Dashed footings-will my idea work?

[The Sweg]

I'm new to Revit and trying to set up an office template with wall families that we will use often. I have read many discussions here about different ways to get footers to be dashed lines in plan view but I haven't heard this one yet, and I'm wondering if anyone out there knows if this will work or not. I have created a simple wall using the default 12" Concrete that is OTB, and attached a 8" x 20" rectangle wall sweep to the bottom. It draws the footer automatically when drawing the wall; moves with the wall and shows up just like I want in 3D and elevations/sections--however and this is the issue many are having--I can't get the footer (sweep) to show up at all in plan view, let alone making the footer show up dashed. Is there a view setting I haven't found yet or is this impossible. I appreciate any help you could give!

I've attached a drawing with my little creation if this helps.

[jarod.tulanowski]

the only way I know of is to use the line work tool and turn the walls into dashed. sorry if I cant be more of a help

[aggockel50321]

In your project, you have the top of footing (your sweep) set at level 0. If you want to see it in level 0 (or level 1), go to view properties, pick the view range button, and set your view range to either unlimited via the drop down menu, or drop it a fixed distance by say -1' by adding that in the dialog.

Your sweep will then show as solid lines. You can then change them by using the linework tool (view specific) or snapping detail lines ontop of the geometry, once again view specific, but it can be copied & pasted to other views. With this method, you can then set your view range back to the default, as you may get things showing with unlimited, that you don't want to see.

[marty_rozmanith]

A while ago (4.0?) I built a footing family that would do pier footings with dashed lines so you don't have to mess with the linework tool. Let me dig it up....

[beegee]

. Let me dig it up....
No until your apply to Main Roads for a permit to cross, The Local Council for permission to excavate and fill, the Plumbing Department for checking possible disruption to sewer service , the Gas and Water dept ditto, The Electricity Authority for underground power , the Mines Department for abandoned mine shafts, The Dept of the Army for possible unexploded ordinance, the Police Department for disruption to traffic and pedestrians, The Environmental Authority for acid sulphate soils and contamination of stormwater run-off , the Town Planning Dept for anything they can think of - and they will, ...... ( had enough ? )

[Steve_Stafford]

...No until...umm, Beegee you forgot about asking Mrs. Bucket next door for her blessing?!? :shock:

[sbrown]

If you use a wall hosted sweep for the footing, you can create a sub category for the sweep and then you will be able to overide the view graphics per view to suit your needs.

[The Sweg]

Scott,

Would you mind giving your idea a try, and if it works, would you mind telling me explicitly how to do just that? Again, I'm new to Revit and just learning to get around--so this would be a big help! Thanks!

[jcoe]

Derek,
I think what Scott is getting at is that in the initial sweep family that you created you need to create a subcategory for the host sweep. I will do my best to outline the process. If I miss a step, maybe somebody else can fill in the gaps.

1. Open your original sweep family and then go to Settings>Object Styles. A dialogue box will appear. Hear you can add subcategories to your family that can be overridden in the project via visibility graphics. In your case, you may want to make an object style - lets say "footing dashed" for instance. Make sure to set the line type to the hidden or dashed line of your choosing. Once you have defined your object style, exit the dialogue boxes.

2. In the design bar you may have noticed there are two different line types you can use - model and symbolic. Here, I believe you might want to use the symbolic line tool because symbolic lines do not become part of the family geometry. When you select the symbolic line tool you will notice that your new object style should be showing up in the pull down area. Select the new object style, and in the plan view of your sweep, select the lines you want to show up dashed in plan/elevation. (make sure to apply any necessary constraints so the symbolic lines will flex with your family).

3. The next step is to set the visibility of the family components. I am not sure what the visibility settings are within your family, but I will give it a shot anyway. The symbolic lines will give you a choice of detail levels. However, the sweep will provide you with some other visibility controls. Under the sweep visibility, de-select the one that says plan/RCP.

4. Save the family, exit and reload it into your project. Hopefully if all goes well, the footing should display correctly.

Like I say, I may have missed a step and hopefully someone may be fill in any gaps. Also, as andrewg suggested, you may need to play with your view range settings to get the footing to show up properly as well.

Happy Revitting.

[sbrown]

Here is a file for you to look at.

Basically under object styles, create a subcategory of walls called footing. leave linetype solid.
2. create the wall sweep at the base of your wall using a footing profile.
3. pick on that sweep and set its subcategory to footing.
4. go to the floor plan you want to see the footing on(set your view range so you see it, it will appear solid at first)
5. under view visibility and graphics, scroll down to the subcategory footings, under walls and click the overide button on the projection.
6. Set it to dashed and the lineweight you want.

NOw you are done.

[The Sweg]

Scott,
Thanks so much for your help! I think I've got it now. Just one more little problem, though: I opened up your attached drawing and I couldn't see the footing at all unless I moved my cursor over the sweep, then it would highlight. The problem is fixed when I invert the colors in 'settings' to a white background. However, I am forced to work in a black background--because of the Acad users I am trying to convert to Revit in our office. (I have to give a little, they have to give a little):???: So, do you have any idea how to fix this dilemma (other than switching to a white background?)

[beegee]

Hi Derek,

I would be moving new users onto a white background straight away.

I think its a lot easier to read than black and more " paper-like".

Since there are no layers to deal with in Revit, and few colored lines anyway, black doesn't make a whole lot of sense, unless you have users with eyesight problems ( which has been mentioned as one reason why black may be used )

Your users need to make a clean break from Autocad as soon as possible.

[The Sweg]

I agree whole-heartedly -- however, the folks I'm trying to 'move' to Revit have been around alot longer than myself, and eye-strain issues is the number one reason we have to work in a black background. Like I said, there's give-and-take on both sides of this fence-- I get to move the office to Revit; they get to have a black background.

[Scott D Davis]

Did you have to change all of your other software to have a black background because of 'eye strain'? Word on a black background? Excel on black?

[The Sweg]

We don't use any other software. 9 hours a day staring at ADT. That's it, really. Besides, I'm dealing with Acad users--there's no use for rational arguements here!;)

[Scott D Davis]

9 hours a day staring at ADT.
Whoa! Eye strain should be the least of your worries....emotional distress should be the concern! ;)

[dalewww]

We don't use any other software. 9 hours a day staring at ADT. That's it, really. Besides, I'm dealing with Acad users--there's no use for rational arguements here!;)
I am a relatively new user to Revit and have posted regarding the black background. I got the same comments from Scott and Aaron about the "paper like" background, and the other software not being on the black background. Of course, coming from AutoCad and the other 4 cad software that I have used in the past, black was the only way to go. It looked better; It was easier to see the lines with black and color etc.

I too am setting up Revit in an all Autocad office. I took a poll in my office and everybody wants black background, including myself. The whole looking like paper argument still doesn't work for me. A black or white background with a red line at a specific thickness, I know in my own mind what it will look like on paper.

However, I have switched to a white background. There were too many things that Revit couldn't do graphically right on a black background. One of the great features of Revit, the temporary dimension, are not easily visible on a black background. That in itself drove me nuts. Revit does not have the graphic representation of lines by use of color either.

I wish it worked in black background but Revit really doesn't do it well. I will tell you this, two screens with a white background and minimal color or black makes a very bright desk area. Which has given me the eye strain that I and alot of others have been talking about. But I still remain on a white background. It works better.

[gordolake]

I would be moving new users onto a white background straight away.
I think its a lot easier to read than black and more " paper-like".
Hi,
After using autocad (black) for many years and now mostly full time in Revit (white), I too have noticed more eye strain recently. very glarey (glasses perhaps) 8)

I agree that black b/ground is more pleasing to the eye when representing vector information especially when in color.
With shaded views rendering and paper preview it certainly is a more wysiwyg world.

Revit's problem with b/ground is that most lines are white, or is that black? :???:

I guess I'm still used to modeling in space, and which as I remember it, is black by nature. :wink:


Steve.

[The Sweg]

I didn't mean to start something with the mention of black backgrounds, but since we're on the subject, I have to confess something--let me know if I've crossed some sort of 'unmentioned' line or broke a cardinal Revit rule; I have adjusted the colors of our walls, windows, doors, etc. to the colors we were used to in ADT.:Oops: Be gentle with me--remember, I'm an ADT user who's converting to Revit. Have I done something wrong? Is there any disciplinary action I can expect from fellow Revit users?

[sbrown]

Since revit is designed as a WYSIWYG program you are asking for lots of trouble converting everything to colors. Lets say you want to print an elevation that is "shaded with edges" on a color printer, your walls will be whatever color you set them to be instead of black. I highly recomend you change your ways. While revit gives you the option of black background and I can see you using it on working drawings, during the early stages of the project you will be having too many visiblity settings headaches. One of the biggest problems with learning revit is trying to make it work like autocad. If you try that you will run into wall after wall. I've witnessed it too many times now. Just committ to change and use the software as it was designed to be used.

[christopher.zoog51272]

I didn't mean to start something with the mention of black backgrounds, but since we're on the subject, I have to confess something--let me know if I've crossed some sort of 'unmentioned' line or broke a cardinal Revit rule; I have adjusted the colors of our walls, windows, doors, etc. to the colors we were used to in ADT.:Oops: Be gentle with me--remember, I'm an ADT user who's converting to Revit. Have I done something wrong? Is there any disciplinary action I can expect from fellow Revit users?lol, yes you have crossed that line!!! get 'em boys ;)

But seriously, you are heading down a bad path IMHO. Trying to make revit look like autocad will make users treat it like autocad, bad habits and all, and as you know... this ain't no autocad. I respect the fact that you trying to ease users into revit, but you are just setting yourselves up for trouble in the long run. My advice is to dump the colors and the black background asap, you are adding adding extra overhead for something that will probably be detrimental in the end.

oh and about the footings, scott's method works great. but perhaps we will see a new way to handle this in future releases......

[bclarch]

oh and about the footings, scott's method works great. but perhaps we will see a new way to handle this in future releases......
Hey Z, your beta test is showing.

[christopher.zoog51272]

Hey Z, your beta test is showing.no beta here.....just guessing/hoping...

[bclarch]

no beta here.....just guessing/hoping...
Drag. Since you're such a power user, I figured that you must surely be on their beta list.

[jtobin.68416]

Just a thought, but I'm interested in the issue of eye strain raised here. I hadn't seen it raised before.

I get eye strain easily, and so for several years have always set my monitor refresh rate above 75 Hz to combat it. Flicker at low refresh rates is much less noticeable on black backgrounds obviously, so I wonder if that's the cause of the problem.

When I used to work on older computers, I had to limit my time, but on newer computers with better video cards it's been much less problematic.