Disappearing grid lines and 2D vs 3D

[Exar Kun]

I have a problem with grid lines not appearing on a level. They are present on the ground floor but not on the first. It is only 3 of the grid lines that are affected - others that are locked to these three in the ground floor are still visible in the first floor.

Now, what are 3D grid lines and how do they differ from 2D grids? With the afforementioned problem, there are 5 grid lines on the ground floor in that particular direction. They are locked to each other. When I get to the first floor, 3 of these have disappeared and of the other two, one is 2D and the other 3D and they don't seem to want to lock to each other. I'm quite confused. The file is an updated one from 6.1.

TIA.

[clarkitekt]

Revit 7.0 help file has a good description of the 3d/2d toggle here. Search for "datum extents and visibility"

[beegee]

If you cut a section perpendicular to the 5 Ground Level datum, you may be able to see a problem, such as a few of them not intersecting the upper level ? ( if the datum planes do not intersect the view plane, they are not visible in that view )

Basically 3D datum will change globally in all views and 2D datum are view specific with respect to their extents.

[Exar Kun]

OK, thanks for the explanation.

Unfortunately it hasn't solved my problem. I have checked the existing sections and also drawn new ones and the grid lines do intersect the upper level. Also, the grid lines are once again visible on the roof plan. I have no scope boxes in project.

In what may be a related problem, I've also noticed that some grid lines are affected by crop boxes whilst others are not. There seems to be no pattern to this. A crop box may affect the visibility of one horizontal grid line but not the others.

Any suggestions or should I mail the file to Revit support? (if so what's the address? - sorry for the silly question). :)

[Mr Spot]

This is a common problem with files upgraded from version 6.1 to 7.0.

Time must be taken once the file is upgraded to go in and physically set the 3d extents of all your levels and grids. This can only be done by create new sections (all existing views are automatically set to 2d extents) which must be exactly perpendicular to the grids and levels in order to have the 3d icon appear on selection of the level or grid. If this icon appears, then you are actually changing the 3d extents of the level/grid, if not then changes will not effect any other new views.

So once you have setup each of these sections, you can physically drag the end points of the grids to intersect levels you wish them to show on.

HTH. Basically saying the same thing as BG, just explaining it differently

[jsadams2]

First of all, release 7 is the best thing since sliced bread. Kudos to the Revit team for an outstanding upgrade. I am somewhat perplexed that I am not finding more frustration in the forums over this topic. Am I the only one that finds this new 2d/3d feature for grids and levels extremely frustrating?? I am hoping that I am, because that will mean that I have missed something simple that one of you kind and benevolant sages will point out that will make my frustrations go away. If not, I'm hosed.

Before I get into my example, I should preface this by saying that I do big boxes, and perhaps I could better appreciate it if I did alot of multistory work. Call me what you will, but I'd prefer to keep the dumb old 2d levels and grids - you set them once in each view and forget about them. I am not saying that I refuse to embrace the bold new world of 3d levels/grids, It just seems that the confusion they can cause (i.e. disappearing and reappearing - atleast, I understand why that happens now) vs. the very small amount of usefulness they provide (OK, I can adjust their position in one elevation only and know that all other elevations will match, but, since I want the column line to stop just below the bubble and not go through my elevation, I have to go through and clicky, clicky, toggle the bottom to 2d lest I loose the grids in my plans, oops, then I have to do the same thing in all the elevations).

Now for the hypothetical example. Lets say that I start a new file using the out of the box version 7 default template. I lay out my first two column grids (x and y orientation), I then have to select each of them and turn the 3d to 2d on both ends. Then I have to go into every other plan view and all elevation views and set each grid and level I see to 2d. Now, if I copy the grids, it seems that the current setting in all views gets copied with it. This is OK, as I could set up a template with this already done. However, if I draw any grids or levels from scratch, the settings go back to the default 3d, and I have to go into each view and toggle both ends to 2d. Did I mention that I tend to have a lot of column lines in my buildings? Unless I am missing something (and, again, I hope that I am), I'd just like to turn this feature off, or be able to select multiple grids or levels and set these toggles in the properties.

Am I really the only one who would rather do without this feature? Pardon my ramblings, but we have had a lot of confusion in our office over this.

[Wes Macaulay]

Yeah - I'm not convinced on the whole 2D/3D grid/level thing. People don't expect that how far you've dragged a grid graphic will have any connection to the fact that the grid isn't showing in a section because the 3D extents weren't dragged far enough to be "seen" by the section.

Why not just leave all this to scope boxes? The 2D/3D thing - clicking, toggling mode, dragging, toggling mode - takes more time to set up levels and grids than before. It IS confusing!

IMO anyway. What do the rest of ya think?

[Exar Kun]

I absolutely agree with you. So far they have proven more trouble than they are worth for us and still things aren't working out quite right in the example I gave above. Some grid lines, for some reason, get cropped by crop boxes whilst adjacent ones don't. Whether they all be 2D or not. It's very confusing. I was happy adjusting them seperately in each view so if there were an option to simply make all grid lines 2D then I'd be happy.

[Steve_Stafford]

The Good: (grid lines)
I think the 2D/3D aspect of grid lines is welcome and fairly easy to grasp. Each Grid can be used to adjust all perpendicular views at the same time when you use their 3D feature. Toggle it off and you can have a different condition for individual views. The tricky part is if you inadvertantly propogate settings to a view you didn't really want to change. Takes a little planning if you have a great many views before you arbitrarily propogate extents to all the views offered.

The Bad: (Levels)
Now where I part company with the 2D/3D features is for levels. If you take two opposite views, North/South, adjust the left hand side of the North view, you have just adjusted the right hand side of the South view. Makes sense literally but it is not what we really want to have happen.

I believe the default behavior of levels needs to be 2D, view specific. The only way the 3D feature can work is if opposite views change the "same" end of the level. By the same I mean, the tail or the head respectively in either view. That's the fuzzy part, the North elevation's tail is South's Head.

[amended]...or...if levels 3D extents only affected elevations that were parallel and facing the same direction it would work. Level annotation would have common head and tail orientation and could propogate predictably.

The way it works now you get a "dog chasing its tail". Adjust the North, see the South is wrong, adjust it, see the North is now wrong, adjust...freak out and run screaming into the night! ;-) (okay maybe a little exaggeration)

[Joef]

I agree totally. The 3d levels thing is time consuming and unnecessary. I am now spending time going around clicking the 3d to 2d thingies all over my elevations. It should at least be default 2D.