Initial Component Orientation - True North View

[dkoch]

I have a project team that has a project for an addition to an existing building. Due to site constraints, the addition's main orientation is rotated 19 degrees from that of the original building. The project has been set up with the addition parallel to project north, and true north has been rotated to align with the existing building. There is also renovation work in the existing building.

Plan and ceiling plan views have been created, with those showing the addition set to an orientation of project north and those showing the existing building set to true north. All is well and things show as expected. The team has created a ceiling-hosted generic family (for cubicle curtain track), which inserts as expected in the project north views. But when it is inserted in a true north view, the initial orientation aligns with project north, not true north, so the tracks are rotated 19 degrees from the ceiling grid and surrounding partitions. After placement, the track can be aligned or rotated, but the team would prefer that the initial orientation would align with the view.

Is that just the way families hosted to a ceiling (or a floor) work, or are they (and I) missing a setting that would allow the initial placement to align with the view orientation?

[Alfredo Medina]

If possible, make a new version of that family, but face-based, not ceiling-based.

[Overconstrained]

You can try using SPACEBAR to align the component with an object in the correct orientation before placing it.

[dkoch]

If possible, make a new version of that family, but face-based, not ceiling-based.

That works, but then getting the face-based family to orient horizontally takes an extra click (the default seems to be vertical, and it appears to be willing to attach to a grid line, which took me by surprise). Since the content is already created, I suspect the project team will live with rotating/aligning after placement.


You can try using SPACEBAR to align the component with an object in the correct orientation before placing it.

The ceiling-based generic model did not respond to using the spacebar to try to re-align the content with nearby objects prior to placement.

[Alfredo Medina]

That works, but then getting the face-based family to orient horizontally takes an extra click ...

An extra click? What about the space bar?

[dkoch]

An extra click? What about the space bar?

The space bar did not change the orientation for me. When adding the face-based component, the initial placement option always seems to be "Place on Vertical Face". 87846
Clicking on "Place on Face" allows it to be parallel to the plane of the ceiling. Having to do this each time is not that big of a deal, but you have to be aware of it. Even if I start from a component that is already parallel to the ceiling, right click and choose Create Similar, it still defaults to vertical face. If I had been near a Wall or other item with a vertical face, I would have understood what was happening sooner. But I was in the middle of a room, with no nearby vertical items, and did not expect that a grid line in a ceiling would "generate" a vertical face on which something could be placed.

I would expect that an object intended to be placed on a ceiling would just align with the ceiling, which is what ceiling-based components do. I realize that going to a face-based family means losing that; it is just a shame that the ceiling-based families come in aligned to project north, even when the view is set to true north. I suppose if true north were being used as intended (so that the site plan has north straight up, with project north and the building rotated, and you were, for some reason, placing ceiling-based components in that view), then I would want this behavior.

So how do others handle buildings with portions that have the primary axes rotated from other portions of the building. In AutoCAD, I would set up a UCS for any parts that are not aligned with the WCS X- and Y-axes. Is there an equivalent to that in Revit? What if there were three different orientations?

[patricks]

I would not have set up the project with True North used in that manner. True North should be reserved for what it actually is, according to your survey. Project North can be used for the orientation of your addition project. Then set up working/sketch views used for placing existing objects (or document views if the existing building is being shown by itself with new work in it), and simply rotate the crop region by 19° to make it orthogonal on your sheets.

Not sure if that method would affect initial placement of your families, but it's how I would have set up the project. Light fixtures also do not respond to space bar rotation during initial placement, and it's a minor annoyance, but I don't worry about it too much. I just place one, rotate and get it into position (space bar DOES work for rotating after placement), and then copy it around. I would do the same with CCT's.

[Alfredo Medina]

I agree with Patricks. In the original post, David wrote "true North has been rotated to align with the existing building". Well, then, that is not the True North, then, but just another "north" made-up for orientation of the building. It seems to me that you could handle the two buildings in separate files, each with its own project North, easy to work with. Then, use True North in the host file if you need to, but with the real orientation.

[cliff collins]

Ditto Alf and Patricks!

[Alfredo Medina]

... Light fixtures also do not respond to space bar rotation during initial placement, and it's a minor annoyance, but I don't worry about it too much. ...

That's probably the ceiling-based fixtures. But not necessarily any light fixture family with other kind of host; light fixtures can respond to the space bar rotation.

Most families that are wall-based, ceiling-based, roof-based, floor-based, could be done simply as face-based, instead, to avoid limitations. Face-based, my favorite host.

[MikeJarosz]

Face-based, my favorite host.

I agree. We do many courtrooms that are totally covered in elaborate wood panelling. Most of our panelling is done as casework. I can't count how many lighting manufacturer's fixture families won't work when the host is casework rather than walls.

On the other hand, I have seen toilets stick to walls and ceilings! Explain that to your boss.

[patricks]

I converted our toilet families to wall-hosted so that I didn't have to deal with having toilets all over a project with variable distances away from the rear wall. Tank, flush-valve, floor mounted, they're all still wall hosted.

[cliff collins]

Do your MEP consultants use Revit? If so, that's going to be a nightmare.

[patricks]

Do your MEP consultants use Revit? If so, that's going to be a nightmare.

Yes they do, and apparently it's not because they use their own plumbing fixture families.