Wall hatch based on phasing / Graphic overrides / cut pattern

[mr6jam]

If you look at the attached project (small experimental project), you can see that my existing wall shows a grey hatch in the new construction plan, but in the existing construction plan it will not hatch. I am trying to get them hatched grey in all plans, I tried it based on phases / graphics overrides tab / cut pattern setting (for existing walls). I am confused.

Any help is appreciated.

[cporter.207875]

If you look at the attached project (small experimental project), you can see that my existing wall shows a grey hatch in the new construction plan, but in the existing construction plan it will not hatch. I am trying to get them hatched grey in all plans, I tried it based on phases / graphics overrides tab / cut pattern setting (for existing walls). I am confused.

Any help is appreciated.

Your existing construction plan is set to be in the "existing" phase. As such, any walls that belong to the "existing" phase will be considered new in that phase. They would have to belong to a phase that comes before "existing" in order to be existing within the "existing" phase. Make sense?

To fix this you can change your phase filter to "Show Complete" in your existing construction plan, and implement graphic overrides for the "new" phase status to match the overrides for the "existing" phase status. Now when you set your existing construction plan within the "existing" phase, your wall in that phase will take its overrides from the "New" status within that phase.

Sorry if that is confusing.

[mr6jam]

cporter.207875:

I understood for the most part what you meant, but in the end it didnt quite work out for me well. It really VERY simple what im trying to do, in fact I bet almost all firms do this over and over again.

This is what im trying to do (for renovation projects):
After surveying the particular project space, I would like to have existing walls (that means walls that are already constructed in real life) always appear grey in my demo plans as well as in my construction plans. Then I will be adding new walls to the architectural plans (and demolishing some walls as well in the demo plans), but they should not appear grey ever - only the walls that were pre existing are always grey.

How would you go about doing this? This probably involves creating extra phases and setting up overrides?

Can you maybe make the adjustments in the attached project?

Thanks.

[bulletproofdesign]

To help avoid this problem, I have gone one step further than phasing.

I have 2 walls per type set up for my renovations. The first I call existing and the second I call new. Unlike yourself, I prefer the existing to be white and the new to be grey.

Depending on the detail level there are 2 things you need to consider. If you use coarse scale (or use 'VG' to coarse scale you walls) then you will need to set up your 'coarse fill pattern' in the element properties of your wall. Otherwise, you can change the material of your wall core to something grey.

Once this is done, when modelling the existing building, you use the 'existing' wall type, and use the 'new' wall type for all additions.

Hope this helps,

Peace...

[bulletproofdesign]

Example.

P.S. you existing and new plans were on completely different levels? I deleted one and duplicated it for ease...

As you use coarse view scale (my new fave) I simply duplicated a wall type and added 'existing' to the name, then changfed the 'coarse scale fill pattern'. Enjoy

[cporter.207875]

I do it similar to the last poster, except I don't create different wall types for new and existing.

[bulletproofdesign]

I do it similar to the last poster, except I don't create different wall types for new and existing.

This is a great way of using the phase filters. A have never used the 'show previous' before.

I find this method a little more confusing for modelling, unless you have an existing plan set up as 'existing' in phase.

I find if the phase you are wanting to show (instead of 'show previous') is the phase for the view, then drawing on the sheet automatically sets the elements to the correct phase.

Peace

[cporter.207875]

I find if the phase you are wanting to show (instead of 'show previous') is the phase for the view, then drawing on the sheet automatically sets the elements to the correct phase.

Peace

That is correct. I always begin with my existing conditions floor plan set to the existing phase when I'm drawing the as-is (for the reason you mentioned). Afterward, I tend to switch every view to the "New" phase, since that would be closer to reality as concerns the current project.

[bulletproofdesign]

Nice.

It seems that AUGI has given me even more food for thought!!

Good work

[twiceroadsfool]

Theres no real reason to duplicate wall types. Everything youre after can be done with JUST the Phases, Phase Filters, and Graphical Overrides. And you dont need any additional phases besides Existing and New. Using duplicates of all the wall types and everything is a chore, when you need to be altering things.

Go to the Graphical Overrides tab, and set it as follows:

Existing Overridden: Make the lines "lineweight 1" (or gray, or both). Take out the surface patterns, and the cut patterns (if your office doesnt want them on existing). (click the override and set it to no pattern). The "Material Override" (far right) should be empty UNLESS: You want Existing walls (and everything) to not show divisions in material. IE: if you want existing 4-7/8" walls to show as all the materials, but gray, use the lineweight and color overrides. If you want it to only show as two lines for the whole wall, use the material override and make a material called "Existing." (You cant use phase overrides for Level of detail).

Demolished Overriden- Set it to the dashed lines / hidden lines / hatched patterns or whatever, that is your firms standard.

Then go to the Phase Filter tab, and check the following:

Show Previous and Demo: Should have Existing as "overridden" and Demo as "Overriden", and new Work as "Not displayed."

Show Previous and New: Should have Existing as "Overridden," and Demo as "not displayed." New work should be "By catagory."

Then in your drawings...

Demo views: Phase = New
Phase Filter = Show Previous and Demo

New Work views: Phase = New
Phase Filter = Show Previous and New

Thats all there is to it. No duplicate walls, no extra phases, no ugly drawings. :)

[cporter.207875]

I do mine basically the way Aaron explains. The problem occurs when you want to show an "Existing" floor plan. Existing walls that are demolished in the New phase will not take the same graphic overrides as existing walls not to be demolished.

For example, I have the "existing" floor plan phase set to New Construction and the phase filter set to Show Previous. My existing walls show gray fill... except for the ones that will be demolished in the next phase. It's rather silly, but that's where the other graphic overrides come into play, like setting the existing floor plan to coarse level of detail and having the walls gray fill for coarse detail views. All the other views will then have to be at least a med level of detail. Of course, this is the way I'd set my level of detail anyway, so it works out just fine for me.

[twiceroadsfool]

For that i use Phase: Existing, Phase Filter: Show all. Everything is dark, but there isnt a timeline in that drawing, its all existing.

If it was an issue, id set that one views VV/VT to have everything gray.

Other than that, not a single issue with using the Phase Filters...

[Scott Womack]

Theres no real reason to duplicate wall types.....

Now hold on there. We draw an existing plan, just as Aaron says, but then we need to "rename" all walls used to ensure they have an existing named style, so the assembly code can be deleted or revised. We use e-Specs. Unfortunately e-Specs, and I believe Avaya, and other specification and estimating applications that use the assembly code field are NOT phase aware.

Therefore, objects in an existing phase would generate the same specification sections as the new work, without changing the assembly codes.

Just goes to show you, "Never say Never".

[twiceroadsfool]

Now hold on there. We draw an existing plan, just as Aaron says, but then we need to "rename" all walls used to ensure they have an existing named style, so the assembly code can be deleted or revised. We use e-Specs. Unfortunately e-Specs, and I believe Avaya, and other specification and estimating applications that use the assembly code field are NOT phase aware.

Therefore, objects in an existing phase would generate the same specification sections as the new work, without changing the assembly codes.

Just goes to show you, "Never say Never".

Thats one way to do it, but its not the only way. I still wouldnt be duplicating wall types over E-specs. (In my case, anyway...) There is ten minutes worth of prep work i have to do, a la deleting previous phases (Annotation) before the model can go to E specs anyway, since it doesnt respect Phasing at all. At which point im saving off a temporary copy of the model to get it churning for E spec anyway, and i can remove or change ALL of the existing stuff to one particular type.

I still wouldnt make duplicate wlal types though. It leaves open to error a manual control over a tool (phasing) thats otherwise provided. But to each their own. :)

[cporter.207875]

Other than that, not a single issue with using the Phase Filters...

Agreed....

[mr6jam]

What do you guys think about this approach? See attached Revit project.

I have all my graphic overrides and phases set to get the three different floor plans as needed. Existing, Demolished and New. All seems to work well. I just wanted to know if anyone can see a flaw in this approach or if this is what you guys were recommending.

For my project Phases I have:

Existing
Blocking & Stacking
Schematic Design
Design Intent Documents
Construction Documents

I feel this will give me the option to get the broject browser to organize views by project. What do you think?

[bulletproofdesign]

Theres no real reason to duplicate wall types.... .... Using duplicates of all the wall types and everything is a chore, when you need to be altering things.


I generally work on small scale residential renovations, so my exisitng Phase is existing and does not change.

Your post has led me to investigate the phase filters tab in the phases dialog. I was unaware that one can set which elements are overridden and which aren't. This is pretty cool, and again, I find more reasons to become more addicted to the REVIT platform. And more reasons to learn more....

[twiceroadsfool]

What do you guys think about this approach? See attached Revit project.

I have all my graphic overrides and phases set to get the three different floor plans as needed. Existing, Demolished and New. All seems to work well. I just wanted to know if anyone can see a flaw in this approach or if this is what you guys were recommending.

For my project Phases I have:

Existing
Blocking & Stacking
Schematic Design
Design Intent Documents
Construction Documents

I feel this will give me the option to get the broject browser to organize views by project. What do you think?


I personally wouldnt use Revit "Phases" for Phases of your architectural Process. I would use Phases for the phases of the project. IE: If its a single phase renovation job, i would have an "Existing" and a "New Construction."

The road you are heading down (Drawing production phases in the revit model) will bite you when you get in to demolition conditions and need to procure drawings.

For instance:

A wall gets built in "Existing" Phase. Where does it get demolished? Design intent? If not, then you wont be able to show design intent without that wall. But if it gets demolished during design intent, you cant show it getting demolished in CD Phase.

Make the Phases the Phases "of the building." If you need to archive as the architectural project moves forward, archive the old hat way: PDF/DWF/Paper/Save-as.

:)

[mr6jam]

You are right. The idea here for me is to just have all the project phases in there when we first start off a project, so it's just a new project template, we then delete out the project phases that don't apply.

For example:

If Im doing a DID project, then I will just keep the existing project phase and the DID. All others get deleted. At the end of that phase we do a save as. Once the next phase starts, we will rename the DID phase to CD (or whatever we are doing) and keep working.

So basically, instead of naming the new phase new, we name it something more specific to let everyone know what type of set of drawings this is. That way later on, once the project is archived, you can quickly idetify what phase of the project this revit file was for - just by looking at the phases or view properties.

See attached.

What do you think?

[twiceroadsfool]

I still hold fast that i wouldnt bother. For several reasons.

Our Phases go:

Annot1
Annot2
AnnotDemo
Existing
Phase1
Phase2

The Annot stuff is for legends and the like (not for the project). Existing is Existing, and Phase 1 is the first phase of work, regardless of the documentation process. I wouldnt monkey with changing the name of the phases, because the more you play with Links, and phase mapping, and other consultants, etc... Im not sure how its going to respond to changing the name of the phase.

I dont include the phase of the project in the active and CURRENT revit model either, but the archive directory has folders listing what phase is archived in it, so its not needed.

Its just personal preference, but i like that our phase settings are the same in every project, regardless of how far down the pipeline it is. It keeps things less confusing. :)