View Range-Why?

[dbaldacchino]

<The casework file was 8.1>

That's odd....I have 8.1, Build:20050804_0100. I only get a wall in your example file and no casework family shows up.

One thing still nags me however, and going back to my original post, why couldn't things be made much much easier by simply having a Top and Bottom View Range (with an optional underlay) and a plottable Hide option to eliminate the objects you don't want to plot or see within the chosen range?

Or as a practical matter (assuming View Range is tied into some other esoteric function and therefore necessary) if we had a Plottable Hide/Isolate option, then just make everything an Unlimited View Range and between Visibility/Graphic Overrides and a Plottable Hide/Isolate Option get just what we want without all the hassle.

I'm thinking that the View Range thing is very badly designed somehow but if I am wrong could someone please explain the flaw in my logic here?

Bill Maddox

Now that I understand how a view range works, I don't think it's badly designed at all. I was a bit surprised at the limited amount of objects that show up above the cut plane though. I think it would be easier to have everything show up above and below the cut plane between the top and bottom clips and then control their visibility by view in the visibility-graphics perhaps....like an on/off switch. That way, you can unclutter your drawings and only show what's necessary. For instance I might want to show the overhead slab openings in my plan as a reference, or ceiling bulkheads (or furr-downs, depending on which part of the country you are ). The fact that objects in the view depth are controlled by something other than an object style (by the <beyond> line style) is confusing to the beginner. Once you know, it's ok, but it's not intuitive at all. And that is really the power of Revit....intuition and fast learning.

[hworrell]

See my casework example posted above...

Now to answer the big mystery:

It ain't got nuthin' to do with the view range.

The foundation view is set to Structural. However, the floor isn't defined as structural, so it doesn't show up. If you're working in Revit Building, you can't make a floor structural. That is reserved for Revit Structural.

So set your view to Architectural or Coordination.

Sorry, what view am I setting to Architectural or Coordination? I do not want to see that floor below...now I am more confused. Why would anything out of my view range show up? Thanks for helping!

[aaronrumple]

[QUOTE=dbaldacchino]That's odd....I have 8.1, Build:20050804_0100. I only get a wall in your example file and no casework family shows up.
[QUOTE]

Whoops - my fault. I uploaded the wrong file. Project1 was for support. It should have been Project - I've uploaded the correct file.

[dbaldacchino]

Thanks Aaron, I'll take a look (BTW, did you get my PM?).

I viewed hworrell's example. The odd thing is that Level1 still shows the footing even though it's outside the view range. The only way I managed to make it disappear was by setting the bottom clip plane offset to 3'-0". I don't understand why it shows up in Level 1. I'm stumped

Edit: Well, I'm thinking that Floors are following some different rules that are not documented in the help. I placed a wall with it's top set at the top of footing and then goes downwards. In Level 1, it doesn't show up. So it must be that floors are not following the same rules.

[aaronrumple]

Sorry, what view am I setting to Architectural or Coordination? I do not want to see that floor below...now I am more confused. Why would anything out of my view range show up? Thanks for helping!

I'm sorry - I was looking at the wrong view I guess. I thought you wanted to see the floor in the Foundation View.

It shows in the Level 1 view because of a little known rule. Some objects show up when slightly below a level. This is the case of your floor. Floors will show up when they are below a bottom range from 0 to -4'. At 4' and below they then vanish. Yes - this is poorly documented and confusing. The original intent was to automate as much of the view setup as possible so that you wouldn't have to configure a ton of visibility settings. This works fine as long as a floor is a floor and not a footing. Typically, we would want floors of levels that step slightly to all show up in the same view as in the case of a sunken living space set down just a couple of steps. So Revit in its effort to speed the process can make things confusing when we use object in "non-standard" ways. In your particular example you might get the results you are looking for by moving the bottom range up to 3'. The view depth can remain at 0.

Revit really needs to complete the object model as quickly as possible so there are things like "Footings", Foundations" "Interior Soffit" so everything will have the correct rules for visibility and Revit can better automate the views without resporting to just turning over everthing to the user like they did with ADT. That would be a slippery slope from which there is no return.

[hworrell]

Thanks Aaron, I was going to go mad...I might look for a different way to create my footings from now on (especially on my current project as there are a number of different things that are happening at different elevations, and I don't want some items 'vanishing'). I guess I'm glad that it wasn't just O.E.!

[zenomail105021]

Considering the consternation over View Range reflected in these posts I would like to re-post a previous post of mine. Sorry if it goes against any conventions but I would like a response (if worthy) from those more knowledgable than me about this issue:

Why couldn't things be made much much easier by simply having a Top and Bottom View Range (with an optional underlay) and a plottable Hide option to eliminate the objects you don't want to plot or see within the chosen range?

Or as a practical matter (assuming View Range is tied into some other esoteric function and therefore necessary) if we had a Plottable Hide/Isolate option, then just make everything an Unlimited View Range and between Visibility/Graphic Overrides and a Plottable Hide/Isolate Option simply get rid of the objects we don't want without all the hassle.

I'm thinking that the View Range thing is very badly designed somehow but if I am wrong could someone please explain the flaw in my logic here?

Thanks again.

Bill Maddox

[aaronrumple]

I know the "turn it all on and let me decide" sounds like a quick fix. And it sure would be for the programmers. All that does is throw things back on us and right back into the low tech world of layers. I expect more from Revit.

Absolutely an NO vote for the ability to hide objects one by one for plotting like the TEMPORARY hide Isolate view control. Items would be showing up in schedules which are never on the drawings. It would be a mess for errors and omissions.

I think the view range is the right approach - it just needs more development and certainly a better explanation of the rules in the help file. Revit's object model really needs to come up to speed. That is the key for giving us what we want.

[zenomail105021]

Aaron, with all due respect, and I have really appreciated your insights over time and maybe you have nailed it on this one as those who agree with you, but I really really would like to decide. I just want the CD's to be what I want them to be. What's wrong with that? Without all the esoterica? And, shame on me, (this is important) I want that to be as brainless as possible so I can concentrate on my design. (should I put that in a wish?) The schedules can adjust.

Bill Maddox

[PWguy]

I think i understand the view range now....great insight and info. The casework example was extremely helpful, got all my lab casework to finally show correctly in plan.

My question is: I have a 3' wall underneath my counter but it keeps showing up in plan even though I have set the view range cut at 4'? also my Revit BSCs still show the counter line underneath it, even though they sit on TOP of the counter.

Otherwise this forum has been a great tool.