Different Levels of Detail (for same objects)

[Graeme Padgham]

Hi,
Is it possible to have different Levels of detail per view for the same model category (Walls).
Reason i ask is that i have cavity walls for exterior and stud partition walls interior.
The makeup of the stud walls has 2 plasterboard + 1 plywood on each side so when shown at 1:100 the line thicknesss merge into each other at Fine detail (even at thinest linetype)

so what i would like is my exterior walls to be shown in FINE level of detail (so i see the cavity) and the interior Stud walls shown in Coarse (just the outside lines).

Ive attached some quick views incase that all sounds a load of rubbish!!

Ive looked at filters/graphics overrides etc but cant change the Level of Detail in them per Wall Type.(all or nothing).

I hope that makes sense ..
Thanks
Graeme

[greg.mcdowell]

Not without changing the interior walls so that they're just made up of one element.

If the finish lines merge together on your interior walls (so they look like one line - though thick) why do you want to show just the one line? If it's a question of reliably snapping to finish vs core when dimensioning check out options bar where you can tell Revit to prefer faces over core and then have a little faith that Revit will take care of this... unless you zoom in close or use tab and force it to another another line.

[twiceroadsfool]

Filters are the perfect way to do this.... Except for what you mentioned, that you cant declare a LOD override for a Filter. Its a shame, too. That would be fantastic if you could...

[Gadget Man]

To be honest, I don't understand why in the world do you want to include these finish layers in the interior walls anyway???

In pre-computer days they never were included - you only drew 2 lines of the structural part of your wall. The 90mm stud wall with plasterboards on both sides was represented just by 2 parallel lines 0.9mm apart (in scale 1:100). Nobody in their right mind would attempt to draw so many parallel lines to represent these layers. What's more you never dimension them anyway, so why bother?

To my knowledge, at least in my part of the world, this is still the current convention.

Don't do unnecessary things only because you can do them now...

They don't print nicely (you said this yourself), they are more difficult to dimension (sometimes you have to be careful what you select for dimensioning) and they don't matter anyway.

If you want to show them in detail, do it... there (I mean in a detail view and scale) where they will be visible and accounted for. Otherwise just skip them...

Even for the quantity take-offs they don't matter - you can easily derive their quantities just from the structural layers of the walls.

[Graeme Padgham]

Thanks for replys,
The person that was modelling the walls with so much detail (ie the 3 levels of skin) was doing so to create quantities, (altough thats why we employ QS's).
I suppose we could create quantities from the walls surface properties anyway without going into so much detail.

Its funny you should mention the ' because we can, why do' which is exactly the point i try and enforce to my teams!!

Thanks for responses

[twiceroadsfool]

To be honest, I don't understand why in the world do you want to include these finish layers in the interior walls anyway???

In pre-computer days they never were included - you only drew 2 lines of the structural part of your wall. The 90mm stud wall with plasterboards on both sides was represented just by 2 parallel lines 0.9mm apart (in scale 1:100). Nobody in their right mind would attempt to draw so many parallel lines to represent these layers. What's more you never dimension them anyway, so why bother?

To my knowledge, at least in my part of the world, this is still the current convention.

Don't do unnecessary things only because you can do them now...

They don't print nicely (you said this yourself), they are more difficult to dimension (sometimes you have to be careful what you select for dimensioning) and they don't matter anyway.

If you want to show them in detail, do it... there (I mean in a detail view and scale) where they will be visible and accounted for. Otherwise just skip them...

Even for the quantity take-offs they don't matter - you can easily derive their quantities just from the structural layers of the walls.


I respectfully have to disagree, wholeheartedly.

We model the wall, the way the wall is built, for several reasons.

1. It DOES show up in details. Why on earth do i want to put the wall in the floor plan, just so i can have to go in to every detail and augment it with the layers of information that i couldve just had in the wall already? Plus, intelligent noting and tagging... Enough said.

2. A 7-1/4" wall is always equal to another 7-1/4" wall. I suppose you could still use different *wall types* and just not have anything in them (a 7-1/4"... whatever), but see number 1 for that.

3. It DOES matter forquantities, as not every wall is created equally. Materials terminate at different heights, there are different types of materials. Its not enough to simply *use the structure layers* information.

4. Its just not that hard, nor is it that time consuming. We have standard wall types built, and our standard Floor Plan is at Medium Level of Detail, with Walls set to Coarse in the View Template, so they show as two lines... AND have all the information in them. Ideally, we would then have a Filter searching out Masonry Walls and Exterior Walls and setting them to Medium LOD. We already have Filters differentiating Exteriors and Interiors, etc.

[twiceroadsfool]

Also, for what its worth... We certainly do dimension those internal layers. Most interior walls we put in get dimensioned to one side of the framing (unless its a critical opening), and one side of the Framing is rarely on one end of the wall.

[josh.made4worship]

I respectfully have to disagree, wholeheartedly.

We model the wall, the way the wall is built, for several reasons.

1. It DOES show up in details. Why on earth do i want to put the wall in the floor plan, just so i can have to go in to every detail and augment it with the layers of information that i couldve just had in the wall already? Plus, intelligent noting and tagging... Enough said.

2. A 7-1/4" wall is always equal to another 7-1/4" wall. I suppose you could still use different *wall types* and just not have anything in them (a 7-1/4"... whatever), but see number 1 for that.

3. It DOES matter forquantities, as not every wall is created equally. Materials terminate at different heights, there are different types of materials. Its not enough to simply *use the structure layers* information.

4. Its just not that hard, nor is it that time consuming. We have standard wall types built, and our standard Floor Plan is at Medium Level of Detail, with Walls set to Coarse in the View Template, so they show as two lines... AND have all the information in them. Ideally, we would then have a Filter searching out Masonry Walls and Exterior Walls and setting them to Medium LOD. We already have Filters differentiating Exteriors and Interiors, etc.

I agree with Aaron here...This is sort of the whole point of BIM. The model needs to be as accurate as possible. Filters, View Templates, and Detail Level can easily take care of showing the walls as two lines in plan.

[twiceroadsfool]

I agree with Aaron here...This is sort of the whole point of BIM. The model needs to be as accurate as possible. Filters, View Templates, and Detail Level can easily take care of showing the walls as two lines in plan.

Well, except for the point the OP made... That you CANT use LOD with Filters. So right now he has to settle for All Coarse, All Medium, All Fine, or Coarse where some walls have a Coarse Infill... But he cant show SOME walls at coarse and some with the cavity, like he wants.

Filters are great, and the control we have now is great. But they need to include LOD in the VG:Filters Tabs...

[cliff collins]

Yep--agree with Aaron ( again! UH OH!!! )

Build the model like the actual building. Then let Revit display it how you need,
at various scales, etc. True BIM. Not half-baked baloney BIM.

LOD in Filters would be extremely good.

Let's get that on the Wishlist LOL

cheers.............

[Gadget Man]

I respectfully have to disagree, wholeheartedly... etc, etc...

Yeah, I've noticed this in most examples posted in AUGI from USA/Canada users.

I guess it's just the case of "we do it because we can now".

And I see (and understand) your point too!

However, when I saw it done your way all these years ago, when I just started working on Revit, I wanted to adopt it too. And guess what?

1) The bosses of an architectural firm I was working in at the time forbade me doing so! They explained to me that it was against an Australian convention. Well, I was just a newbie, so I didn't argue with them.

2) Two years later I started my own firm and I wanted to introduce it again. All (12 then) my clients (architects, designers and builders) said that it was wrong and it was against an Australian convention.

The truth is that in OZ we have very different style of building to yours in North America.
The stacked walls are virtually unheard of (at least in my part of OZ), most walls are 3-5 layers max. including cavities, air spaces, insulations, bracing, sheeting, structure, etc... The materials usually don't stop halfway through just to be replaced by different materials.

We do things much simpler than most of what I saw in the examples from the USA users.

And now, in this light, I absolutely agree with all these people who corrected me in the past and wanted me to simplify my drawings.

I think that there are more than one ways to skin the cat. Not necessarily one is better or more correct than the other. It all depends on the situation, needs, tradition, local standards, custom and culture.

That's why, when I take a part in a discussion, I usually try to make this point, as I did in my original post here too: "To my knowledge, at least in my part of the world, this is still the current convention".

[twiceroadsfool]

I completely understand. :)

At some point in my career, i want to get out of this country and put some buildings together elsewhere, just to see how the rest of the world lives and eats, so to speak.

I will say- Implementing Revit in various offices, i come up against MANY senior level traditionalists who have conventions and methods that have been *accepted standard practice* for many many years, and they dont want me bucking the system.

BUT, there is also their feelings being bred in an automatic assumption that changing things means more work with less ROI. I think with Revit (heck, even back in my ADT/ACA days) we need to evaluate those assumptions carefully.

Building a wall type accurately in Revit make take longer on the front end (an extra 30 seconds), but then you factor in everytime you dont have to reconsult a partition list, or an as built, or a detailed section. You factor in time to have to augment detailing FOR those sections and details which are no longer tied to the parametric model, and then i factor in the fact that it is all savable to a library once that 30 second investment is made the first time.

Then i generally ask management... Dont you want to save some money? :)

[cliff collins]

Philosophical issues aside, I think having LOD controllable by Filters
would be a very powerful tool.

I'll check the wishlist, and if not there will make a request.

cheers..................

Edit: Wishlist request submitted

[Graeme Padgham]

Thanks again for the responses, I think ive decided to continue to model as the building will be build, does save time with detailing/quantites etc,

Lets hope LOD makes it for 2011 (and i may roll that release out!)

[twiceroadsfool]

Philosophical issues aside, I think having LOD controllable by Filters
would be a very powerful tool.

I'll check the wishlist, and if not there will make a request.

cheers..................

Edit: Wishlist request submitted

I second this. :)

[mmiles]

well, I have to chime in on this as it is a constant source of frustration for our office. And, it is something I feel mixed about. I don't believe it is a country, or hemisphere topic though I am sure there are some differences in that regard. I agree the phenomemon is largely a "beacuse we can" one.

When drawing by hand we just drew two lines, either 4" or 6" apart, and we poched the back of the vellum to make the walls stand-out.

Then ACAD...and the office draws a line to represent every layer of material, etc. The ACAD plot styles got tweaked over the years and now they come out of the plotter looking like roses.

Then Revit came along, and everyone in the office referred to the plots as though they were the elephant man, or something hideous. The folks at Revit (pre-Autodesk) asked why on earth I needed to show that level of detail in a 1/4" plan, and the only answer I had was that my boss likes the way it looks - plus it shows exactly (sort of) where each different material is located (i.e. stone veneer on a a stud wall). Today, the look in Revit is much better than when we started, but I still cannot acheive as good a look as I can by drafting in ACAD (which I loathe at this point).

Here are some things to try, along with what has already been mentioned:


give your wall core materials a solid fill - using a light color gray - to display when cut. (e.g. dimensional lumber (studs) can be set to show as solid gray). This is not the course LOD fill, this is the cut fill for all LOD. Do this in the materials settings. (note: this can present problems in some views, you may need duplicate materials to acheive your goals).
Create a line style called "Common Edges" which you can apply with the LW tool. Use line weight one, and a light color to help differentiate it from other llines and ayers in the wall assembly. Now, change the object style>walls> common edges to match that new line style (lineweight and color). Apply LW tool to lines that are merging with other lines in order to lighten the weight. Though, this may be time consuming, and LW will disappear if you modify your objects.
Try changing the cut lines style to overide how cut objects will look. I believe this is view specific, and can be part of a template. Someone once suggested to me to change a line I didn't want to see (e.g. substrate layers) to the color "white",so that they would not appear. I have not had time to test that myself. at a glance it works, but has it's own problems.
My wish is to be able to apply fills to cut objects in specific views, and control indiviual line weights of a cut object.

[iandidesign]

Another wish to go along those mentioned is the ability to hide certain wall layers to show for example the structural core only. This would be the best of both worlds...er hemispheres.

I think I remember this wish from an earlier voting cycle, where it did not make the top 10. Maybe time to resubmit.