Cannot get Grids to Propagate

[RodneyLester]

The attached model is for the top of a building I am trying layout. All I have right now is the Grid layout but I can't get all of my grids to propagate "All" of my level views.

What am I missing?

[Tom Dorner]

Rodney,

I'm not entirely sure why some of your grids are not on all levels.

The way I fixed it was to select all the grids in level 27, copy them to the clipboard and then paste into each of the other levels.

If someone else has a better understanding of the underlying problem, please chime in as if this happened to someone it will probably happen to me at some point down the line.

Thanks,

Tom

[LRaiz]

Grids in Revit are not 2d lines they are 3d datum planes. The reason you don't see them in all plans must be that in z direction some of grids are not high enough to reach cut planes of some plan views. Unfortunately Revit does not have an easy way to change 3d grid elevation extents in your case. Usually (when grids run parallel to each other) user would open a view perpendicular to a set of grids and would drag height extents. However keep in mind that a grid would not draw unless view is looking at it edge on. In your case you have a number of grids and they have individual directions, so you would have too many views to hunt through. One way to deal with the problem is probably fix vertical extents for some of grids but instead of fixing the rest delete them and recreate by copying and moving grids with previously fixed elevation extents.

I speculate that you run into your problem because you created all grids prior to creation of any physical building element. That gives a different idea of solution. When grid is created it is trying to make a reasonable guess regarding its elevation extents by making itself a bit higher/lower than all model elements that are in existence at grid creation time. After creation grids would not change their extents unless user explicitly initiates such change. Thus if you create a single wall first, make it sufficiently high (and low) and subsequently proceed with grid creation then your grids are likely to come up with good elevation extents.

HTH

[Joef]

If I change the grid from 3d to 2d does this change the grid line to a 2d datum line, thus eliminating the need for the z component to intersect the cutplane of a plan view?
If the grids depend on model elements to determine their z component then the common drafting practice of setting up ones grids prior to drafting walls and floors is a recipe for trouble as the grids will have no element with which to set the z component and thus will possibly not intersect the cut plane of plan views. Correct?
How can I determine if a grid is not appearing in a view because the z component is incorrect? I like to be able to go through a check list when determining visibility problems and this one would be hard to check.

[luigi]

Did Joe's question go answered? or is it carried to another topic?

[bowlingbrad]

What I found out, by moving the levels down, is that the grids are only view-able until 18' above level 27. The way I found to fix this is to set your levels to the right heights, then, on Level 27, trace new grids on the existing grids that don't show up at higher levels, then delete the offending grids. Tough workaround.

[bowlingbrad]

Eureka? :screwy:

Another difficult workaround. Place an elevation view target PERPENDICULAR to each grid line (or groups of grid lines). Go to that view and you'll see the grids only rise to a certain level. Drag the grips up and, voila, your grids show up in all level plans!
Whew, my brain hurts.

[luigi]

Isn't the fact that the grids not perpendicular to the elevation/section are not viewable in the elevation/section a major problem? Is factory aware of this problem????

[David Conant]

So easily stated, yet so difficult to realize. You don't really want to see what lies inside the process but here is a peek into the sausage grinder.:)
The difficult issue with regard to grids that are not perpendicular to the view is where they should be placed. Computers hate ambiguity and this condition is highly ambiguous. If grids are placed at the point where they intersect the view cut plane, they will not be at a location that is meaningful to the building since the elevation cut plane is usually outside the building perimeter and a section is placed at a point where it displays the interior the best. Placing them at the point where they intersect the building skin is little better since there is usually nothing they control at the very face of the building. We could try to find an intersecting grid, but that may not be a meaningful location either and it is not clear which grid is the most meaningful one.
To do this effectively, we need a set of rules that can be applied consistently and that result in locations that have actual meaning to the project.. Look through your existing projects and try to formulate how and why you would display these if you did not have Revit, when you would show them and when not. Find graphic evidence rather than theoretical desires.
Remember, this will be on the test.

[bowlingbrad]

Thanks David!

Could grid planes be viewable in 3d? This way we could grab the grips and stretch as needed?

[luigi]

David, you are correct. I've reacted to finally realizing how the 2d/3d grid work and I thought it was so easy to just go to elevation/section to stretch the 3d grid to cover the various levels, as I didn't see them in elevation/section, I asked myself why? Then I couldn't figure out how to help the guy's problem....


the grid in 3d view thought is intriguing, but I would assume it may be graphically difficult? maybe not?


PS, no theories here, I am a grounded guy... :)

[bowlingbrad]

3D grids shouldn't be any more difficult than reference planes. Right David? We just need those frisky little grips to show up :-D

[bowlingbrad]

Eureka #2!

Use a scope box! Place a scope box on the bottom floor with a height at least to the top level. Select all instances of grid lines and select the scope box from the grid properties.