Redundant Levels

[scottdurkee]

I inherited a company template that has two levels defined at the same elevation: "Floor Plan" at 100' and "Floor Plan- Working" also at 100'. The person who set this up is no longer here. Any guesses as to why two levels at the same elevation were created?

Please note these are not duplicated views, they are two separate Levels defined at the same elevation. In fact, in the default Building Elevation (only one is defined in the template) only "Floor Plan- Working" shows up unless I move the Elevation clipping boundary out another 95' (see attached images).

The Template also has two View Usage types "1) Printing" and "2) Presentation" - "Floor Plan" is assigned to "1) Printing" and "Floor Plan- Working" does not have a view usage set.

Would appreciate any insight into why the template has these redundant levels.

[david_peterson]

My guess is so when you use shared coordinate and someone says "Hey lets use that real elevation of 372'-4 3/8" as our base line. You can have one elevation label set up for the messed up elevations that you'll get and one with the project based elevation of 100'.
Just a thought.

[dhurtubise]

No matter what iti is... get rid of it :)
Is it the only level that has a duplicate?

[scottdurkee]

Yes, only 2 levels defined and they are redundant.

[kpaxton]

Why did he do this? Who knows! - (probably because he didn't know how to use Revit properly.) Time to move on and fix that template!

As was suggested: in the template, get rid of that extra level - in actual use, this will cause more harm and confusion as time goes on, than it will good. There are better methods to keep track of datums, relationships to real world elevations (ie 'Relocate Project'), etc.

As far as Views go, having multiple views of the same level is expected and encouraged. Having a view for "Production", one for "Working" and others is perfectly normal. You can still organize your Browser as is shown - but you may have to look at how it's being organized, check the parameters, etc...

Hope this helps!

[dbaldacchino]

Maybe he was creating job security for himself? :) I would take it off, there is no reason you should have 2 levels at the same exact location. There might be instances where you DO want 2 levels but that would be project-specific. EX: You have Buiding A and Building B and have no survey information yet. Later you want to have these buildings properly set in relation to each other. So you create a Level 1 for Bulding A and another for Building B. Your team is disciplined and puts all elements related to Building A on the appropriate level and vice versa for building B. When the survey arrives and you find there is a 2'-0" elevation difference, you move the level in question and the whole building moves accordingly.

In our template we have a level for ceilings and I don't like it because when you tag them, the height is messed up. But that's another discussion :)

[kpaxton]

Maybe he was creating job security for himself? :)
ROFL - Sounds like a quick way to LOSE your job to me! ;)


In our template we have a level for ceilings and I don't like it because when you tag them, the height is messed up. But that's another discussion :)
Ok, you've baited me Dave... WHY would your Template use a LEVEL for a ceiling.... and not just a plain ol' DATUM? :shock: :shock:

-hope all is well.

[dhurtubise]

Ok, you've baited me Dave... WHY would your Template use a LEVEL for a ceiling.... and not just a plain ol' DATUM? :shock: :shock:
Im not a big fan of that either but i've used it as few times on project where the coordination with MEP was pretty intense.
it also allows for a "very quick" way to move ceiling heights but ..... not a fan ;)

[dbaldacchino]

Hey Kyle! How's it going man??

It's not MY template dude. It's ours! And trust me, I'll delete that level soon =) Leaving a ceiling level associated with the RCP views means one has to use a spot dimension to document the ceiling heights and then tag them one more time to display the type mark (or some other parameter). If they were associated to the level that relates to the space's floor, you would tag them once to get the correct relative elevation plus the ceiling type.

Daniel, I know that for MEP it's a different question and they actually like to have levels for their plenums (let's be honest, that darn plenum is usually all they care about! Just kidding of course) but I just don't see massive advantages for Architectural.