Help! - 2010 in-place mass tools

[jhalaby]

The conceptual massing tools in 2010 are a nice addition, BUT I still want to create In-Place mass families with Sketch-driven geometry as in 2009. I don't see any way to do this, is there a way??

If not, Autodesk needs to fix this fast...

Thanks for your help!

Jason

[jeffh]

In-place massing uses the conceptual modeling tools. You would have to create the in-place family in a different category to utilize the other set of form creation tools.

[Andre Carvalho]

The conceptual massing tools in 2010 are a nice addition, BUT I still want to create In-Place mass families with Sketch-driven geometry as in 2009. I don't see any way to do this, is there a way??

If not, Autodesk needs to fix this fast...

Thanks for your help!

Jason

Or create your mass in Revit 2009 upgrade the file to 2010 and then copy it to your project. Masses created in Revit 2009 and upgraded to 2010 still keep the old modeling tools. Usually, create just a box as a mass in 2009 and bring it to 2010. Once the box is in 2010, you can edit it and delete/modify to the actual mass you want. The box as a mass is just to bring the old tools to the massing option in 2010.

Andre Carvalho

[jhalaby]

Thanks Jeff, that's what I was afraid of.

I just hate the fact that (even when using reference lines) I need to delete and remake my volumes when I change the number or type of lines used to generate it, or when I want to change the topology of the driving shapes.

[jhalaby]

Andre! Great idea and it works! You saved me lots of headache!

[Phil Read]

Jason -

Another option if you've already started in 2010: Link, Bind and Ungroup a simple 2009 Mass into 2010. When you select the Mass and attempt to edit, it can be done with the 2009 toolset. I've attached a 2009 Mass just in case. You can compliment this with the 2010 Massing functionality.

Regards -

Phil

===========

Further Commentary:

I thought we'd moved beyond this, but apparently not. The factory approved answer above is a non-answer. It doesn't actually meet the requirements of the user's question beyond the immediate horizon. It sort of answers the first question - but will only serve to create more friction later. So what's missing?

Using a "non-mass" category mass will be compromised by unique settings of OOTB visibility settings of the Mass category
You won't be able to generate Mass Floors from the results
You won't be able to schedule the volume/surface/etc of the non-mass massesIt'd be refreshing if ADSK would try a bit harder and answer the spirit of the question rather than (by omission) be an apologist for missing functionality. Yes - you can create these "non-mass" Masses in other categories. But if this is a user forum meant to provide creative, helpful, meaningful answers and discussion - but the best ADSK can do is provide half-answers and strictly along party lines - then please, stop contributing.

Otherwise, half hearted, half-answers provided by the factory just seem either petty or misinformed. Someone else will provide a more meaningful answer, which will overshadow and devalue the OOTB factory response and illustrate that you're not really helping the customer.

[twiceroadsfool]

Bottom Line, massing needs to go like this:

Extrusion
Sweep
Blend
Revolve
Swept Blend
Complex Form

With the last button being the new massing tools. There was no reason to take the old tools away. I work around it by just using Generic Models (which still allow wall by face and CS by face, my two primary uses), but as Phil points out there are many things GM's dont do.

BTW Phil, thanks for the Mass. IT took my 2009 away, LOL.

[Phil Read]

No worries - and next time I'm in Syracuse BBQ at Dinosaurs. :)

[twiceroadsfool]

Definetely. Me and the boys at Dalpos put a second floor on that place. Of course, that was two jobs ago now, ahahahahahaha.

Beers are definetely on me.... And ill wear my 2009UI shirt too. :)

[jhalaby]

Thank you Phil.
I agree with you, the solution (although it works) is a temporary fix that needs to be addressed. Both importing a 2009 mass, and using generic model category are compromising work-arounds.