Detail Level

[barathd]

Much could be done IMHO to make "detail level" more responsive for "work flows." Comic book descriptions - "fine, medium and coarse" should be replaced with more sensibly defined elements like "core, shell, structural, 2d detail elements, etc." Yes, yes - we can already do this - no doubt; my job is producing construction drawings not playing computer games. "Detail level" IMHO should be altered to "manage" content more meaningfully.

[twiceroadsfool]

Core, shell, and structural arent in the same catagory of LOD. The catagories you list are valuable, no doubt, but they would be on/off's in VG, more than likely. What would a LOD selector that switched between Core/Shell/2D elements do? So you switch a floor plan to 2D elements and everything goes away?

I wouldnt mind more than 3 LOD settings, personally. But thats only because we use them religiously and could use an extra option or 2.

Our current setup (for the main view settings, disregardinging specific catagory overrides in templates) is:

Coarse: Working view for the project team. Doesnt show a lot of intricate pieces, a lot of families we build have simplified models for coarse to move fast.

Medium: ALL of our Con Doc's are set to medium. Shows the whole model, minus any erroneous detail thats only fluff for visualization or presentation views. Depending on drawing requirements, some 3D models may show intricacies, or some may still be maximum-extent-masses inside the families.

Fine: Settings only for 3D perspectives / renderings / design images, etc. All the little tiny pieces come to life.

But then we have a bunch of overrides set up in our view templates / project templates that alter specific catagories..

IMHO what we need is to be able to break up system families the way Door Families work... With flexible Subcatagories. I think that would meet the needs of what youre complaining about quite well.

Imagine being able to say "this layer" of a wall is Core, or "this layer" of the wall is Finish, but then they were accesible in VG. Of course, i dont know what youd want the 2D detail elements one for, lol...

[barathd]

Aaron:

I think we are not on the same page - my idea is more of a filter type tool where I have elements grouped so I can view and edit the drawing in a predefined view based on function. Yes a subcategory at the base level description of the element could work.

[twiceroadsfool]

I get what youre saying now... More of a quick-toggle-esque View template kind of thing. I think you should submit that to the wishlist, it has awesome potential... Depending on how it would get set up. Where (do you think) you would populate "what fills in" under Structural? Core? Shell? 2D elements? Do you think it would catagory based? Item Based Instance? Type Based?

I could see it being really useful. We do something similar using filters now, but we cant quick toggle. We have to go in to VV to do it.

[barathd]

Guess another way of explaining what I am getting at is that the present "detail level" function IMHO should be a function of scale.

The toggles are to valuable to used in this manner. I would like to be able to toggle say to a structural or drafting (detail component) view and have everything else filtered out. Sort of a quick toggle for a predefined view.

[Steve_Stafford]

Sounds, to me, like you are describing View Templates and Filters. Detail Level is defined by scale but you are able to override the setting. A view's default detail level is defined by Manage ribbon > Settings > Detail Level.

[barathd]

Sounds, to me, like you are describing View Templates and Filters. Detail Level is defined by scale but you are able to override the setting. A view's default detail level is defined by Manage ribbon > Settings > Detail Level.

I know that - please put it on a toggle. This detail nonsense should only be a function of scale.

[Steve_Stafford]

I know that - please put it on a toggle. This detail nonsense should only be a function of scale.Well I still don't understand what you really want... :sad: not that I can give it to you anyway. But if I don't get it..."they" might not either...

[barathd]

Steve:

I concede our minds work in different ways - do not want to disturb you thought processes.

[twiceroadsfool]

Added functionality regarding the new *idea* were talking about would be fantastic... But changing the way Level of Detail works would also be disasterous, imho. Its been a vital part of Revit for so long that changing it to make it ONLY scale dependant would be a real mess.

Steve- We do the same thing with View Templates and Filters, and i guess (if you really thing about it) what were all after is a modeless View Properties box. If you think about (cough cough... AutoCAD) and the modeless Properties box, the moment you pick a viewport... There are the properties. Plus, most of their "view settings" are accessible from right in the view port anyway, since the Layer Manager / Layer State manager / Layer Group manager, and all view settings pertaining to the view, are in plain site.

If VIEW properties was modeless and could stay on screen at all times, essentially we could just be clicking the view template for the active view, and toggling it back and forth, exactly like Dick is saying.

I have a Filter for FINISHES that includes all of our Tile Finishes, wainscotting, moldings and trims, carpets, CT, VCT, etc, etc.All of our regular Construction stuff is underneath. I can imagine having a Working View where i have the finishes turned on, but then i realize an expansion joint is out of whack, so i head to modeless VP and thwack- I hit the VT that turns that filter back to visible.

I dunno. Seems to me that would give us all what were after, which is just faster access to things so we dont have to stop and think. :)

[Steve_Stafford]

Steve: I concede our minds work in different ways - do not want to disturb you thought processes.Well at least it's a polite brush off. I'd like to understand what you want but you haven't described it well enough in terms I get. Maybe I'm just thick. You believe you've done an adequate job of explaining, I don't. I suppose we'll see if you get what you want. If you do, then you did well enough. All the best!