Controlling how shadows look beyond on elevations?

[jon.200969]

I'm working on some elevations that have shadows turned on. There are elements beyond that I've set to halftone to help read better. But the shadows cast from those elements are just as dark as the shadows in the foreground.

What's the trick to getting these elevations to read properly? Can I turn off the shadows by element? I tried making those elements transparent, which does remove the shadows, then then gives too many lines since it's basically looking at a wireframe.

Thanks for any tips.

[Munkholm]

Max Lloyd (and others) came up with a great sollutions in this thread: http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=47550&highlight=elevations+glass
Never used this Ninja Trick though, and am not sure that it affects shadows... worth a shot ? :beer:

[jon.200969]

Thanks. I'll give those glass curtains a spin. Would be nice if it didn't require a workaround. How the final output looks sure seems like it should be a priority for Autodesk.

[Scott Womack]

Thanks. I'll give those glass curtains a spin. Would be nice if it didn't require a workaround. How the final output looks sure seems like it should be a priority for Autodesk.

Interesting Statement. In the "short term" I agree with you, since in the US paper drawings are still the defacto standard. They are making some improvements towards that. Marginally better text numbering/bullets, customizable elevation symbols, etc. More work needs to be done on Text and some form of polyline is needed.

However, in a more strategic sense, I understand why Autodesk is not spending a huge amount of time on this. Their stated longer term goals is to move towards where a BIM model is the deliverable to contractors, and paper drawings may not even be produced. At that point, making things look good like older drafting techniques, won't matter as much.

I believe that the modeling is where the Factory seems to be (and should be) concentrating on. Stairs, Walls, Joining stairs to Floors, Demo tools for parts or holes in floors, Allowing Walls to attach to stairs, another type of Legend view that allows instance parameters and tagging of elements, etc.

[jon.200969]

I understand your point Scott, but the era of no longer printing paper sets is a ways off. If Autodesk wants to be the software that helps the industry get to that point then it needs to provide tools to make the transition.

Architects are very graphic people and if the elevations and sections look worse in Revit then they did in ACAD then it's hard to convince us that it's a better product, IMO.

I'm in a small firm, so I wear both architect and draftsman hats. There's a compromise between production drawings and aesthetics, but I think software should be designed to help minimize that compromise.

[Scott Womack]

I understand your point Scott, but the era of no longer printing paper sets is a ways off. If Autodesk wants to be the software that helps the industry get to that point then it needs to provide tools to make the transition.

You statement appears to be coming from a point of view that we'll just have to agree to disagree on. Revit is packed with tools that my CD production life easier. As I previously stated, many of their 2D and documentation tools need some improvement, no doubt.


Architects are very graphic people and if the elevations and sections look worse in Revit then they did in ACAD then it's hard to convince us that it's a better product, IMO.

Personally, in the three firms I've been involved with the implimentation of Revit, and the nine firms I've worked on in my 28 years, too many architects spend way too much time worrying about how good the drawings look and way too little time making sure they are really complete, and detailed in a manner that actually reflects real-world construction techniques.


I'm in a small firm, so I wear both architect and draftsman hats. There's a compromise between production drawings and aesthetics, but I think software should be designed to help minimize that compromise.

To a point I agree. production drawings and aesthetics vary from firm to firm, and from country to country. Making a piece of software that is potentially everything to every body is what AutoCAD was originally about. It also had little or no automation in it.

I can make portions of a building elevation recede into the distance by a variety of ways, virtually all are more or less manual in some way. View Overrides, use of view filters, etc. are my preferred methods

The ability to change a floor plan, and KNOW the elevations, sections, door and window schedules, finish plans, etc. changed is a huge improvement over AutoCAD, and Architectural Desktop. Being able to see the Structural system, and MEP systems in my model in 3D is an even larger leap forward.

IF the graphical appearance is what is preventing the implementation of BIM (Revit, Archicad, etc.) then, good luck to you. We are seeing states,state departments of higher education, Universities, and larger corporations requiring BIM and Revit as a part/condition of being awarded the project.

[cliff collins]

A question:

Are shadows, in the real world, actually lighter when farther away from the human eye?

Or--do the architects just "want the drawing to look that way" ?

Perhaps a quick walk outside can confirm this?

FWIW--I agree with both the OP and Scott's comments--both of which are valid.
Seems we need to find a middle ground on lots of issues with graphics when it comes
to Revit.

cheers

[jon.200969]

Are shadows, in the real world, actually lighter when farther away from the human eye?

Or--do the architects just "want the drawing to look that way" ?Very true, but when you go outside and look at a building you aren't seeing it in pure elevation like you are on paper. You're seeing it with the benefits of of depth perception, perspective and context. So yes, graying out building elements beyond in elevations is certainly a visualization technique that architects use.

[jon.200969]

I can make portions of a building elevation recede into the distance by a variety of ways, virtually all are more or less manual in some way. View Overrides, use of view filters, etc. are my preferred methodsThanks. I'll look at those. Any specific tips to the original question of shadows?


The ability to change a floor plan, and KNOW the elevations, sections, door and window schedules, finish plans, etc. changed is a huge improvement over AutoCAD, and Architectural Desktop. Being able to see the Structural system, and MEP systems in my model in 3D is an even larger leap forward.I absolutely agree. This is my first Revit project and certainly there's a learning curve, but those benefits are very tangible and exciting for sure. I'm just trying to make the transition from 15+ yrs of CAD drafting where the paper output was expected to read a certain way.

[cliff collins]

As a test, try using a 3D view, and orient the view to and elevation.
Then render the view, and see how Revit renders objects in the foreground, and ones which are farther away.

cheers

[jon.200969]

Cliff, so you mean as a perspecive view? Or is there a way to turn off perspective in a 3D view?

[cliff collins]

Yes, a camera view--oriented to an elevation.

This will give a bit of "one-point perspective", and not a true 2D flat elevation--
but I'm just interested in how this would render the shadows on the foreground and receeding objects which are farther away.

The conventions we use for drawings are ancient, from drafting traditions which were the norm prior to 3D models becoming the standard. So-- a bit of one-point perspective may be "OK"--even though it's not a "traditional 2D flat elevation"--I know it's a bit of a hard sell
to older architects who came up drafting by hand, and in Cad ( myself included )
but the reality is we never experience a building in a truly flat 2D view anyway, so why use
the old/outdated 2D drafting techniques? BIM changes everything.

Edit: I attached a quick sample.

cheers