Revit Rendering as part of Construction documents

[rudolfweyers346383]

Is anybody using Renderings as part of their Construction Documents, as a added feature to show the design ideas better?

[Alfredo Medina]

In the architectural offices where I have worked, there was always a big rendering (exterior perspective) of the building on the first sheet of the construction documents set; that was the standard layout for our cover sheets. Is that what you are referring to?, or some other type of rendering to illustrate something else?

[josh.made4worship]

Like Alfredo said, I have seen this as well. However, related to your question as well, I have also seen people using hidden line, and shaded 3D sections or other views to better illustrate a part of the building to the contractor. I have even seen text notes etc. on these views. I think this will become more common place in the near future as firms start realize that there is more value in BIM than just producing a faster 2D set of documents. We need to harness the power of our BIM model and let the contractor see some of that so he can more quickly understand the building.

[twiceroadsfool]

I put perspectives on everyone of my Elevation sheets, when im on a project. Whether or not they are shaded/realistic/rendered is more a repro issue, than anything else. I tend to lean towards hidden line, just because inevitably itll get photocopied in to looking like garbage.

But yeah, i use them whenever im on a job. ;)

[jeffh]

My office used to use annotated photos sometimes. We had one particular gate detail we liked to use that would always get done wrong (I know it is a gate...what could go wrong? but I digress) We finally had a project where it was done exactly right. We took multiple photos and then used those photos with annotation in our CD sets. We had far fewer problems with that gate detail after that.

So I could see how rednerings could be used in different circumstances.

[bryanl]

We have started using 3D details in our CD sets and we have also been placing interior 3D views of rooms we have interior elevations of. At the end of our drawing sets we include an axons of the exterior of the building.

[greg.mcdowell]

Those are nice looking details.

My only wish is to be able to keynote in 3D. Until that happens I, sadly, can't support it at our office.

[rudolfweyers346383]

Here is what I was thinking of. Will it be helpful for the contractor or not?

[Elmo]

Interesting way of utilizing a rendering Rudolf. Personally haven't seen any architect using renderings for that kind of view, they focused on a standard hidden line or shaded view.

[rudolfweyers346383]

My thoughts was to have a image as near as possible to reality for the builder to have a more than clear understanding of what is required. This will mainly be used on the Finishes Layout Drawings.

[cliff collins]

I like the visual impact, and that it really helps explain things in 3D.

However, from a time/fee/efficiency standpoint, I see some disadvantages:

When changes are made, you must re-render, re-import the image(s) and then revise all the "un-smart" annotations. Imagine how much time this could take on a large job with hundereds of sheets/views.

I'm wishing for a way to Keynote or Tag with smart annotations in a perspective/3D view---if we had that ability, then I would definitely use the 3D views in construction drawings.

cheers

[patricks]

We have started using 3D details in our CD sets and we have also been placing interior 3D views of rooms we have interior elevations of. At the end of our drawing sets we include an axons of the exterior of the building.

May I ask how you set those up?

[bryanm]

May I ask how you set those up?

Patrick,

I work in the same office with BryanL and worked on these details, also.

First we created the Scupper Boxes, openings, and flashings as a family. Loaded into project, and placed them on a wall at 100' below 0'-0" for our 3d views because if you set up a 3d view on your actual model the Scupper location may change and you'll be looking at empty space. Also, in the scupper family for each piece (screen, box, opening) we gave a visibility parameter.

Once you get the component placed, you go to 3d View and pick the axon you want from the 3d cube. Push/pull the section box to the get the desired view. Then you can duplicate with detailing this 3d View and push/pull the section box appropriately for the new view.

The first two views are of the exact same thing just with opposite orientation and pieces either hidden in view or not. For the third View we had a different gutter so I went through the same procedures as mentioned above. We did model some of the little things in place like the sealant and backer rods, and roofing layers but thats only because we don't typically get that detailed on the building model because of the way things change during the phases of a project.

The scupper family did give us some problems during its redesign stage because of the line overrides that we used to get the hidden lines shown in the first view. When we edited the scupper family and reloaded into project it would override the line work that we had done. So we did have to go back and re-hidden line some things but I think the outcome makes for a very clear picture and documentation and is definitely worth it.

We had to model the scupper anyway, and it exists as a 3d object in the model, why not show it and use it.

[sbrown]

Bryan, you might look for Aaron suggestion about using a phase previous to your project for these typical 3d details basically you create a "annotation" phase and a demo phase prior to your exisitng phase, create views of this early phase where you create your typical 3d details, then demo them so in your "real" phases you don't see them.

[twiceroadsfool]

What Scott said. Although, for THAT example, i would do the detail AT the actual Scupper in the project, since the roof slopes may change, and i want the smart Slope Tags to read the actual roof slopes.

But, for when we need to model things in an exploded axon, or "3D legend" type view, we do the following. Our template has these Phases:

Annot1
Annot2
AnnotDemo
Existing
Phase1
Phase2

Existing Conditions are (obviously) modeled on Existing. Annot1 And Annot2 are for modeling things we want to show live, in 3D or a regular Legend view (Revit Legends suck). Everything Modeled in Annot1 or Annot2 gets demolished in AnnotDemo. We have one view solely for this, so its mindless. You go to the view, if you see something not demolished, you demolish it.

Since everything is demolished before existing, it doesnt schedule, doesnt quantify, doesnt affect the project, doesnt join, etc.

The only thing that trips up the system is a view with NO Phase Filter on it (which shouldnt be used), or any third part add ons that dont respect Revit Phasing.

[patricks]

Patrick,

I work in the same office with BryanL and worked on these details, also.

First we created the Scupper Boxes, openings, and flashings as a family. Loaded into project, and placed them on a wall at 100' below 0'-0" for our 3d views because if you set up a 3d view on your actual model the Scupper location may change and you'll be looking at empty space. Also, in the scupper family for each piece (screen, box, opening) we gave a visibility parameter.

Once you get the component placed, you go to 3d View and pick the axon you want from the 3d cube. Push/pull the section box to the get the desired view. Then you can duplicate with detailing this 3d View and push/pull the section box appropriately for the new view.

The first two views are of the exact same thing just with opposite orientation and pieces either hidden in view or not. For the third View we had a different gutter so I went through the same procedures as mentioned above. We did model some of the little things in place like the sealant and backer rods, and roofing layers but thats only because we don't typically get that detailed on the building model because of the way things change during the phases of a project.

The scupper family did give us some problems during its redesign stage because of the line overrides that we used to get the hidden lines shown in the first view. When we edited the scupper family and reloaded into project it would override the line work that we had done. So we did have to go back and re-hidden line some things but I think the outcome makes for a very clear picture and documentation and is definitely worth it.

We had to model the scupper anyway, and it exists as a 3d object in the model, why not show it and use it.

What about the things like counterflashings, ledger angle, etc? Did you model all of that? I'm just wondering because I just came off of a project where I did 2 sheets full of EXTREMELY detailed 2D roof section details (3 different scupper details included), which came out really nice, but I used tons of detail components, filled regions, and lines. Those 3D details look awesome, but I can't imagine trying to draft the stuff at oblique angles to get it to look correct in the axon view.

[bryanm]

Patrick,

For those 3d Views of the Scuppers and Gutter everything is basically modeled in place (i.e extrusions or sweeps) except the scupper box, flashing, and gutter. Because we modeled them in a different location than on the building it seemed the easiest and quickest way to do it. Things like the angle, backer rods and sealant are just simple extrusions, which can be modeled in a matter of minutes.

Basically since we have all this modeling software it just makes it so much easy for us as designers and production staff to use the 3d models we have, rather than try to convey the design intent with 2d data. That is not to say 2d data doesn't have it uses (especially in an extremely limited budget or time deadline). But it can almost always be supplemented with 3d data, if there's a little extra work then so be it, if it conveys the design intent better.

[Revitaoist]

I put a 3d perspective on the title sheet set to hidden line. Any changes are updated in real time without the need to re-render, and it turns out nice when photocopied.

[wmullett]

This scupper detailing appears to be a lot of work to do for just one model but is very well done. I think I would do this in a linked model that I could use in other projects and just use linked by view.

[twiceroadsfool]

This scupper detailing appears to be a lot of work to do for just one model but is very well done. I think I would do this in a linked model that I could use in other projects and just use linked by view.

You can do that, but youre either going to have to do it in a non-model-specific place (previous phase), or random components in your model will be a Link. You still have to HAVE the object and the view, to have it set to By Linked View.

[bryanm]

Twiceroads,

I do like the idea of the phasing but to get the items to be visible and not be visible. But what happens (in the case of our scupper detail) if the wall gets deleted from the project. Could you elaborate a little more about your technique so I can get my mind around it. I want to try and do this the way you are explaining it but am not 100% clear about your technique.

thanks

[twiceroadsfool]

Dont misunderstand what i was saying, theres two DIFFERENT solutions im talking about:

1. Annotation Phasing, as i mentioned. in this case, the scupper in the detail isnt on your building at all. it "occurs in the past" and is demolished before your project starts. That way its a real model, but doesnt have the issues of "movement," etc, that occurs in the project.

However, i PERSONALLY wouldnt do THAT in this case. It is a specific part of the project.

2. I would have it live, off the scupper modeled on the wall in the project. What happens if the wall gets deleted? Well, the scupper gets deleted too! I mean, when you have an elevation of an interior wall thats true as well, right? The wall moves, you move the elevation?

I would never move in the direction of non-specific details, just because things move, unless its something that doesnt need a modeled detail anyway, like a location-non-specific-standard-generic detail.

[wmullett]

twice.... did you think about linking the detail model in a Design Option? That works for me.