Greatest Fallacy of Revit

[brett.holverstott]

Revit has gone through great pains to banish the concept of layers. It has invented a hundred work-around methods for dealing with every possible scenario in which layers come in useful - but these work-arounds fail miserably to capture the simplicity and versatility of layers. Consider the following:

Visibility - With layers, you can turn on and off any layer for any reason in any scenario. In Revit, to turn on or off different portions of the model, you must do it by category or by element. So you can erase all walls or all windows. Unfortunately, you can't control what category a particular wall or window belongs to, so you must hide each manually. And to see your hidden geometry to unhide it, you must show ALL hidden geometry, and then carefully pick out that one element you hid.

Design Options - This tool, developed by Revit to allow you to create different design options is cumbersome and my firm avoids it at all costs.

Phases - With layers, you can create a layer for any phase of the project, each with their own graphic settings, and each turned on or off at will. With Revit, you can create phases, but displaying your phases must obey certain rules. For instance, you must assign a "current" phase and then you can create a display setting that shows previous, current, or subsequent phases - but those display settings share display styles, so you cannot arbitrarily assign unique graphic styles to every phase. This is incredibly frustrating when trying to match your firms' graphic standards.

GUI - With layers, you can assign a GUI display style that allows you to differentiate each layer in the interface. In Revit, you can change the display settings of objects by category or object only. For phases, I eventually found a work-around method to assign different colors to different project phases, and then print using "black-lines" to cancel out the color.

Wouldn't the world just be better off with layers? Layers for design phases, layers for design options, layers for arbitrarily assigned sets of objects... hundreds of layers, thousands of layers, millions and billions and trillions of layers!!! Please Revit, give us back the simple and effective device!!!

Brett - SABArchitects

[cliff collins]

Hi Brett,

Welcome to the Revit world! Sounds like another case of a die-hard CADD user being forced to use Revit, begrudgingly?

Save yourself some grief. Check into Worksets. Filters. View Templates. These are ways you can control visibility and organize model elements in Revit.

Layers in CADD works great for managing LINES and BLOCKS. Not 3D model elements.

Revit is BIM--Modeling - vs - Drawing Lines in CADD.

Phases in Revit do AUTOMATICALLY what you have to manually do in CADD. Existing, Demo and New are all automatically graphically correct in Revit, and there is a "time factor"--it knows chronological order of events. Good luck doing that in CADD.

"Unfortunately, you can't control what category a particular wall or window belongs to, so you must hide each manually"---- ????? Windows fall neatly into the Windows Category under VG>Model Categories. Check/Uncheck it and they all are turned on/off.

In Revit 2013, check out "Selection Sets". Nice new feature.

Check out Object Styles for control of line styles, weights, patterns, for projection, cut, materials, color, etc. Very powerful. Set up Object Styles, create View Templates, apply View Templates to your views--instant "Cadd Standards". Nice looking drawings, very consistent among all users. Try that in CADD.

Design Options work great once you understand them--and use them for their intended purpose, which is--studying various design options until a decision is made, when they are accepted back into the Main Model.

GUI--Revit should be used with a white background. Throw out your old CADD ways of using colors--which was made for plotting/pens/lineweights. In Revit, it is WYSIWYG ( what you see is what you get) like hundreds of other programs other than AutoCad. ( Word, Adobe, etc.)

Keep an open mind, and try to throw out your old ways of thinking about Cadd. It will save you a lot of pain.

cheers

[Alfredo Medina]

Simple solution: return to AutoCAD, where you can have trillions of layers.
Yikes.. I've just got a headache... :(

[brett.holverstott]

Thanks for the reply, Cliff. A few points:

-- If I want to differentiate partial height walls from full height walls, I can't assign unique layer for them, so I must control the cut plane of the view to show or hide them. If, however, I want to show things that are below that cut plane while hiding partial height walls, I can't, because it is inflexible. If I hide my partial height walls manually, then to re-show them, I must unhide EVERYTHING in the drawing and manually pick them out. How is that better than having the freedom to assign any object to any layer at any time for any reason with the ability to unhide it without showing all other hidden geometry?

--The way that graphic styles are cross-referenced in phases is very, very bad. And the related issue of using colors to represent different phases in the GUI - if you use lineweights to differentiate phases, and you are actually trying to work in the model, you need to turn off lineweights in order to properly see what you are snapping to. And if you turn off lineweights then you need some other dimension (i.e. color) to differentiate between the phases while working in the GUI. This is why colors were invented as a GUI element - so that lineweights do not interfere with your ability to construct geometry.

I will welcome some other thoughts, but there is no conceptual reason why 3D geometry cannot be controlled by layers in the same way that 2D geometry can. Objects in Revit need to be smart, a window needs to know it is a window. But it can know it is a window and reside on a layer.

[Alfredo Medina]

What if you did not know the "layers" system before? Would you be still asking for "layers" in Revit and proposing that as the solution to all the problems?
Why "blue car" in English is said "carro azul" in Spanish, and not "azul carro"? why is the order of noun and adjective reversed?
Different systems, different rules. New software, new rules.

[MikeJarosz]

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

[cliff collins]

"Thanks for the reply, Cliff. A few points:

-- If I want to differentiate partial height walls from full height walls,"

Use Filters.

"I can't assign unique layer for them, so I must control the cut plane of the view to show or hide them. If, however, I want to show things that are below that cut plane while hiding partial height walls, I can't, because it is inflexible."

Use a Plan Region

"If I hide my partial height walls manually, then to re-show them, I must unhide EVERYTHING in the drawing and manually pick them out. How is that better than having the freedom to assign any object to any layer at any time for any reason with the ability to unhide it without showing all other hidden geometry?"

Again, use Filters and View Templates, and/or Worksets.

"The way that graphic styles are cross-referenced in phases is very, very bad. And the related issue of using colors to represent different phases in the GUI - if you use lineweights to differentiate phases, and you are actually trying to work in the model, you need to turn off lineweights in order to properly see what you are snapping to. And if you turn off lineweights then you need some other dimension (i.e. color) to differentiate between the phases while working in the GUI. This is why colors were invented as a GUI element - so that lineweights do not interfere with your ability to construct geometry."

Use Graphic Overrides for Phases--you can use colors if you must, but it is not advised or necessary.

"I will welcome some other thoughts, but there is no conceptual reason why 3D geometry cannot be controlled by layers in the same way that 2D geometry can. Objects in Revit need to be smart, a window needs to know it is a window. But it can know it is a window and reside on a layer."

The window resides on a Workset. Worksets allow multiple users to EDIT THE SAME FILE. Try that in Cadd. The window's visibility is controlled by the use of Visibility/Graphics, View templates and Filters.

Keep going. Try to lose the Cadd/layers mentality, and instead think about Worksets, Filters, View templates, Phases ( for renovation work ), Linked Models, and more importantly--that you are modeling a virtual building in 3D, and that the elements in the model have intelligent information in them which is useful to all the team members. This is the power of BIM and makes it superior to Cadd. Use the model for clash detection. Learn about Navisworks and bringing all the flavors of Revit models ( Arch, Interiors,MEP,Structural ) into NW for 4D scheduling and clash detection. Populate your model(s) with Information so it can be used downstream by the GC/CM and Owner. Have GoToMeetings with the BIM on screen for team collaboration. Welcome to the BIM world, bye bye 2D Cadd World! ( By the way, this isn't new--Revit was released in 1999!!!)

[damon.sidel]

Hi, Brett. I won't respond to all your items, but I really believe that this is indeed a case of familiarity, not what system is better. Take an Autocad expert and throw them into Revit and everything will be harder for quite some time. Take a Revit expert and throw them into Autocad and everything will seem tedious and repetitive for quite some time. That said, listen to Cliff: keep an open mind and never equate anything in Revit with Autocad.


Thanks for the reply, Cliff. A few points:
If I hide my partial height walls manually, then to re-show them, I must unhide EVERYTHING in the drawing and manually pick them out. How is that better than having the freedom to assign any object to any layer at any time for any reason with the ability to unhide it without showing all other hidden geometry?


(Cliff beat me to a response, and filters, view templates, etc. are really powerful. But here's what I was thinking about your example.)

If I understand your question, you've hidden all partial height walls in a view (R-click > Hide in View > Elements) and want to show just one (or a few). If you don't already know about it, there is a lightbulb icon on the bottom-left of the Revit window that is the "Reveal Hidden Elements" command. Clicking on it will gray out all visible elements and show all hidden elements in red. Then you can select your hidden partial height wall, click "Unhide Element" in the ribbon, and click the lightbulb again (or the "Toggle Reveal Hidden Elements Mode" in the ribbon). It's a super-quick operation. Besides, how would you show a single partial height wall in Autocad with layers? If you have A-WALL-PRHT hidden, then you'd have to turn it on, make a special layer for the one wall, move those lines onto the new layer, and turn off A-WALL-PRHT again.

Final thought, there are certainly aspects of Revit that are frustrating (ramps STILL don't cut like stairs in plan?!), but it is so much more powerful than simple drafting. If you get stuck thinking about how much easier it would be for you (you specifically, not a general "you") to do something in Autocad, you're always going to be frustrated and have a harder time becoming proficient with Revit. Good luck. Many people find the transition from Autocad to Revit difficult. Change, even for the better, is never easy.

[antman]

For the partial height walls, the question you don't have to answer is, "Why would you need to hide them, if they are there?"

OK, now that's out of my system... If it's really that important to you to hide them, make them their own type, separate from full-height walls. Use filters to hide them. In fact, for a lot of the conditions I think you are talking about, filters are what you want.

As for layers - Subcategories! Practically identical to layers. Use them in all your loadable families! Sorry, as far as I know, they cannot be manually assigned to system families (wall, roof, floor, ceiling, stair, railing?) but any loadable family (.rfa) can. Go nuts with symbolic lines and subcategories.

Phases - sorry, still a bit mysterious to me as I've only used them briefly. I see that changing soon.

So, you want to assign a layer to a wall? OK, what layer do you want it on? A-Wall? A-Wall-Prht? What about the window sills in plan? Oh wait, it's the same object, same layer. Headers on the ceiling plan? Oh, no... This is not AutoCAD Architecture. That granular control (aka level of complexity) just isn't there (thank Revit). What I'm really trying to say is, odds are (like 99%) you will simply not be able to *exactly* match your current graphic standards. Odds are about the same that you *can* match most of your graphic standards. The rest - sometimes 'good enough' isn't as bad as it sounds. The point of construction documents is to convey design intent as clearly as possible. In my experience so far, Revit does that.

If going back to AutoCAD isn't an option for you, some advice for future posts - ranting is unlikely to get you great helpful responses. Questions along the lines of "hey, i need to accomplish xyz, how do you guys handle this?" will.

[TroyGates]

As for layers - Subcategories! Practically identical to layers. Use them in all your loadable families! Sorry, as far as I know, they cannot be manually assigned to system families (wall, roof, floor, ceiling, stair, railing?) but any loadable family (.rfa) can. Go nuts with symbolic lines and subcategories.


Oh please no, please don't get people to start using subcategories like layers. As a Revit MEP user, it is very painful to control how Arch objects look when several parts of the object are on different subcategories. If you want to hide parts of families, link them to a yes/no parameter and uncheck when you don't want to see it. But please for other users of your model, don't go crazy with subcategories.

For everything mentioned in this thread, use filters. Filters can do all of what is needed from visibility, color, line weights, etc.

[antman]

Oh please no, please don't get people to start using subcategories like layers. As a Revit MEP user, it is very painful to control how Arch objects look when several parts of the object are on different subcategories. If you want to hide parts of families, link them to a yes/no parameter and uncheck when you don't want to see it. But please for other users of your model, don't go crazy with subcategories.

For everything mentioned in this thread, use filters. Filters can do all of what is needed from visibility, color, line weights, etc.

Oops, my bad. I forgot to add my http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SarcMark#Irony_mark key to my keyboard. .-)

[MikeJarosz]

As it happens, I received an Acad file today from a consultant. The project will be done in Revit, but this Acad file had important site data. I turned the file on edge, and the various layers had acquired z-coordinates. This file is effectively useless.

but it has layers.........

86508

[antman]

I keep telling you guys that the ATARI 2600 OS is not supported to run AutoCAD!

[jsteinhauer]

Troy,

My 2 cents:
Subcategories are great. I wouldn't go nuts with them as Anthony suggests, but they do allow for greater control over the limited number of categories Revit allows us to have. The problem with a Y/N parameter is it can't be controlled per view as a subcategory can. If its on, its on throughout the entire project. If its off, its off throughout the entire project.

Cheers,
Jeff S.

[jsteinhauer]

OP,
When you were learning AutoCad, were you ranting about how that works nothing like the drafting board? Just remember that there are a growing number of customers that are requiring BIM as part of your deliverables. Its better to learn a new system than to become obsolete. Keep breathing and eventually you'll come to the understanding in your own time as to why firms are going the route of BIM.

Cheers,
Jeff S.

[gbrowne]

I'm thinking this is a joke post...

[jsteinhauer]

gbrowne,

I think you may be correct. If you look at Brett's company's profile, the three principal's profile pictures are Larry, Curly & Moe. Either they don't take themselves seriously or we shouldn't take Brett seriously. Reminds me of another thread that got pushed to the Out There Forums section. If this company is a fake, the owner of the website might want to take it down quickly. I'm sure the people that designed the projects profiled on this website would not be happy, again if this website is a fake.

Cheers,
Jeff S.

http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?126966-The-Future-of-Revit

[Alfredo Medina]

If you scroll down in the profiles page of that company's website, you will see the 3 principals' photographs, as the three stooges. Seriously.

Edit: oh, Jeff, I see that you had already discovered that. Strange, is it not?

[MikeJarosz]

Give Brett some respect. SABA Architects are in Seattle, and after searching the usual sources, I think this guy is legit. BTW, there is a SABA Architect in Australia, too.

[cliff collins]

Trolls or not, I'll still throw this in the ring!

http://www.augi.com/library/a-picture-is-worth-1000-uses

[cdatechguy]

If you like Layers....then get ArchiCAD....

[brett.holverstott]

Hello all,

Thanks for all the input. I enjoyed ranting but I am also enjoying the useful feedback for other work-arounds that might achieve my goals. A common misconception is that I must be a long-time dedicated CAD user, which I am not. That said, I've been using Revit for over a year primarily in TI projects and had to deal with the (perhaps misconceived) frustrations of matching our drawings to our prior CAD graphic standards. And these are issues that we've grappled with and even called in expert professionals that have been unable to resolve for us.

However - I'm not sure why the conversation had to devolve (as often happens on the internet) into a questioning of my position or belittling of my firm. I have three wonderful principles at SABA who (yes it is amazing) have a sense of humor and is appreciated by our clients. Please try to keep it together with a respectful atmosphere and act like you would if you were conversing with someone face to face. Or else I will poke your eyes and bop you on the head. :)

[jsteinhauer]

However - I'm not sure why the conversation had to devolve (as often happens on the internet) into a questioning of my position or belittling of my firm. I have three wonderful principles at SABA who (yes it is amazing) have a sense of humor and is appreciated by our clients. Please try to keep it together with a respectful atmosphere and act like you would if you were conversing with someone face to face. Or else I will poke your eyes and bop you on the head. :)

Brett,
As I noted in my previous post, your OP reminded me of another person Trolling AUGI to get a reaction from hardworking knowledgeable professionals. The advice that these professionals give of their own experiences are amazing and terribly valuable. To start a thread belittling their hard work and knowledge gained through years of experience, because it doesn't work the way you want it to, is not starting off on a good foot. I and others may have viewed this as a joke or trolling, because it is your very first thread. Usually trolls have very little to offer this community, and we prefer if they go elsewhere.

Now, if you have specific questions as to how to do something within Revit, please feel free to ask, and you'll find that many people are more then willing to help you. If you're going to spend your time going on diatribes about how Revit should be more like AutoCad, please post those in the Out There forum. I strongly suggest that you review the comments by Cliff, Alfredo, Anthony and others, because they have helped me become one of the best BIM users at my firm. Learning Revit takes time. Learning how to use Revit successfully in a team environment with tight deadline schedules and even tighter budgets, takes even longer. But we are here to help you if you are willing to ask questions, and listen to our responses.

Jeff S.

[Alfredo Medina]

@brett:

I agree with Jeff. For future posts, I suggest that you ask specific questions such as "how do I control the visibility of these elements? and you post an image saying "this is how they look" and "this is how I want them to look". I guarantee you that you are going to receive several serious and good responses to your question. But if just start your posting here with the "Revit sucks" attitude, that is not going to motivate people to help you in anyway.

[MikeJarosz]

Brett:

When Jeff says we are experienced, he's not kidding. When I have a problem, this is the first place I come. Mind you, I worked for years with James Vandezande (the guy who wrote the Revit book) and I am on a first name basis with Matt Jezyk at Revit HQ, and Phil Reade (who also wrote the book.) Any of them can answer any question there is. But I choose to come here first.

I myself am a member of the team that launched the World Trade Center on Revit. At that time Acad people were laughing at us for launching so important a project on the unknown Revit. But we did, thereby giving an important boost to the credibility of Revit for big projects. Check out my posts from 2004. You will see what went on. I defended Revit almost every day on this site.

This is not a gossipy, backbiting site (like some other unmentionable sites). Unfortunately, you stumbled onto a topic that is not taken lightly here: that Acad is better than Revit.

It is not.

Mike J.

[cliff collins]

Yep. We were "nice" here. That 1st post at "those other Forums" would have generated a lot of heat!