PCs. Keep in mind that this location is not the same in XP and Windows 7 (Vista is dead to me).
For Windows 7, you need to copy here:
C:\ProgramData\Autodesk\RVT 2013\UserDataCache\
For XP, copy the ini here
C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Autodesk\RVT 2013\UserDataCache\
In both cases, you need to copy your custom ini file and rename it to Revit.ini, replacing the one that the installer created.
What’s odd is the deployments that weren’t created from One Box work fine. I have given up expecting any Autodesk deployment to go as advertised. Every year we fight a new set of problems. My expectation is that the smaller firms just walk from desk to desk to install. And the really big firms have an IT group and fancy-pants servers whose single job is to install software. We are very much a middle size firm: WAY too many seats to install one at a time, and not nearly enough in the IT budget to dedicate to software deployment. So, we make do with what we have. It would be nice if Autodesk could put a little more effort in their deployment creation tools.
Revit 2013 is out, and I am sure you’ve seen many many posts on the wondrous new features.
And I haven’t gotten a chance to even download the software yet.
Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE new shiny stuff. And there are some new shiny things that I am really excited about. OK, there’s ONE new shiny thing I am excited about.
Stairs. And railings. Two things.
The stair system has been ignored for years and years. The poor quality of the tool forced us to design everything as only a single story! (Not really) Everything that I have seen and read about the overhauled stairs has gotten me excited. Excited that it looks like it might be “fixed” finally, but also excited that the older features aren’t getting ignored forever. I understand the need to prioritize and add new stuff, but sometimes the old crappy stuff needs love as well. This was one of those times.
When it comes to materials, that’s something different. This is, what, the third release in a row that the materials have gotten an overhaul? Spoiled much, materials?! Why did you get to be the favorite? What about some of our other long forgotten friends like Copy/Monitor ceilings and better text editing and more flexible schedules and a lightweight viewer with WASD controls? Why are these wishlist items cast off and left to wither on some software version of the Island of Misfit Toys? Don’t they deserve some love, too?
I don’t think I’m going to invest the time into learning this new materials system until it sticks around for at least one more release. Spoiled rotten materials.
Yes, yes, I know everyone is excited about the release of Revit 2012, but I have a little 2011 issue that I thought I would share with everyone. And in all honesty, I don’t even know if this is a problem in 2012, but I figured we’d still be using 2011 for some time so here goes.
We have started getting our folks to create a Copy Monitor workset in workshared files. On this workset, we are asking them to put anything in the model that they have Copy/Monitored. This allows the original model to not load in that workset when the second model is linked back in. This helps avoid having elements on top of themselves which, according to TimeCop, would cause some sort of space time continuum mess.
The issue is when an element is Copy/Monitored, it DOESN’T GO IN ON THE CURRENT ACTIVE WORKSET. It goes on the first workset that was created, usually the cleverly named “Workset 1”. Everything else seems to play nice with worksets. Copy/Monitor elements don’t like to play nice. Our (dumb) workaround? In blank files that we are activating worksharing, we make the first workset “Copy Monitor”.
We have verified with Autodesk that this is an issue, and that the developers are “working on it”. Like I said, I need to see if it still happens in 2012, and considering past experience, I have a feelign that we will never see a fix for it in 2011. So heads up on that.
Every so often it’s important to pull out the big guns. I have always said that any kind of graphics or documenting standards are written in mud. Almost stone, but changeable when necessary.
There are some things that we do, and I bet there are some things that you do, that should NOT be done differently. Default materials should not be changed, default annotation should not be messed with, most anything in the Object Styles in a project shouldn’t be touched. This is just bad for other users on a project and can get annoying and waste time. There are some things that just shouldn’t be messed with for other reasons; dimensions come to mind here.
There are ways to override or fudge your dimensions in Revit, and I’ll outline the two most common here. NOT so you do it, simply so you know what to look for. There should be NO REASON to override dimensions, and I will arm wrestle anyone who disagrees. I may lose the arm wrestle match, but I am right. If you place a dimension string and it says 5′ 2 1/32″, and it’s supposed to be 5′ 2″, DON’T change the dimension… FIX THE MODEL. Always always always fix the model. Always. Got it? Great.
The first way to fudge your dimension is to override the accuracy on it. By default, it’s going to take your project settings, but you can get into a dimension type and change that accuracy. I’ve seen several times when someone has a 1/32″ (that’s our default project accuracy) show up in a dimension string, they don’t bother fixing it, they override they change the ROUNDING under UNITS FORMAT to something lower.
CHEATERS!!! What happens? The rounding gets confusing, sometimes rounding up when it should go down. And then an overall dimension string won’t add up. And you will look like you don’t know how to simple arithmetic. And I don’t need to tell you what happens when a contractor finds dimension strings to not add up…
The second, far more devious, way of fudging a dimension string is to override the text. For the last few versions of Revit, you could double-click on the dimension and add some text as a prefix or suffix, or even replace the dimension value with a piece of text. Revit is mostly smart and will not allow you to replace the value with another number. See? Revit doesn’t want you to cheat! But there is a way…
Let’s say your dimension value is 8′-6 1/16″. You want it to be 8′-6″. Double-click on the text and you will see the value in there.
Here’s where the CHEATERS come in. If you toggle “Replace With Text”, and type in 8′-6″. (see that little period after the text?), Revit will allow it. You will have a tiny dot on your dimension string, but it’s changed. Congratulations, you have figured out a way to keep your sloppy modelling skills intact and not bother to make anything accurate. Good job!
Not much infuriates me (that’s not true at all – I’m a pretty bitter person… and Crocs… MAN how I hate those shoes…) but there is no excuse for this sloppiness. This is absurd. Model it right, and if it’s not modeled right, fix it.
So, how do you police this kind of thing? First of all, whenever you see it, point it out to everyone on the project team. Don’t outright mock them for cheating, but come close. And bring up that you know another firm that is still dealing with litigation from a job where they cheated on the dimensions. Even if you don’t.
What I like to do (with apologies to Bruce Campbell) is pull out my BIM Stick. I keep it for special occasions.
Seriously, this is my BIM Stick
We have a weekly Revit meeting where we discuss issues and problems. I have only pulled out my BIM Stick once, and it was to discuss this issue. Will it change the cheaters? I hope so. I also hope it stresses to the interns and younger designers how important this is. I know, I’m so sweet passing on my knowledge to future generations of bitter BIM Monkeys.
So, get yourself a BIM Stick and wave it around only for the big topics. Hopefully it will change the minds of some folks, but it will definitely make you feel better.
This is hard to understand, so I’ll point you here and here (I especially like how that last one calls it a “feature”) for some different ways of explaining it.
Here are the criteria for this insanity:
You have a wall
The top is UNCONSTRAINED and not attached to anything
Your View Range cuts through the wall
The top of your wall is less than 6′ from the Bottom of the View Range
If your walls meet all these criteria, your wall will NOT show with the CUT style. It will show PROJECTION. Yes, even though you are cutting through it.
If you set the top of your wall to constrain to a level, any level, and then offset it, it will then show as CUT. Or if you drop the bottom of your view range down so the top of the wall is at least 6′ from the bottom of the view range, it will show as CUT.
Seriously, there has to be a secret manual somewhere. Indiana Jones and I will try to track it down soon.
The editing request “feature” in Revit has officially been put on the NEVER EVER USE list in our office. It joins the ranks of “Insert DWG File” and “That one vendor who called and claimed he was calling me about jury duty to try and trick the receptionist” (true story.)
For the most part, worksets and worksharing function far better than they have any right to. It is a complicated and memory intensive process that for the most part just works.
With proper team management, you can coordinate folks to work on different tasks so they aren’t stepping on each others toes. However, every once in a while, you try to get an element to work on, but someone else has it “borrowed”.
Revit offers you the wonderful opportunity to place a request to the owner. Hey! That sounds great! I’ll click this button and that guy will see that I need that wall and he’ll click “Sure, friend! Take it! I’m done with it!” and I’ll get the wall and everything will be great!
Except you click the button and wait. And wait. And wait.
See, there is no magical popup on the other person’s screen, which is what EVERYONE thinks it will do the first time I teach them worksets. You should see their faces when I explain that their request does not create some instant message like blurb on the other person’s screen. That it secretly hides the request in a very hard to find menu. It’s like I showed them a cake, then told them they had to eat this carrot. And not a clean carrot. A dirty one, straight from the ground.
The Revit help files even say that once you place the request, you have to “Ask the owner to approve your request. The owner does not receive automatic notification of your request. You must contact the owner.” You have to ask! The computer can’t ask for me?! What?!
Sorry. It’s been a long week.
Anyway, we had a big issue over the past weekend where Person A placed a request, didn’t talk to the Person B and then left. Because it was Saturday, and who can blame them? College football, man. Person B then sync’ed and left for the weekend. Hooray! Good job, Person B! You sync’ed and checked all your stuff back in!
You know there’s a “but” coming.
BUT, when Person B synced, the unknown requested element automatically reserved the element for Person A. That’s what we call Revit being “helpful”. We have a list of items of Revit being “helpful”. Person C then needed to work on the element. Both Person A and Person B were off doing some weekend stuff, Person C got (justifiably) frustrated, they called Persons IT, and someone had to pretend to be Person A, relinquish all, and then sync.
Obnoxious. And it could have been solved by having Revit pop-up editing requests. Yeah, I know that the Workshare Monitor can help… sort of… but that thing sometimes likes to report that I’m in the model six times, and no one else is in it, even though they are sitting right next to me and I can see their screen, so I look at the Workshare Monitor with a skeptical eye.
So, for now, we tell our folks to never use the place request button. We tell them to use the phone, or to go see the other person, because it just isn’t worth the hassle.
Design Tech Field Guide 