Building Elevations Looking Flat

[TerribleTim]

Ok gang, I know this has been a deeply debated topic, but here I am.

I did a lot of internet searching and found lots of information on setting up the "Filter Method" to help make the elevations look less "flat". I even started trying to put it into use. That's where things went drastically wrong. I set up filters and then implemented them in the North Elevation. But what do I do when I turn the corner and I'm seeing the end of a wall in the West Elevation that is filtered for the North Elevation and I need it filtered something different in this elevation?

This method seemed to work great as long as I only had one elevation. :?

[Dimitri Harvalias]

For those who aren't satisfied with the results they get get by default, I'm a big fan of the 'layered approach' to achieving view depth.
Duplicate elevation views (make sure you establish a logical naming convention) and alter view depths to accommodate what you want in foreground, middle ground and background.
Create view templates for each of these view types. Generally these view templates will override all projection lines to a specific line weight and shade of gray.
Stack the views on sheets, background first, then middle ground then foreground. Quick, simple, easy to manage and predictable. I also use this approach for building sections where distant model elements want to be shown but not over power the elements cut in the section.
The only better solution is to get past orthographic views and start presenting 'elevations' as 3D annotated views. Let sections and detail views handle dimensional information generally shown on traditional elevations.
Works for me. Your results may vary ;)

[irneb]

If you only need 2 layers in this then you can always set one of the views as an underlay to the other. That way you've only got one view on your sheet - a bit simpler to manage. But with the multiple layered approach you've got lots more control - and you can even extend it much further for a more complex building. Just a note, set the view's Depth Clipping = Clip without line. Otherwise you get lines where you don't expect them on stuff like diagonal walls.

It would have been nice to have some setting in especially elevations / sections (but plans should work too) where the view range's View Depth has 3 or so levels, each relating to a pre-set thinning of lines (e.g. say level 2 = 2 pen numbers down, level 3 = 4 pen numbers down from original), and possibly something like a half-toning check. But that's just a wish, won't hold my breath for ADesk to wake up.

Edit: Sorry Elev/Sections don't allow underlays ... silly really! Why oh why did they actually remove that from the coding? Yet another set of extra codes to remove a feature which would have been useful.

[MikeJarosz]

I posted this on the Autodesk subscription discussion site, but I think more users will see it here. Rather than propose a workaround for lineweights in Revit elevations, I propose an algorithm that Autodesk could implement within Revit.


"Here is a simple algorithm that Autodesk could implement if they wanted to.


1.The eye point and the object point of a view is known, even if only internally
2.Therefore, the distance from the eyepoint to the centroid of any object can be calculated
3.A sliding table of linewights can be created based on the distance from the eyepoint
4.Lineweights in the view are looked up in the table and displayed based on the distance from the eyepoint"

[lbjorn]

A thought I have had regarding an Autodesk response to the depth issue with elevations would be an elevation view depth that had two clip ranges (somewhat similar to the double boundaried nature of a crop region with annotation crop), with the first being primary range and the far clip being the secondary range. The secondary clip range could have even some simple options such as a sliding scale of tone percentage like the halftone settings. Setting the secondary range to a 50% or 75% tone display would instantly imply a depth. I believe that even this small step would add a lot of depth, especially if you could have different silhouette overrides for the primary and secondary ranges.

Pipe dream, yes. But we have to start putting our ideas out there somewhere so why not here?

[patricks]

Shadows typically work for us on details that look especially flat.

[lbjorn]

Yes, I agree. We have started using shadows as well....