Site Tools

[Chad Smith]

I hope I don't have to buy Revit Civil 2009 to get these tools!

Highly unlikely. Autodesk's presentation of their next 3 year plan didn't show a 4th vertical . And unfortunately didn't show an all-in-one Revit .

[dfriesen]

I'm not looking for site tools to do civil work. I'm looking to [...]

Civil tools? Don't need em. We're not talking about new features, we're talking about refined features.

Very well summarized, Andre.

[clog boy]

At a minimum, in the adult world business minded sense, please someone offer something besides a shill game of random postulations and let us know if this issue is dead, or if it is being addressed.
[...]
a disappointing "NO" is oft times much better than being endlessly in the "LURCH".

C'mon Adesk, quit treating us like children, and lets finish this discussion one way or another so we can adjust or hold our collective breath a little longer.

Amen to that!

[Wes Macaulay]

Well, when the AUGI Revit wish list gets created, my guess is that site tools will be at the top of the list. And if the Factory is ready to take that need head-on in RAC 2009, well, it would take care of one of the longest standing wishes I know about.

Like always: please define the need in a way that a programmer would know how to create the requested feature. Or else how will they build it?

[dfriesen]

Like always: please define the need in a way that a programmer would know how to create the requested feature. Or else how will they build it?

That's a great little job for some of the better writers here - imagine that you're starting a new site in Google Architectural Revit 2018, and describe the steps you go through, the buttons you press, and the features you have available. (bonus points for screenshots)

[dpasa]

I don't entirely get the need for civil tools in Revit. We did all that stuff in AutoCAD in 2D, and so what if we only have the building in 3D, and the site stuff in 2D? I'm admittedly leery about doing any civil design in Revit anyway because it opens us up to greater liability. The line is nonetheless blurred between architect and civil engineer because the architect often needs to do this work as part of the design...

I think that this why Adsk doesn't go on with better site tools... Probably most of the people here do exactly this... The problem is that some of us, me for example, would like to make a complete and correct model in Revit for rendering... currently with Viz/MAX, hopefully with Mental Ray and Revit in the future... So, 2D site presentation is not a big help.
I don't need site tools very much because the new tools for floors (point elevation etc) can do the work for simple and small projects but if we are talking about 5-6 buildings in the country then we need something better.

[clog boy]

Let's think of what real sites look like.

Property lines are usually defined by coördinates and elevation above sea level. Some measurements are usually defined based on the top of the road surface. The foundation is below ground level, at solid ground or foundation poles.

I guess roombounding objects should also be 'site bounding', and that the site will have to know automatically where to digg and how deep (site-based void). If 30% of a building has a basement then that part should be deeper than the rest of the building, and Revit should know that without you telling it what to do (but with tools to adjust a few things here and there).
So basically we should be able to use pads like we use floors. Better yet: pads should be created automatically. (adapted floor function?)

OK let's talk about roads, sidewalks and drivelanes now. Or let's not, let's just assume they have a certain shape, thickness and starting level. They should be as easy to create as sweeps, automatically cutting voids from the surface.
It would also be superb if a road crossing a site would automatically cause the site to become two sites. (site-based objects as if they were wallbased, roofbased, etc)

Also, from a section the pad shouldn't look rectangular. The site itself (in section) is never a straight line, but shows either grass or concrete. IMO horizontal site boundaries in section should be line-based detailfamilies, which you can browse from the family selector or it's properties.

This is my two cents for today. In short, we're waiting for 'generic model sitebased.rft' and a checkbox for walls being site bounding with automatic pads as if they were floors. Someone at Autodesk needs to program a shovel function if we want to have realistic sites. All it takes is application of existing tools on sites.

Does anyone want to alter or add to this, or do we let the techies at Autodesk decide if, how and when it should be done?

[rmejia]

I heard at a conference yesterday, that new site tools have actually been designed, and have been so for a little while now, but Autodesk have held them back. Maybe there are a few more bugs to work out. It would seem they are coming .

Well that is good news. Just a little patience then while they roll those out

[ron.sanpedro]

I don't entirely get the need for civil tools in Revit. We did all that stuff in AutoCAD in 2D, and so what if we only have the building in 3D, and the site stuff in 2D? I'm admittedly leery about doing any civil design in Revit anyway because it opens us up to greater liability. The line is nonetheless blurred between architect and civil engineer because the architect often needs to do this work as part of the design...

Then how do you design, and more importantly communicate, a building where the whole idea is relationship to site? Not only do we need good site tools for good design, we need Revit Landscape, so we can simply link in the landscape design and present, rather than redoing all their work in 3D to get to a point that the client can understand and comment on.

I agree we shouldn't have tools to do major civil work, but much like structural and mechanical, an architect needs to be able to place a glulam beam with chamfered ends, and exposed HVAC ducts, as "design intent", then have the Structural and MEP professionals correctly size and detail. But when those items are part of the architecture, i.e. exposed, Architects need to be able to design "space" and "experience" with them. Someone else designs the actual function of them. Same is true of the site. If I am designing an earth sheltered building with an exposed concrete retaining wall that relates to the landscape, I certainly need the ability to shape the topo, including phased changes. The civil engineer may tell me something can't be done, or could be done better/cheaper another way, but I need to be able to work with the ideas early, and have those ideas be part of a dialog. Rather than a 2D site until mid CDs when the Civil stuff comes back and isn't at all what was intended.

Just my $0.02 anyway.
Gordon

[ron.sanpedro]

http://www.arthurdyson.com/barrett.htm

Here is a site that you couldn't do easily in Revit, of a building that you actually could do easily in Revit. And yet the site drove the building design drove the site design. The building is actually football shape in plan, because the retaining wall to hold back the hill could have a much smaller footing if it was curved. That single decision drove everything.
Kacey, Jaksha and Woods residences are also good examples. Woods has site on the INSIDE for cryin' out loud.

Design by Arthur Dyson, I don't think he would mind my linking.

I expect Revit to HELP me design great stuff, even if great stuff remains a small percentage of what actually gets built. Then again, if great stuff was easier, it might also be less rare. How cool would that be?

Gordon