Conceptual Design and Floor Plans - Revit 2010

[Brian Myers]

I'm familiar with the ability to design a conceptual mass and then applying a Pattern to the surface of this object. I also know how to perform a material take-off of this entity.

My question: Has anyone attempted to make a floor plan of this entity? I'm curious about how you would make the walls clean-up, etc? It seems to me that to put in doors, make walls clean-up, etc that it's going to take an extensive amount of workaround and potentially a complete re-creation of this quickly sculpted object.

Is this correct? Any thoughts/comments would be appreciated. :beer:

My concern is that if my statement is true then we've gained some great functionality but lost data (and a level of BIM process improvements) in the process due to the need to recreate forms in the CD stage.

[sbrown]

At concept I would just make the cut lineweight of the mass very thick. Then create a very thin wall type to simiulate a pen drawing(single line) and draw my interior walls with that. Then either draft lines for location of centers of doors. Or we've gone as far as creating door families that are nothing but a heavy line perp to the wall.

[Brian Myers]

Thanks Scott,

I suppose what I'm asking is really something of a surprise in terms that I've not read anyone making much of a deal out of it. I imagine it's because "it's the way we've always done things" argument, but it seems to go against the traditional marketing.

In the past we've always needed to apply walls to our generic mass models. This has seemed like a process that worked, but in reality our surfaces in most cases have been fairly straight forward and we've mostly created these surfaces just to be able to recreate the wall shape. But the new Revit conceptual design tools are a bit different. They include panels which can be quantified but are not part of curtain walls. Mullion looking shapes can be created but they are not mullions. While it's not unusual for us to use our tools to just get items out the door, it seems odd that a conceptual mass can ONLY be a conceptual mass. This is no longer a tool really designed to make certain shapes possible, it's a tool often marketed as a way to improve your processes, to be quantified, and to remove "recreating" what is already known. While this helps, it seems kind of "anti-Revit" like in terms of a Wall NOT being a wall. This is no longer a mass that can be turned into something else (in the case of family creation) or simply have a surface applied to it because of the custom panels. It's something that seems to be marketed as having the ability to create custom curtain walls and panels along with various other entities. Sure it CAN, be its not an object that knows its that object.. it's just an object that has information and parameters attached to it... more like an ACA object (in terms of info attached instead of knowing what it is) than a Revit one.

I suppose it's not that much different than the Mass of the past in terms of how we use it, but not "knowing" what it is and being forced to draft in walls in plans, etc seems... almost counter productive. It's the same reason people argued against using the tools in SketchUp as you lose/reproduce work between software programs... the main difference is that now it's contained inside Revit and not an outside program. Don't get me wrong, I think having these tools are great! I suppose I'm asking in the case of panels should this be used more as a "skin" tool with panels on the outside with your walls butted against them? How would you utilize it?

[twaldock]

. . . . .
My concern is that if my statement is true then we've gained some great functionality but lost data (and a level of BIM process improvements) in the process due to the need to recreate forms in the CD stage.

I have belatedly got to grips with the process of converting a conceptual mass into a real curtain wall/system on a building. I spent hours trying to figure out how to apply panels, mullions etc to a mass with pattern on it; looked at videos, read the help notes and finally understood what seemed such an "un-Revit", non-BIM & counter-intuitive methodology. I couldn't believe it was true that you have to apply the panels inside the conceptual mass; and then I found this thread, and could not believe that it has not been picked up and discussed.

[Brian Myers]

It surprised me a bit too. I've since come to terms its designed to be a tool to aid in conceptual design visualization and yes, can be used as a "skin" or even a replacement for a curtain wall in documentation. Of course, you'll need to work around the fact that it ISN'T a curtain wall... it also can't be changed to something useful like a Window family (but if it COULD that would be very, very cool. ;) )

Ultimately it is BIM as it does have a level of information... but it's still a mass (even if the panels schedule as panels) and contains the limitations of a conceptual mass as opposed to a family such as walls, which are by far the most seen use of the tool.

[AP23]

well, it's not surprising that this topic hasn't been discussed yet. Historically Revit has been geared towards the documentation of mainstream traditional buildings that don't really require masses or complex shapes. I guess the philosophy behind the mass tool is to extract volume and area information in the early phase and skin it with traditional wall, roof, floor families which in essence is a fairly good BIM workflow. However, this workflow in today's architecture isn't feasible at all, as walls roof and floor intertwine with each other, have a complex geometry and have variable thickness. The new curtain wall is certainly an improvement, but it seems to just work as a method to convey design intent. In this case, a tool like Rhino would be a million time more effective for that. However, the new curtain wall tool isn't robust enough either to deliver a well documented BIM curtain wall as you would see in this link. http://allthingsbim.blogspot.com/2009/10/infinity-tower.html .

There have some very interesting AU class proposals about the use of masses, the new curtain wall and utilizing the API, but unfortunately they didn't make the cut.

[trombe]

I'm familiar with the ability to design a conceptual mass and then applying a Pattern to the surface of this object. I also know how to perform a material take-off of this entity.

My question: Has anyone attempted to make a floor plan of this entity? I'm curious about how you would make the walls clean-up, etc? It seems to me that to put in doors, make walls clean-up, etc that it's going to take an extensive amount of workaround and potentially a complete re-creation of this quickly sculpted object.

Is this correct? Any thoughts/comments would be appreciated. :beer:

My concern is that if my statement is true then we've gained some great functionality but lost data (and a level of BIM process improvements) in the process due to the need to recreate forms in the CD stage.



"A Concept gone missing"

Sorry to hijack the thread .....
Just that it is vaguely amusing to see the change in what passes for concept these days.

For commercial buildings I guess I can understand the focus on economics first last and always, but from my architectural education and after that, concept, never included quantities of anything nor mullions or any of those things.
I would argue that such level of detail does not belong in a definition of concept design at all.
It should belong in Preliminary Design by inference, but delineating mullions or quantities at concept stage seems like someone somewhere has done a snow job of trying to convince the world, that this is just fine and dandy because the software can.
When you have reached the point you are able to declare a mullion is here or there, you have moved far beyond a "concept".
Whilst design carries on tweaking and twitching, and developing, and you could suggest that the "concept" is able to withstand some major changes or even partial or major re-design because the client has changed the scope a lot during the period or the budget has now been slashed, (and software can now accommodate or provide for such changes more easily) , none of this really has anything to do with "concept design".

When many would agree that the traditional framework for design conditions is being challenged by the software development allowing some things to be more easily defined during "planning" and "development" , its still clear that this can not be considered "concept design".
Too many advertisements and blog articles, reciting the press release mantra methinks without thinking about what concept defines and what preliminary or developed design phases have long been defined for (such good reason).

It sounds to me like when the real estate agent gets to define what a double bedroom is by newspaper and magazine adverts enough times that even the punter comes to believe it. Iteratively, that there is this particular development now (in Revit) , does not mean further development will not take place so an improvement on one front is often a pre-cursor to associated or parallel improvements elsewhere as you don't usually see one thing done to death and completed in software development nor in building design..its being attacked on all fronts or many frorts simultaneously.

That is another good reason to step back from the mantra of the press article and the Blog for pause to consider the meaning of it all...the "concept" seems to be MIA while the main event has overtaken the actual reason it is there to serve..
trombe

[Scott D Davis]

... but it's still a mass (even if the panels schedule as panels) .

The Mass is a Mass. The Panels are curtain wall panels by category and schedule and tag as curtain wall panels. So, yes, they are curtain walls, not masses.