Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
What do I use AutoCAD for (as a Revit user)?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 авг 2024
- I had someone ask the other day why I still have AutoCAD on my computer. The answer is many reasons, but here are some of the main ones - there's still some life in the old beast yet!
0:00 Intro
0:45 Still being used
2:00 Legacy projects
3:00 Interoperability
3:45 DATAEXTRACTION
4:41 DWG Cleanup
5:40 Deliverables
6:44 Legacy files
7:42 Justifying BIM
8:49 Harkening back
10:07 Outro
I hope you enjoy the session and learn something new! Feel free to comment any feedback/questions below, or follow my channel if you enjoyed this.
Software used;
DaVinci Resolve: www.blackmagic...
OBS: obsproject.com/
Hardware used;
Webcam: support.logite...
Laptop: www.msi.com/Wo...
Microphone: www.jbhifi.com...
Audio interface: focusrite.com/...
#revit #autocad #bim
The company I work for uses Revit to prepare Architectural Drawings and we use AutoCAD for MEP drawings.. We just export Revit floor plans to DWG format to prepare MEP drawings..
I've heard of quite a lot of multidisciplinary firms working this way. It feels a bit like 1 step forward, 2 steps back to me but if it works, it works!
Our company was the reverse at the beginning. Now that was a chore. But the detailed precision of quantities won over the masses.
Lots of MEP firms are like that. I’ve talked to guys who think it’s a fad that will blow over any day now.
My students ask this all the time. Thanks for posting another perspective.
You're welcome!
Thanks Gavin for the informative video. I found another usage of AutoCAD in the architecture companies, which is the kind of feasibility/sketches that comes from directors or associates to the design or production team. It is common that the high ranked people in architecture firms don’t know Revit but quickly and fluently can use AutoCAD to generates and rationalise their sketches and pass it to the team.
Yes it can be a good middle ground environment for sure. I prefer them to do this versus hand sketching as they can at least check areas of hatches to verify their design requirements are met, and being able to link it in to Revit versus import pdf/image is much more effective.
That was fun! Yeah, DATAEXTRATION can be very useful in CAD to BIM workflows.
Glad it was enjoyable!
I use AutoCAD to clean up crap DWGs and convert non Autodesk DWGS to certified DWGs via WBLOCK. I will sometimes export a portion of the Revit model to Solids in a DWG then bring this into AutoCAD to add 3D modelled bits that are easier to model in AutoCAD then import this back into a generic model in-place family in Revit using shared coordinates so it matches back into the Revit model at the correct location. This is a quick way to model things Revit doesn't handle so well, like lofts etc. I often say the best plug in for Revit is AutoCAD... 😄
Dude, I would love to see this workflow. If you have the time do you think it would be possible for you to post a vídeo of that?
Haha yes it's definitely a Revit plugin of sorts. Of course if anyone asks me I say Dynamo, but we're all biased by our choices I guess! I rarely go from Revit back to AutoCAD but I do work the other way quite often when migrating objects between files. Whilst Revit can do pretty much anything geometrically that AutoCAD can using the conceptual massing environment, it seems most users don't really know how to use these tools effectively.
Happy to see others contribute their workflows for others to learn from - keen to see it also. It's not really something I do unfortunately, so I assume you're talking to David here Rafael.
@@riiprafa unfortunately I have no capacity to make videos, but it is pretty straightforward:
1. set up a view with the Revit elements you want to export with only these elements visible.
2. Export these elements to DWG as ACIS solids.
3. Open this DWG in AutoCAD and add any modelling required using AutoCAD 3D modelling tools.
4. Delete original exported solids and save the file.
5. Back in Revit in in-place family edit mode import the DWG with the new modelling using shared coordinates. As long as you haven't moved the coordinate system in Revit or AutoCAD the DWG modelling should come into Revit in the exact location relative to the original exported model elements.
6. Set your in-place family category and finish editing the in-place family.
7. I have used this technique to create Fascias with twists and odd geometry that Revit will throw an error when creating. Usually tangential curved solids etc., the solid modelling Revit doesn't have the precision to resolve properly, but for some reason can import without problem.
I hope this helps you.
@@AussieBIMGuru I would love to learn to use Dynamo effectively. I understand the very basics but haven't as yet learned how to do anything really useful. I know Dynamo can do wonders, but I haven't learned how to use it yet. I don't think it's because I'm thick :) I think it's because I'm lazy and have difficulty concentrating sometimes.
Great vid! I started on Autocad (architecture) and used Navisworks for renderings for my job doing residential design but now revit has taken over haha
It's a hard force to ignore!
Great video and very well explained, as always! Those 3D cut models of plans and sections isometries at 9:30 look really good. Please can you explain a little more about the visual styles setting used for creating them?
Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us! Cheers,
Thanks!
In this case I used shaded mode with my magic lighting balance of 50/30/15 (hi/mid/shadow). Each material has a diffuse colour in shaded mode of its realistic material, but lightened a bit and some have surface patterns such as the floor.
As well as that i also enabled smooth lines in graphic display options, ambient shadows and a gradient background (black through to grey).
@@AussieBIMGuru That was fast :) Thanks for explaining it, I'll try it now. Have a nice day!
For MEP, AutoCAD is still good for 2D schematic diagrams, details, etc.
Yes it can be good for these. Sometimes I feel this comes from the effort people put into their components library though, the drafting tools in Revit are quite capable in my experience but a good detail component library goes a long way.
@@AussieBIMGuru You are right. And if Revit had better line types than AutoCAD, I would not use AutoCAD for 2D schematic, details, MEP site reticulation plans anymore:)
@@czh998 i know what you mean. Mainly that you cant add symbols/letters on lines. The only way ive found around this is line based detail items with arrays unfortunately
@@AussieBIMGuru exactly. we have to use text (super inefficient and inaccurate) or tag with an array for conduits.
I still use it on a daily basis for the exact same reasons (in classic workspace mode👌). Cleaning up files from third parties, and sometimes drafiting construction geometry "helper sections" as an undelay for in-place families. It's great for making creating the initial geometry of profile families (the precision in particulair). I hate rotated UCS's with a passion though, those darn civil engineers have a habbit of doing this. Another pet peeve of mine is when thirs parties dimension in paper space or use dimensions with scale factors when the don't draw in 1:1 scale. Ugh....
Classic workspace - nice! I used to work this way but found people were too confused when they watched me work in this mode. I agree that it's pretty much essential for complex profiles (although the 1mm rule is always a challenge!), I'm the same with rotated UCS's as well, huge pain in the butt! Paper space/scaling dimensions are evil haha.
Giving some TLC to about 50 DWG's ahead of model linking across a substantial project and this pops up in my feed. Quite enjoy the Nostalgia of rapidly drafting in CAD sometimes. Something satisfying about not giving a sh*t about parameters, reporting etc. Twas a simpler time - understand layers, XREF's and run an odd LISP or two and you are essentially a CAD pro 😆
Also - absolutely hate the SAT file conversions into any program, be it CAD or Revit, but CAD is far superior at this.
Great video as always Gavin.
Cheers Niall! Haha yep definitely something to be said for the freedom AutoCAD offers (or the shackles Revit puts on us). It's nice sometimes (e.g. categories versus layers), but I can understand why some people just prefer to draw things exactly how they want, especially as designers.
I still use autocad to work on sketches for massive changes that I do not want to commit to yet in revit. That and most of the stuff you covered in the video. I have only been using revit for like 3 years, and I agree that the young bloods are lucky to have revit/bim more mainstream instead of autocad. I think there is some value in starting in autocad and moving onto revit, but the more I think about that, I am not really sure any more.
It certainly has its place for those that work efficiently in it. Personally I notice that graduates aren't coming out with much AutoCAD experience these days, so I feel this method of working will potentially diminish in the mid to long term, but it can be handy to have the ability to just draw/sketch sometimes on jobs where the timeline is tight like a competition.
As an BIM owner, I was curious about your viewpoint on this topic. As a BIM Manger, I would always push 100% Revit, but considering the investment companies had in AutoCAD, it was like pulling teeth to move them into this newer technology . I'm old enough when I remember doing construction documents on boards with pencils or ink or Mylar.
I try to encourage the ethos of 'the right platform, for the right team, at the right time'. I avoid the tendency for everyone to just work in whatever suits them personally, but instead what fosters good collaboration and the ability to hand their work across to other team members.
Revit is definitely a good internal collaboration program, but it's important to identify when other programs can compliment or replace its weaker areas like massing (Rhino), legacy detail management (AutoCAD), automation (Dynamo), rendering (Enscape/Lumion) and so on, so forth. Never keep all your eggs in the Revit basket!
Interesting- I am a German architect and there is not a lot BIM going on at all.. sure for bigger companies where they have an entire team just for drawing- but a good chunk of architects here works on their own or in 2-5 people offices and have to do everything themselves- so there may be a 6 month period where you don't touch Revit at all... there are also a lot of local standards that Revit just does not give a damn about and when you get to execution planning modelling every detail in Revit is just not feasible. Revit also feels very empty, most of the families are virtually unusable- either because their are wrong or look wrong in the drawing and again modeling every family you would need yourself is not an option. There are so many completely normal things you can't do in Revit or you need a stupid workaround- or another addin that costs 600€ and will not be supported after the next update... So I personally use Revit ONLY to show the design to the client- and then I draw it in 2D in Autocad- no elements, just lines- and that gives me the best result
@@olik136 yes as you've identified to create a working system in Revit requires a lot of customization. Ootb content is not sufficient for use in any aspect, and isn't updated by Autodesk very often.
On the flip side, firms did a lot of customization work in CAD as well (blocks, ctb, layer conventions), but it was a while ago for most so I think many people forget that most software has this challenge. Revit adds the third dimension which compounds effort required.
I work with many small firms in Australia using Revit to great effect, but they needed customisation and usually guidance from a consultant in order to make it work for them the way they needed.
Revit is the tool, we are the master - not the other way around.
For what I call mom-pop companies Revit is a BIG Investment, And Revit isn't AutoCAD lite, there will be a new workflow that need to be learned, and unless some customization is done the look will be will be totally different. That is were the need for someone how can manage those issues is vital. The point of entry for new users can be intimidating, but learning something new always is; and if there are going long periods of time without touching the software, I could see why you/they have that perspective.
Check out my articles on Linked-in, "Times have changed" and "Reason why some companies are losing money on BIIM" there were done almost four years ago, but I thinks still have valid points. I address the issues to bring up from over modeling, to making money on Revit (BIM) projects. But understand that a lot of the companies in the US are REQUIRING a BIM component to win work. The Civil, GIS, and some others still allow "dwg" and other formats as deliverable, but even they are requiring the "I" in BIM.
@@gregorysimmons6161 there's definitely a sweet spot where not investing in BIM will lead to lost work, even for mom and pop firms. I've seen many 2-5 person firms make the jump after losing crucial tenders or staff to more progressive firms. Having said that, the future wont be 100% BIM by any means, but the quality and type of work left outside projects using it will diminish over time as client expectations catch up at the smaller scale.
Thanks it was very useful information
You're welcome!
Thank you for this and your series! Any specific workflow advice (or maybe an episode) on cleaning up old dwgs/blocks for transition to Revit?
I know importing is generally a no-no and see you have a video on importing/exploding dwgs, but is there a best practice for cleaning the files up in AutoCad beforehand to grab the geometry as reference? Thnx!
It varies depending on task, but if it's for reference only then usually I delete any unnecessary elements in AutoCAD, use the flatten and overkill commands, purge until nothing is left to be purged and move the file closer to 0,0,0 if it is a long way from it.
If it's for trace reference only I usually put everything on Layer 0 and remove all other layers also.
I try to import to families only, so there is a chance to clean up the impact in Revit before adding it to the project.
@@AussieBIMGuru Thanks so much!
I agree with most things said about AutoCAD vs Revit, it is NEWER and BETTER (no doubt about that).
But there is that constant thing people are repeating over and over again about not being able to 3D model in AutoCAD, and it is just not true (at least for architectural modeling).
I have been making architectural 3D models in AutoCAD since version R14. The time that would take me to clean and export dwg file to Revit is sometimes about the same time that will take me to 3D model walls, ceilings, doors, and windows in AutoCAD (for a simple house, or when working with the interiors).
In some cases I still find it easier to model object in AutoCAD and then export it to 3DS MAX to add furniture, foliage, materials, lights, etc...And render it or just export it to Unreal Engine and do that same thing there.
Of course I do not do complex models of furniture inside AutoCAD, but I do not do that inside Revit either, I do it using 3DS MAX or Blender.
But if I get a scanned floorplans (sketches) from a client, or if it is a large object then Revit is a MUST!.
No doubt it is absolutely 1000x easier making corrections to your object in Revit then in AutoCAD.
This are some of my older 3D models made using AutoCAD:
zoranzivic.weebly.com/inside-apps-screens.html
PS.
I'm not trying to start a war here, I'm just saying that you can model architectural objects in 3D in AutoCAD. That is all.
And yes, Revit is newer and better program for architecture.
As I say, AutoCAD can function in 3D, but it is not a BIM platform. I have tried using the 3D features in AutoCAD and whilst they do work, I wouldn't say they're typically its strong suit. You're right that the tipping point for going to Revit is usually project/company scale - I respect that for some AutoCAD is enough to run their business.
Thanks for sharing your work samples, these look great! You definitely have a mastery of the platform on display here and I commend you in every aspect of the matter (I don't tend to start or partake in wars either). You're also dead right that Revit is only one platform and other tools like Max/Blender/UE still do many things better than it can as well.
Great
Thanks!
In this vedio u talked about point cloud so if u know about scan to BIM means pls share with us about point cloud positioning and RCP RCS,,data conversion
Still mostly manual work unfortunately. Some basic AI in this area, but generally all firms providing scan to BIM just link in the clouds and use manpower to produce the models.
I mostly agree... but you keep forgetting, Autocad never let you down like Revit continuesly does. Like last time, I did a very nice roof on a house in Revit 2020 and with the '21 update the program somehow couldn't interpret the roof structure properly and bumpt all timber randomly off the roof. Man! That was a pain in the neck! And the dumbest part is that we pay so much for the program, and if you write a feedback you will most often hear it's your fault, cause you probably didn't use the models the way they were programmed... I mean, who decides on the limits of the architects creativity? the programmers? I don't think they should. So ok, autocad is outdated, just as manual drafting is... but we must say it clear - Autodesk isn't doing the best job with Revit, there's still a lot to be done, and a lot of constraints to be removed. If you take me for the complaining type... I'm not. I do use revit and look for ways of making it more suitable for me. I accept that is a way to advance... but lets be honest. A good Autocad user can have the job done and it will be quite efficient as well. So how about making a real life video on Revit. How about we all point out Revits drawbacks to Autodesk and actually make them do something about it?
I did :)
ruclips.net/video/3THqdVCpT9Q/видео.html
I agree that it isn't a perfect platform and some of its features need an overhaul. Still, I can't bring myself to draw everything again, the productivity and time loss is real for most users - we simply aren't given the time to draw on projects anymore.
@@AussieBIMGuru true and I'm watching it now. Like it. Still, I commented on you basically saying how aoutdated autocad was, it's useful as a viewer etc... my point in reaction to THIS video was: Autocad isn't a dying breed. It's still an indispensable tool. Not just a vierwer for old project. There are free vierwers even from autodesk that can do that. You need autocad, for example, because Revit still hasn't come to a point when it can manage maps properly. You can't make a proper siteplan with coordination of installations in Revit. It simply will be an impossible task. So as much as I could live and work without revit, I couldn't without autocad. And that's so frustrating! Like you comment in the other video... sometimes one can feel Autodesk actually gave up on revit.
@@413el it probably depends on company scale and user preference I guess - the last 3 or 4 firms I've worked at as good as forbade working in CAD (we mostly just process files through it). For site planning and rapid testing each of those firms was using Rhino 3d so we could do form assessment and yield testing, as well as working around Revit's issues with site form and large scale sites. Beyond that we usually relinquish to a civil engineer who delivers in Civil3D in, AutoCAD some of the time but rarely managed by the architect from a drawing perspective.
Right at the end of this video I do acknowledge that for many AutoCAD gets the job done and is their primary platform of choice, but for me and the majority of my market I just can't see a strong future for drawing in 2D as our means of production - it is just too wasteful of our time and sanity in my short experience dealing with 2D drafting. I think we'll move beyond BIM eventually, and simply embrace the idea of objects containing data (minus the superfluous waffle that has grown around BIM overall), and a platform is bound to take us beyond Revit one day as well.
Other sides of the industry are moving far away from this beyond architecture. CAFM, DFMA and other 3D/data enabled movements will demand data in a way that no drawing can easily produce, but I'm sure there always will be segments of the industry that works differently.
I totally appreciate that for a seasoned CAD user much of what i read probably reads in reverse (BIM draining our time/sanity). I guess different people thrive in different environments, and in general that's OK. Just keep an eye on where the industry moves, it moves faster than we realise sometimes...
@@AussieBIMGuru ok ok, I'm not fighting you here. Look, the fact that instead of Autocad someone uses another program - BUT NOT REVIT - just proves the point. If you had just a Revit, you couldn't do all work. If on the orther hand you went "oldschool" you could get the job done with just autocad. And not even a small project. We did a huge industrial plant 20-something buildings and a huge site only in autocad. Job done. Sure, it would be easier with bim, but impossible with Revit as the only program.
@@413el no fight to be had, healthy debate. Not saying AutoCAD is useless, if anything this video attempted to be an olive branch of sorts as most BIM managers bash it senseless despite still having use for it here and there. I try to encourage people to use a primary platform as much as makes sense to, if they go outside the platform to do it that's OK. To be fair we do plenty of things in Revit also that we do need, but that a 2D program cannot. 3D rendering for example, pretty much an essential deliverable these days and shipping it to an outsourcer isn't always a good solution. We could all afford to remain flexible in AEC I think where it benefits projects most.
Another reason i have found is that government agencies (Defense) require dwg/dxf formats to allow it to talk with their internal systems. As a general question, do you know where Defense is at in the BIM world?
Ascii / binary file types are preffered for defense to minimise risk of malicious software being able to get through. They also use Windows XP.
I know they like to look and sound high tech in the media but it's really not (according to a mate 😁).
I think that factory automation and machinery / plant companies that do design and build have the most advanced bim systems. Some of the models I have seen are incredibly detailed and all of the information is structured perfectly.
Yes the legacy systems some clients use often demand file formats like .dwg or even .dgn (Microstation). Having said that with a fair amount of setup work Revit can produce capable dwg files, so it's less a matter of platform and more a matter of workflow driving this I'd say.
Defense varies wildly. I've worked in this sector for a few years with BIM and most of the value we got out of it was design team side. They love seeing the designs in 3D but we didn't see much uptake on data and information - they catalogued most of this manually (double handling of data essentially).
It's also very much a 'need to know' type of sector, so often we designed rooms that even we didn't know the contents of, just basic functional/spatial requirements. Lots of Excel in their interim FM systems with usually an endpoint in a more secure proprietary system that anyone outside the client side doesn't see much of.
Can you make a video on the easiest way to do topography from autocad go Revit for the polylines or data points
I'll add this to my list, it's basically just a matter of selecting the layers you want to use for topography though.
I’m at my first job as a draftsman at an SE firm and it seems most of the industry I’m involved with does primarily Revit modeling, then Autocad detailing. It seems typical to other firms as well. Is that generally a normal occurrence?
Yes this does seem quite common, mainly as SE firms usually have a trove of legacy details in AutoCAD and they're usually typical versus atypical so don't need to sit in the model space as elements. Over time, the more forward thinking firms usually convert these over to detail items/regions/lines natively in Revit for easier control of graphic appearance however.
wow i am also using DATAEDTRACTION Command for topography points 4:17 you read my mind 😂
Handy command!
Tekla? After all, you don't call yourself the Aussie *Revit* Guru.
Indeed I don't.
It isn't really a platform I work in as an architect, but I'l add it to my list to explore at least!
Looks like they make trials difficult to access but I'll see what I can do...
*Watches video*...Subscribes.
Welcome to the community!
Hi Guys i still use AutoCAD even i tried revit for my professional works. The reason industry sector i work for is not 100ready for manufacturing companies like one i work for. No good families and lack of coordination in between other software. I do design for windows door and curtain walling for last 7 years. Revit is perfect tool for architects etc but not at level i work at. However is somebody will put more time to develop families it will be a huge benefit for them. For me it is at the moment no time to do and i would like to ask supplier to deal with it unfortunately i have to say even cad librarys are SAD. I am fighting wih renson to give me elevation view in cad format for one of them trickle vent and after 2 weeks still not got it F. frustrating. I like autocad i developed more and more dynamic blocks but i know how much time i could save doing same on revid if... hahahaha
In my experience manufacturers and suppliers need to better come together to produce suitable content. They are both the ones with the most to gain from technical detail level families - architects will never do this as their LOD usually stops at 300.
@@AussieBIMGuru true true but imagine you created a full family set for range of products for one system supplier and you have a monopoly for design and manufacture because you are on BIM. Nobody will share these things because could lose a leader position on run for future
@@wojciechturek1601 there are firms that do this like IGS already. Unfortunately I don't have the supplier/manufacturer experience to know how to do this myself, at least not yet - my focus is what I know and have experience with.
@@AussieBIMGuru
Thanks very much for your response
I would only expect system suppliers to be more engaged in creating these families or pay someone to do that
The only thing is verification for what they get and lod
I know I would expect but I don’t how to do hahaha unfortunately I’m struggling for time now to learn more and more beside what I do in working hours + 1-3h extra works
I promised to myself to do more to learn revit better
DWG are the format of Civil3D files.
Good point!
best practices on exporting files for autocad ?
In my experience it really varies from job to job. The main thing is to ensure you get the shared/internal setting right depending on how coordinates are being managed, and if you need layers to be on specific names then custom mapping needs to be applied. If these two things aren't a consideration the default settings usually do the trick.
@@AussieBIMGuru how about a dummies guide? Etc
If you're an MEP or Structural engineer, PLEASE use bim (revit, archicad, bricscad bim, tekla, etc). I can't clash, use your model for schedules or see any 2d elements in my arch model with flat 2d lines from cad when they're linked in and vice versa. That &*%$^ drives me nuts. The time wasted in clash or design meetings with trades trying to guess if their equipment is going to clash or coincide with the others on a flat plan almost drove me off a cliff (Thank god for the Navis & Collaboration Cloud integration now!). I'm thoroughly confused as to why S, M, E or P still draws in 2d. Landscaping, civil, tiny design firms... ok, you get a pass. But everyone else, step into the 21st century already. Looking back at drawing the plan > elevs / sections in autocad 15 years ago almost makes me faint. Never again.
I suspect for most of my audience you're preaching to the converted (I hope!), but I'm with you on this for the most part. 3D coordination is such a breeze versus 2D lightboxing style workflows - and the grads are coming out with the expectation for it now as well (many can't read drawings anyway as they're not being taught to).
The main driver as always is the perception of spending money, without the understanding you return money in the form of productivity and happy team members that wont walk out the door. Fuddy duddy managers whose vision extends no further than their retirement day.
I'm never going back to drawn sections either. If for any reason the industry goes back this way, I'm out.
I’m an MEP guy and my projects are 100% Revit. Zero CAD imports, proper working schedules, details on drafting views, etc. I’ve been using Revit for 12 years and I’ve yet to see another firm do any of that. They’re all still drawing their equipment schedule sheets, cover sheets and details in CAD. It’s crazy.
One firm won’t even use panel schedules. Their electrical plans are composed entirely of generic annotation symbols, no 3D geometry anywhere. They don’t use tags on their mechanical plans, everything is text. And they’ve been using Revit for 12 years!
Does REVIT know what a parapet wall is now?
Sure, if you identify it as such. Does AutoCAD know what a wall is if we don't put it on the right layer or not use an appropriate dynamic block? It's the same in any program - data does the talking
@@AussieBIMGuru
Does REVIT recognize a roof and know when to change the wall finish materials from interior materials to exterior? Or do you have to tell it what a roof is? They were claiming that REVIT was smart, whatever they meant by that. The truth was, even though you create a roof, and the software knows that you are telling it to put in a particular type of roof, it had no idea that a roof had a particular interaction with parapet walls. A software that was supposedly developed by architects would not have had that hole in its DNA.
Did they fix it so you can slope a concrete slab and its footings? I was amazed, it wasn't just that they hadn't made an easy way to do it, it was impossible. I hope they fixed that long ago.
Is it still difficult to slope roof joists? I draw porch roofs for almost every project and I was mystified that the software designers seemed to be unaware that any of the people who use their product would want to show an exposed joist and have it slope. It seemed to me that they should have made it so you can just click on the bearing points and it would fit the joists in at the required angle.
The method it used for creating grades was unrelated to real practice. I receive site information in the form of topo lines drawn in 2D. The best method for 3D software to use to create grades is for the user to draw the topo lines in 2D, then assign each of them their own elevation. The software should create the grade from the topo lines.
I took a REVIT class 10 years ago and thought that is was headed in the right direction, but it had the problem I just described, and I was shocked. If it had been an inexpensive software, I would have cut them some slack. But REVIT is an expensive product, and it had been out for a long time by then. It did have advantages over 2D drafting, there's no doubt about that. But it was a long distance from being what Autodesk was claiming about it.
Regardless of it's current capabilities, it may even be perfect by now, but I will never use it because they have made it a lease only product. I'll work with Autocad until I retire because I own it. I refuse to rent the tools I make my living with. I won't let someone else control my ability to put food on the table.
@@deezynar if you are that set in your ways I have nothing to really say to all of this - your mind is made up already. Send a rant to Autodesk if you must, and walk away satisfied with your choice of platform, easy solution.
I am pleased to confirm that your challenge with topography lines appears to be resolved at least - we simply pick the layer in CAD with the lines and voila, surface is made. Many of the others are resolvable via simple workflows, or we could just use simply scripted tools to automate this.
Revit puts food on my table too (and then some), so I must be doing something right with it!
Find peace in your choices, and don't sweat the small stuff. Different strokes.
@@AussieBIMGuru
Go back, read what I wrote again.
Look for the part where I said I took a class on REVIT. I'm like 99% of people, I pay for classes I take. It cost me thousands for the software, a thousand for a more powerful computer, hundreds for the class, and 4 hours of class time a week for 4 months. I don't invest that much in things that I am prejudiced against.
In the end, I got a good grade in the class, but I was disappointed with the software.
And it was soon after that that I realized they forced people to buy a new version every year.
As for "small stuff", and "peace", I'm not tracking. I got a recommend for this video, and I watched it. I asked a question about an issue that I encountered in an earlier version of REVIT. Your defensiveness made you think it was an attack, when it was merely a request for information about something that was legitimately weak with the software.
Even in your answer to the problems I raised, except for the topo lines, you make it sound like the user has to provide his own special workarounds to solve them. So REVIT still has to be manually told about the relationship between a parapet wall and the roof it supports?
I may end up switching to some 3D software in the future, but it won't be an Autodesk product because they stopped selling them.
@@deezynar I feel I replied to you fairly. Your mind is made up, and I do not make the software so am quite unable to truly change Revit - only Autodesk can unfortunately. I even wished you peace of mind, about as far as hostile from what I could be. If you pay for classes that is fine, I'm not concerned by this. Chances are they had their own way of teaching the tool, so maybe this imparted on your experience. Just like every firm uses different layer names, people use Revit in different ways also.
Having said that, if it helps give you some answers these are how each of the below could be solved (without scripting, just using the program in a systemized manner).
Revit does need to recognize a roof - it is a roof, the tool gives it a category and it behaves like a roof typically would. It has slope edges, it has gutters and fascias (which can be used for flashings if needed). It is external. Otherwise it is internal, and should be a floor. Most system elements have an Interior/Exterior classification field available in addition where this could be ambiguous in nature (e.g. walls).
No program in the world I am aware of detects parapets in 3D if they are next to a roof unless the user informs those walls they are parapets in some way. Having said that you could use a special wall type dedicated for use in parapets, or create a project parameter to enable the user to inform a wall when it is in the parapet condition so that this can be done quickly and easily whilst the walls are modelled. AutoCAD does not identify lines as parapet walls unless you give them a layer or property - it's just as many steps I would say to achieve an outcome like this, only you can't draw a section through those lines automatically, and the layer is not systemized to know it is a wall, it just has a name. We could call that line a chair if we chose to. If you want to tag those lines, you might be using text - no connection to the wall being a parapet if so.
Roof joists can be sloped if you provide them with a reference plane in section to follow. I would say it is not the simplest method, but at the same time I can't really think of another way the programmers could solve this myself. Some firms will model a roof form as a mass, then host the beams to the faces of that mass, then hide it either via worksets or by turning off the mass category in views (off by default). Beyond a certain project scale we do not model roof framing, engineers do.
Floors can be fairly easily sloped using the modify sub points tool. You could generate sloped foundations by modelling them as face based elements to the top or underside of the slab at that point, and/or building a sloped upper surface into them using reference lines in the family editor. If the foundation needs to be vertical facing at a sloped point, the family can be set to 'always vertical' in its properties.
Topography I have discussed. It works exactly as you hoped it would.
I appreciate some of this may have come into play over the last 10 years, although most of this was possible when I began using Revit (10 years ago).
I hope these answers help give you some ideas if you are ever considering using the program, but if you choose not to that is perfectly fine as well. Like I said it is good you have found a program that works for you, and you sound happy to use it so no issues as far as I can see.