Phasing options for opening tools discussion

[barrie.sharp]

I will be filing a support request for phasing. I wanted to discuss pros and cons and offer a constructive SR to AutoDesk.

I work on renovation projects and phasing is a big part of what I do. My existing models end up getting chopped up into pieces to allow partial demolition in a future phase. If I want to remove a section of wall, I edit the profile and infill the section removed. The infill can then be demo'd later. A pain if the infill area hosts a window.

To make this easier, I would like a split by sketch tool. This would have the same functionalilty as the split face tool. Could also make a good alternative to split face without it loosing the sketch upon modifying.

Ideally, The opening tools should have phase options and create infills upon demolishion as hosted objects do. In addition to this, all cutting families should have a tick box option under phasing 'creates infill' to allow control infill behavior. I think these items could greatly enhance phasing workflow. From a programming POV, this functionality is not disimilar from what is already available in Revit. This is important because the changes need to be practicable.

If others struggle with phasing, it would be interesting to gather constructive feedback.

[twiceroadsfool]

I agree wholeheartedly. Moreso, the "Split with sketch" tool needs to also understand that the "rules" of the original sketch are still what define the geometry. I will VERY often do a "Copy, Paste Same Place, Edit sketch (draw demo portion) then edit the original to be the portion to remain."

On Roofs and any geometry with Slopes defined, this gets to be a nightmare. If youre removing a portion of a hip on a roof, for example, now your new sketch for Existing to remain, needs Eave offsets that you have to calculate, or remove the slope defining line and negotiate with a slope arrow, etc.

We need to be able to draw a line on a roof, and break it, while MAINTAINING the original sketch for the geometry.

[barrie.sharp]

the "Split with sketch" tool needs to also understand that the "rules" of the original sketch are still what define the geometry.
If the splitting sketch remained to define geometry, could it cause editing issues? Split face tool sketch can easily break and disappear. Would this functionallity be important enough to add this instability in the model? As a solution, the sketch tool would have to become more relaxed. The split surface tool for topo is more tolerant and will split where the sketch crosses without concern for boundary.
Would demo option on opening tools solve this?


On Roofs and any geometry with Slopes defined, this gets to be a nightmare. If youre removing a portion of a hip on a roof, for example, now your new sketch for Existing to remain, needs Eave offsets that you have to calculate, or remove the slope defining line and negotiate with a slope arrow, etc.
I agree. The entire roof normally ends up demo'd with a paste same place to create the new footprint. A big comprimise!


We need to be able to draw a line on a roof, and break it, while MAINTAINING the original sketch for the geometry.

Again,would demo option on opening tools solve this or do you see limitations? How would you imagine the functionality?

[twiceroadsfool]

I see limitations, if the need arises to tear off an entire portion (from this line, over) of a roof, that isnt an opening surrounded by Roof to remain. Im sure there are issues if they used the same type of code that is used on Split face, but in a way that makes sense.

If the roof is getting altered during its creation phase, that very well may have an effect on its demolition phase.

What i would like is similar to what you proposed. I would like a "Sketch overlay" for demolition, that doesnt NEED slope defining lines at all. So i have a creation sketch, and it has whatever slope defining elements there need to me. Then, when i click "partial demo" button (or split demo, whatever you want to call it), i get a sketch mode over that roof. I draw a box around whatever part i want to tear off, and it gets demo's. The original sketch is still there (after all, thats how you edit the roof), and if i do something to the roof creation sketch that affects the demo sketch in a negative fashion, it should warn you "Warning: Sketch of Partial Demo item no longer lies entirely on the item. Demolition results may not be as expected. Revise Demo sketch" or something.

Demo on openings wouldnt do it, not for me, at least. Openings cant have arches, irregular shapes, etc.

[barrie.sharp]

Perhaps a better method be using an inplace roof void method but a tool for purpose. I don't know if this is already a common method but it only just occurred to me using inplace voids. The attached gives an example. What the tool would offer in addition is the automation of placing a duplicate in the next phase and inverting the void sketch and keep it all as one roof sketch and one demo void. It would be very flexible. Call it a demo component.

At least for now, I might start using this method instead of edit profile on walls. It would mean that the original model doesn't get chopped up, just delete the voids. Anyone tried this and had issues?

[twiceroadsfool]

Except a Demo void makes the element disappear, not get demolished. I see what youre saying, that you can use it and then place the duplicate, as a workaround. Thats great for now. But in the future, id love to define a roof, and then not have to REDEFINE it some other crafty way, because im demolishing the portion with the Slope Defining lines.

[barrie.sharp]

Except a Demo void makes the element disappear, not get demolished. I see what youre saying, that you can use it and then place the duplicate, as a workaround. Thats great for now. But in the future, id love to define a roof, and then not have to REDEFINE it some other crafty way, because im demolishing the portion with the Slope Defining lines.
That's what I'm proposing, a inplace demo tool. Modelling flexibility but automation on the other fronts. The issue would be if you were just cutting or wanting to add also. How would the tool function.


Except a Demo void makes the element disappear, not get demolished.

Not sure what you mean here. I have attached a better example and the phasing works well for me since the void can be set to any phase. The only issue is, like you say, a duplicate has to be created which isn't linked to the original sketch anymore. This should be done without the user knowing.

Maybe the tool should be called 'Alteration' and automatically creates a dummy duplicate that can be modified. Revit could then highlight the variations with new or demo styles. That would be great but I'm not sure how feasible it would be. It would have to constrain certain aspects to the existing element or it could be a rebuild. More of a problem for roofs than anything else.

[davidcobi]

This is an old thread but i was curious to hear where users are now in your partial demo workflows.