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.
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.
To our chagrin, we have discovered that our number one hurdle with transitioning to Revit is not the software learning curve, it’s not the user’s need to shift to a new workflow mindset, it’s not even convincing PICs or the board that it’s time to buy new licenses. It’s the Project Managers.
You need to be sure you fully educate your non-production PMs about how a Revit project will go. Best bet is to have someone on the team who has already gone through a Revit project. Someone who is willing to gently, or not so gently, let the PM know what is possible, what isn’t possible and most importantly what makes sense.
Your typical PM of this nature simply knows that they usually get plans at this week of the project, elevations here, and then sections here. With Revit, the workflow and document production is shuffled all around, and that’s a good thing!
We have had more than one Revit models that were on the edge of failure because a PM demanded X, Y, and Z at very specific times. Why? Because it’s what he always had gotten before. He didn’t want to hear about what made sense. The team was too new to Revit to argue, so they built the model to support X, Y, and Z. Unforunately, in Revit, they should have been focusing on A, B, and C at that time. So the model suffered, and the team spent more time picking up pieces later on simply to accomodate this PM’s backward demands.
Every firm has at least one PM like this. There is no easy way to deal with him or her. Just keep a close eye on the model and work hard to make sure that there are no drastic flaws in the workflow that can bite you down the road.
There are many misconceptions out there about Revit. Some of these are holdovers from early versions, some are just bad ideas that people latched onto some time ago that they haven’t let go of. Like Crocs or calling chicken sandwiches “burgers”. One of those “Revit Rumors” has been popping up on my radar – Twitter, user comments, etc. The idea that Revit is bad at details. I have seen several tweets along the lines of “I like Revit, but it is lousy at doing details” or even worse “Revit is great, but I still do my detailing in ACAD”.
I’m not sure where this misconception about Revit being bad or difficult at detailing started, but it’s just plain false. And those that claim that it is easier in AutoCrap, I would actually argue the opposite.
Revit has cleaned up and simplified the process of detail work in the computer. We no longer have to worry about layers. Or even worse, color, and if that color is going to impact the lineweight (I know some of you are still plotting with CTB, you cannot hide!). There is a selection of Detail Lines, and what I see is what’s going to print. It’s like my old empty plastic orange juice concentrate can that held my Koh-I-Noor pens, a black sharpie, and some grey markers. Easy. There are also fill regions and a masking region. And if you happen to use the wrong “pen” or fill, select it and change it. There is an excellent selection of already created detail components. Fill patterns and line patterns automatically with scale.
And that’s just the pure detail elements. Don’t forget that you can constrain detail elements to model elements, so if you’ve detailed a joint on a wall with detail lines, you can constratin it so if that wall moves or changes its thickness, those detail lines will update as well. On top of that, there is the oft overlooked but VERY powerful Edit Cut Profile tool which allows tweaking the edges of model elements in my view. So I know and have confidence that cut patterns and fill patterns are consistent and proper.
It’s change and it’s different and I understand that. Over the last two years as we have been doing our deployment in earnest, a major new part of my job has been therapist. Change is scary, especially change on such magnitude. People like the tools they are used to.
But that doesn’t make them good tools.
The people who think AutoCrap is easier to detail in, are simply used to that piece of software. Revit has taken a little of the software out of detailing. Don’t let that scare you. Come along with us.
But first take off those Crocs and put on some real shoes.
We waited until the first service pack was out (web update – whatever they call it) before we deployed Revit 2010. I, for one, was singing the praises of the much maligned Ribbon. “See how clean it is?” I would say. “See the nice big icons?” I would point out to the nonbelievers. “See how it’s organized so well?” I would show my cats – who frankly didn’t care.
The first indication of something VERY bad showed up when one of our more experience Revit users reported crashes on his brand new 2010 model. Not much content in there at all. Very few views. This was a tiny file that should have been able to run on a PC that was four generations old. But he was crashing. A LOT. Up to seven times a day.
Soon after, another experienced user was reporting the same thing. Different project. Different user. Virtually same hardware. A recent multi-core XP 32bit workstation, 4GB of RAM, and a nice video card. About 18 months old. The hardware shouldn’t have been the problem.
We spent a LOT of time back and forth with Autodesk support. They looked at the model, they told us to downgrade the video driver (yeah, you don’t hear that one too often, do you?) they said to not run anything along with Revit.
Same results. Numerous crashes each day. And these weren’t gentle “Revit is about to die – let’s save a recover file for you” crashes. These were “POOF! Revit is gone!” style crashes.
We took two approaches. For User A, we wiped his PC, upgraded him to XP 64bit and threw 8GB of RAM in (the max the motherboard could handle). About 2 total hours of work stretched out over 2 days waiting for updates and installs, plus around $170 for the RAM. He reports that 2010 is running great now! Whoo-hoo!
For User B, we edited the ini file that allows 2010 to run in “debug” mode and use the 2009 interface. About 2 minutes of work stretched over 2 minutes, plus around $0 for buying nothing. He reports that 2010 is running great now! Whoo-hoo!
Wow. I am scratching my head over this. I am so frustrated that the user interface was designed so poorly that it alone causes enough memory to be sucked from resources that are essential to the software running in a stable state. I can’t be the only person out there. And I’m not. I think the 2009 UI tweak was one of the most re-tweeted Revit items on Twitter in a while.
We have been training new users on the Ribbon interface for months now. Do I go back and spend my time showing them the old interface? This is crazy. This is shameful that Autodesk let their product ship with such a major memory drain. Two updates later, still a big hole.
I certainly hope this is a major priority for the team. I love the Ribbon. I just wish it didn’t suck so much… memory.
When working in Revit, I often find myself quoting Spider-man. Don’t look at me that way.
“With great power comes great responsibility.”
SO true. And very true in the world of phasing. Phasing itself can be quite confusing. It takes some time to get your head around it. The best way that I find to explain it to folks (who have a basic understanding of 80’s classic cinema) is that you are getting into a DeLorean and speeding up to 88 miles per hour. Whatever phase you set for your view, you have travelled through time to get to that spot and that’s where you are.
Then you get to deal with Phase Filters. That adds another level of fun to the conversation, but the key to remember about the filter is that they are changing the appearance of the model BASED UPON WHERE IN TIME THAT DELOREAN DROPPED YOU.
How stuff is labeled seems to be one of the banes of Revit (How many releases did we wait through until they finally renamed it “Synchronize with Central”?) and the phases vs. phase filters are no different. The out of the box template has a phase called “New Construction”. There are also phase filters called “Show Demo + New”, “Show New” and “Show Previous + New”. When introduced to the concept, most folks make the assumption that the word “New” in the phase filter relates to the “New Construction” phase, and it’s hard to blame them because they are the same word!
You have to keep in mind that the phase filter is in relation to the phase your view is in. So even though it says “New” in the filter, if you have gone back in time to the existing phase, you will not see new construction stuff. You will see what was new during the existing phase year.
We have even gone so far to rename the Phase Filters in our template. Wherever the word “New” was we have replaced it with “Current”. Not the best word necessarily, but it makes it harder for the brain to connect the phase and the filter incorrectly.
I’ve rambled a lot to get us on the same page with phases here. In Part 2, I’ll discuss a little bit about the fun when you link another Revit file in and have to deal with someone else’s phases.
I don’t mean the title of this post sarcastically, I do mean it in relation to good old Revit.
I recently had the pleasure to sit down with our Interior Designers group for an Autodesk webinar titled “Revit Architecture and Interior Design”. Well, it was a pleasure to sit with them, not so much the presentation.
It wasn’t the presenter, it was completely the material, or lack thereof. We have been working hard to fully integrate our designers with the rest of the project team on our Revit models. Unfortunately, it is only halfway (quarterway?) there. We wanted to see the tools for easy floor pattern design! We wanted to see the commitment from manufacturer’s to get consistent and proper families into Revit! We wanted to see better integration of room object finish information and the actual model!
We didn’t see these things. They don’t exist yet.
We saw rendering (nice!), Autodesk Seek (spotty) and integration with Inventor (what?!)
I have a feeling that the Interior Designer is not on the marketshare target for Autodesk yet. The in house solutions we are putting together are piecemeal at best. We get frustrated that they cannot fully take advantage of the parametric engine that is Revit’s bread and butter. We cross our fingers that this will be remedied in future releases.
So, I stumbled across an odd one today. Apparently, floors don’t like to follow the rules when it comes to view ranges.
Let’s say you have a floor at Level 1, offset 0′-0″. Your view range bottom is set at the same height. I always assumed that since the range was touching the floor, that’s why I saw it.
Boy, was I wrong.
It turns out that you have to get your view range at least 4′ above the floor for it not to appear in a view.
What the what?! It’s like there is an invisible cube that is 4′ tall sitting on top of a floor.
I did a quick Google and found one reference to it on another blog. That write-up states that it is “confusing” and “poorly documented”. I used some different words, but not any that I will type here, in case my mom is reading this. Hi, mom!
Looks like this “feature” made its way through to 2010 also, at least in my beta it did.
In my opinion this is insane and an amazingly poor idea that needs to be removed ASAP. When someone sets their view range, they expect that view range to actually work (gasp – crazy idea). Not work for some items, but not work except for an arbitrary distance with other items. Dumb dumb dumb.
So watch out for your floors. They may show up where you don’t expect them to.
So, I guess my NDA is over? Who knows. All I know is we have started downloading the 2010 version of our favorite BIM software.
I have heard this being called the R13 of Revit (ominous drum noises follow) and while the updates aren’t earth shattering, there are some compelling reasons that we see. Some of the vocal minority are stating that they will be skipping this version due to 1) the Ribbon and 2) the low amount of new features. We will be upgrading to this version because of 1) the Ribbon and 2) the low amount of new features.
I’m not saying that I hate new features and fixed old ones (stairs! I’m looking at YOU), but the ENTIRE INTERFACE HAS CHANGED. This is a learning curve unto itself. So with this version, instead of having to take the time to teach everyon the GUI and new whiz-bang features, we can just spend the time getting our users to learn the new interface. So when the NEXT version comes out, we’ll already know the interface and can hit the ground running with new features. Bam! Seriously, it’s not like the Ribbon is going away. It’s here.
And I for one embrace our new Ribbony Masters.
Full disclosure – there are one or two projects that we will NOT be upgrading to 2010, either due to time or concern of the PM or both. Luckily we have this option of keeping multiple versions on the desktop.
So, you’ve added some sections and slapped them on a sheet. Cool. Good old Revit gets the detail number and referring sheet populated automatically. It’s one of those magical things that computers should have been doing for years.
If you have a client that requires the good old 3 part bubble, then you find yourself with having to show the detail number, the sheet it’s on and the referring sheet in the bubble. Some callouts, being datum elements (section cuts, elevations, levels) can actually show up on more than one sheet. When you put a view on a sheet, how does Revit determine the “referencing sheet” and “referencing detail”?
Simply put, it looks through your sheets. The first sheet it finds that has the callout mark is the referencing sheet. And that’s what gets put into your three part bubble.
Now, let’s suppose… you have an A2.1 sheet that is going to have your floor plan on, but you haven’t put it there yet. You also have an A9.1 reflected ceiling plan sheet and you haveput a view on. I have a wall section that I am placing on an A5.1 sheet. So I drag the view on there, and since the callout shows the “referencing sheet” info, it fills that in with A9.1. Well, that’s not the view I wanted. I wanted A2.1. What is one to do?
Well, sometimes you just drag the view onto the sheet. Drag the plan onto A2.1 and magically the referencing sheet of the section on A5.1 updates. POOF! Your work is done and Revit read your mind!
Sadly, sometimes that doesn’t work, especially if the sheet that you drag the desired plan onto is after the already placed sheet. Then what do you do?
You jump through some hoops. But let’s try to understand what appearsto be Revit’s behaviors for the hoops.
When you place a view on a sheet, Revit looks through your sheets to see what the referencing sheet should be. It also does this when you adjust the scope of your view.
Revit will only call a view/sheet referencing if the callout is actively in a view, i.e. not hidden.
OK, nice simple (theoretical) rules. I say theoretical, because I have no possible way of knowing that the code works this way. This is all based on observation. The following are the hoops:
Find all the views that have a callout to the section (or elevation or whatever that you need to change the bubble)
Hide in view the callout in each view EXCEPT for the one that you want to be the referencing sheet
Activate the section (or elevation or whatever) and change the crop region ever so slightly. Just drag it a little teeny bit. You’ll see the bubble update as Revit finds the only view on which you have the callout not hidden
Go back to the views from Hoop 2 and unhide the callouts. Oddly, this will NOT update the section (or elevation or whatever)
This will keep the referencing sheet set, unless you change the crop region for that view, then you have to repeat. And if you need to show multiple referencing sheets, pull out some text as the monstrous last 10% rears its ugly head one more time.
Ideally, the referencing sheet parameter would be a drop-down, and you could select what view/sheet you want, and possibly even build tags that can generate from a list of multiple views/sheets. I’m certainly not the first to hope for such a feature, and I wager I won’t be the last.
Design Tech Field Guide 