about revit modeling

[jiaoyanbing]

i feel revit modeling is weak.other bim softwares apparently outdo it in this aspect.even archicad is better than it .(of course need aichifomula plugin).

[SkiSouth]

Be Patient. Revit is quite a good modeler. If you are speaking of "free form", then it is rather a mental exercise to get there, but not a real difficult one. Revit requires a new approach. Keep working to understand how the program models, and use the software in that manner.

One of the issues in using Revit versus say AutoCAD. Is in AutoCAD you could draw something anyway you wanted. In Revit, although it is flexible, you really have to use the software the way it is intended, so it takes a little while of working with the software (or some very good training) to really understand how you feel the software can best be used.

Keep those questions coming. We all worked through the initial Revit learning curve (and I'm still learning)..

[Arnel Aguel]

i feel revit modeling is weak.other bim softwares apparently outdo it in this aspect.even archicad is better than it .(of course need aichifomula plugin).

I personally find this kind of post very disturbing if you don't know the in and out of the software yet then it's better to ask question first rather than criticize it. Bashing a software without knowing what it can do is simply showing uneducated comment.

I went through with the same process before but I asked questions rather than throw in some criticism and people around here are more than willing to show you what it can do and how it should be done.

[tatlin]

i feel revit modeling is weak.other bim softwares apparently outdo it in this aspect.even archicad is better than it .(of course need aichifomula plugin).
What specifically do you find weak? We need more information to understand requests like this.

Do you mean creation tools or editing tools?

Geometry creation for host objects like walls, roofs and floors? Creation of Geometric Forms (Extrusions/Sweeps/Blends/Revolves) in Massing and/or the Family Editor? The types of surfaces and solids that can be created? How you edit geometry?

thanks,

[jiaoyanbing]

i touches many 3d softwares resulting from my interest.i can say revit is just revision of pro/e for building design.maybe its unique working way disguise its weak modeling..what i need urgently i surface modeling.but revit is blank for it.

[Scott D Davis]

Why do you need surface modeling? If you can post an example of what you are trying to do.

don't make the generalization that 'other BIM software' can model better. You mention ArchiCAD...ArchiCAD alone can't model anywhere near Revit. It takes a host of add-ons to make it do even simple operations, such as a canted, curved curtain wall, or stairs of any complexity.

I think you would be more sucessful in your request to post examples. I've seen some very powerful modeling come out of Revit. My opinion is that you just haven't learned how to do it yet.

[Andre Baros]

While you cannot do traditional "surface" modeling ala Max lofts, nurbs surfaces, etc. you can create very complex architectural surfaces in Revit. For example, if you create a solid mass (whatever shape you want) you can then create a curtain wall system using just one face of the mass. Depending on the setting you use for the curtain wall system (mullions or not, thick panels or thin, glass etc) you can create any non-fabric surface you want. The best part is that you can turn the solid mass on or off at any time to make changes and update your surface. A tensile structure tool or catinary calculator would be nice but I haven't found an architectural surface that I couldn't create in Revit.

(though my spiral shell tower still has some tough to model bumps in it.) :)

[Joef]

Occasionally one runs into a task which would be difficult in any program. I have a roof (see this thread http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=16382)which I think I could probably build in a more sophisticated modeling program. I would build the roof as a solid and then apply fillet radiuses to the edges. As it is I have spent way too much time trying to get it to look decent and will just draw it in with linework. I'm sure there are many improvements that can be made to Revit in the modeling department. Those will come in time, but only if people who use the program let the developers know that there are weaknesses. It may be unpleasant listening to a squeaky wheel, but sometimes it's the only way to get any grease.

Joe

[trombe]

Jiaoyanbing,

from your recent posts it is not clear what you are trying to achieve.
Are you an Architect doing architecture ? are you an ID person doing industrial design ?, what exactly is your specific area of "interest " student ?, dabbler ?, a plant maybe ?


If you are actually legitimate , you should already have done searches on this and other forums looking for information, seeking answers , looking at rendered / unrendered examples , downloading families to try and see how they have been constructed, looking at the questions and jpegs of people who are posting on forums here and elsewhere, read the help, looked for books and articles on the subject........
And if you have done this, you would not be taking the line you of posts that you have been because you would have realized what Revit does and can do ...it sounds to me like you have a demo copy and are dabbling on a whim without wanting to do any work?


People are very generous here, but you have to try yourself to work things out Rather than just say Revit can't do this or that - otherwise you might as well go and buy something else.

trombe

[cosmickingpin]

I feel Revit is not weak. So there... I have used several other packages over the years, cad, viz/max, formZ and archicad and sometimes to model something in revit you do have to learn a new way of doing it, but Frank Ghery is not using Autocad, archicad or any other software us mortals can afford, you can't use any traditional modeling software for his stuff, and he doesn't, he has a whole Batcave full of expensive toys. Nor I would not use Revit if I were George Lucas either. Revit is for Architects.

One think I think a lot of folks here would agree on is that Revit has made more progress (in capability, usability, and compatibility) in the last three years that than any platform you can name, and can go head to head with anything you can buy without a prescription from a doctor. And is capable of doing any of the largest projects in the world (hello, freedom tower on line 3)

It could absolutely improve: multiple profiles in sweeps, more modeling object types, you do have a point there- that there is only so much you can do with sweep, blends, extrusions, and revolves.


i feel revit modeling is weak.other bim softwares apparently outdo it in this aspect.even archicad is better than it .(of course need aichifomula plugin).

[jiaoyanbing]

Those above who think revit model is not weak maybe ignore a developping trend of architect industry,namely complex form.i think microstation guys have this insight.

[Arnel Aguel]

Those above who think revit model is not weak maybe ignore a developping trend of architect industry,namely complex form.i think microstation guys have this insight.


What is it that you really want to model? If you could post something what you want to achieve there are a lot of people here who will give it a crack but If you think you already know the in and out of revit and it can't do what you wanted then go buy Microstation by all means.

[bpayne]

Those above who think revit model is not weak maybe ignore a developping trend of architect industry,namely complex form.i think microstation guys have this insight.

I have to agree with Arnel, either post something that you are working on or find another forum to go post your complaints. You are generally going to find two types of people on this forum.

A. Enthusiastic professionals who love Revit because of what it allows them to accomplish....

and....

B. Enthusiastic professionals who love Revit because of what it will allow them to accomplish and just haven't learned all the tools yet.

Either way your probably not going to be satisfied by 99% of the replies and thus will not feel much better about yourself at the end of the day.

I'm assuming that is the goal of your posts.

Note: If someone assumes I took too hard of a stance here, I aplologize, it's 3:00 in the morning and my day just started! :)

[jiaoyanbing]

i firmly beleive what i complaints about is just what revit wants

[Roger Evans]

Maybe .. but it would help everyone & yourself if you could provide an example of what you want to do ~ hand drawn if necessary

At moment your comments seem just a wind up & designed to flame and you have so far ignored all requests for examples .. so how about it?

[roy.70844]

i firmly beleive what i complaints about is just what revit wants

I would really like to see what it is you have a problem with.

Help us to help you, post an example!

Roy

[bpayne]

For an example of a constructive question rather than a complaint, see the link below.
I would also recommend following the progress of the attached thread. It may confirm your complaint, it may not, but I believe it will be helpful.

http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=16443

[luigi]

Maybe we forgot about Revit at the movies???? Mainly the 3rd post from Bryan

http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=10719&page=4&pp=10&highlight=sutton

[frame]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/8495951479/qid=1111425123/sr=8-4/ref=pd_csp_4/104-5247601-2713510?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I suspect the work of FOA is being considered by the poster. Recently saw a good exhibit of their work at the GSD in harvard. Some Keywords/oppositions that are present:

ground
plane/envelope
face/mulit-faceted
constant/shifting
rippled/pinched/perforated
planar/bifurcated
oriented/non-oriented
continuous/discountinous
patterned/contingent

I think these formal moves/language games are wanting to be mapped into the language of form generation/edit software. How does one literally take an extrusion and fold it? crunch it? perforate it? twist it? These "actions" are not present as explicit tools in revit. However, that is not to say you could not make forms in an application like 3DS and then bring that geometry into revit.

[hand471037]

And, at some point, if it's going to be a real building it needs to be translated into actual steel, wood, and stucco. Revit, I feel, excels at taking your concept and turning it into a REAL BUILDING as opposed to some studio folly of cuves and folds and 'crunches' that's assuming some magical 'stuff' is at work to hold it up. That's as silly as the old Internation Style debates about Architecture being 'pure' and 'true', when most of those buildings were a nice white skin over the same old steel, wood, and brick...


So, while I too would like to see some additions to the modeling tools in Revit, and would like the ability to model more complex surfaces, at the same time it's very important to relize that Revit is all about making BUILDINGS, not SCULTPURE. If your forms are so complex that Revit simply can't do them (which honestly I could see happening, but only in limited cases), then simply do them in Rhino/Max/Maya/Whatever, but then when it's time to actually make those forms into more than just toy blocks, and into a real building, that's when you really should turn to something like Revit...

Creating a fancy model is pretty much useless beyond the massing and design. Don't fall in love with what the software can and can't do, for Frank Gheary still uses cardboard and paper first, and then uses the computer to design what's going to make that form into a Building...

[Scott D Davis]

That's as silly as the old Internation Style debates about Architecture being 'pure' and 'true', when most of those buildings were a nice white skin over the same old steel, wood, and brick...I'm lucky enough to live in LA, and it was necessary to go downtown on many occasions to the Building Department. This always led to a quick 'drive-by' to see the progress of the Disney Concert Hall. Here's some picks of the steel.....notice that behind all the 'curves' is more or less a boxed, orthogonal, conventional steel frame. All of the curves are simply bolted on the traditional steel building.

(more pics to come, must reduce file size on some.....)

[BillyGrey]

Very intriguing stuff...
Keep em' coming Scott.

[Joef]

There is a photography book available on this subject:
'Iron" Erecting the Walt Disney Concert Hall, by Gil Garcetti. It never appeared on any of my local bookshelves but it is still available from Amazon. Once all the steel is covered by the skin of the building it is never seen again. Gil Garcetti decided to document it. A great idea.

[mmodernc]

That's how the old prof said they should build the Opera House (Sydney) - steel frame with metal cladding.
Actually if they had built it like that it would have looked more billowy like the original Utzon scheme (which was supposed to be concrete shells but ended up sort of ribbed gothic vaults)

[Scott D Davis]

And if you are in Sothern California, you can go see Gil speak in April! See This Thread. (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?p=102456#post102456)

[sultarc]

Scott,

I don't see anything boxy about the steel. I pretty much follows the shape of the walls. I saw the Gehry bandshell and bridge in Chicago during the last years convention. It was like being in a dream world. I got several pictures there as well.

I enjoyed your pictures. Hope to see more. Mabe I'll put up some of mine if anyone is interested.

[Scott D Davis]

It's a bit hard to tell, but look behind the curved stuff. The one along the street, hiding in the shadows is a regular frame. Try bumping the brightness on that one to see it. On the front view, about in the middle of the photo between curving planes is a regular steel frame.

More Disney Hall Photos Here (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?p=102505#post102505)!

[Steve_Stafford]

...in the middle of the photo between curving planes is a regular steel frame.In some pictures it's "hard" to tell whether the structure has collapsed or is what it is supposed to be...

[tatlin]

If your forms are so complex that Revit simply can't do them (which honestly I could see happening, but only in limited cases), then simply do them in Rhino/Max/Maya/Whatever, but then when it's time to actually make those forms into more than just toy blocks, and into a real building, that's when you really should turn to something like Revit...
This is the fundimental thought behind the new Buidling Maker / Massing tools! "Create your form in whatever application you want (revit, sketchup, max, viz, sketchup, form*z, maya, whatever). When you are ready to make a building, bring it into Revit and turn the massing into a shell of walls, roof, floors and curtain systems."

[sultarc]

I didn't realize that a sketchup model cold be easily brought into revit. So, you can import a sketchup model and turn it into walls, etc????? very good.

[tatlin]

So, you can import a sketchup model and turn it into walls, etc????? very good.
Yes, if you export to dwg first.8)

[muttlieb]

If I export my SU model to dwg then import the dwg into Revit, I cannot pick faces of the mass to convert to walls, roofs, etc. Is this really possible (and I hope it is)? And if so, what step am I missing?

[Scott D Davis]

You must create a Mass Family out of the DWG object. Don't just import your 3D DWG and start trying to pick faces! File>New>Family>Mass Object. Import the 3D dwg into the Mass family, and then save it. Load your Mass Family into your project, place with the Place Mass tool in Massing, and THEN use the Pick Face tools.


Hope that helps!

[muttlieb]

Ahh... Thanks for the clarification Scott. Lately I've been wondering if it's even worth that first step in SU, but it's nice to know it can be done. :-)

Thanks.

[Arnel Aguel]

You must create a Mass Family out of the DWG object. Don't just import your 3D DWG and start trying to pick faces! File>New>Family>Mass Object. Import the 3D dwg into the Mass family, and then save it. Load your Mass Family into your project, place with the Place Mass tool in Massing, and THEN use the Pick Face tools.

Scott I did follow your procedure by using one of the dwg model posted in another thread and try to import that into a mass family but when the imported mass family was loaded into the project I get this warning "None of the created elements are visible in Floor Plan: Level 1 View. You may want to check the active view, its Parameters, and Visibility settings, as well as any Plan Regions and their settings." even though the mass visibility in the project is on and also the mass family visibility is on for all views. Did I miss something here.

Attached is the sample imported mass.

[Nic M.]

Did you turn on the visibility for the masses. :)

I think its off by default.

oops, never mind did not read trough

[luigi]

Arnel, just go to the family (in project explorer) under mass and drag it into a view...

[Arnel Aguel]

Arnel, just go to the family (in project explorer) under mass and drag it into a view...

Same warning message will appear Luigi.

Has anybody tried the attached imported mass family yet?

[luigi]

I tried and it worked...strange

[Arnel Aguel]

Is this probably a build issue? Im still using 20050126

[chairborne1]

I have tried but. I didn't succeed. I dont know why? all think seems right...

[luigi]

Actually, the making the import a mass and bringing it from the family project explorer was no problem....but I cannot select the faces to make walls, curtains, roof, etc. I don't know why!

[muttlieb]

I'm getting the same two warning messages as Arnel with build 20041128_2030.

Luigi, are you loading the mass family you created into a project first, or are you still in the family editor?

[luigi]

Hmm...well because of the NDA I cannot disclose which build I used... ;)

[gravelin]

You must create a Mass Family out of the DWG object. Don't just import your 3D DWG and start trying to pick faces! File>New>Family>Mass Object. Import the 3D dwg into the Mass family, and then save it. Load your Mass Family into your project, place with the Place Mass tool in Massing, and THEN use the Pick Face tools.
If you want to do it directly in the project
Use create mass in massing tools.
Now you can import your dwg
finish mass

Voilà
now you can Pick on AutoCAD solid faces

[muttlieb]

If you want to do it directly in the project
Use create mass in massing tools.
Now you can import your dwg
finish mass

Voilà
now you can Pick on AutoCAD solid faces

I think the key here is that they must be AutoCAD solid faces. Revit 7 will not finish the mass I import as a dwg export from SketchUp.

[purchase]

Here are images of a project we are working where the geometry is fairly complex. All modeling is done in revit

[gravelin]

I think the key here is that they must be AutoCAD solid faces. Revit 7 will not finish the mass I import as a dwg export from SketchUp.Effectively SU create 3DFACES in AutoCAD
They're not usuable in mass objects.

[Arnel Aguel]

I think the key here is that they must be AutoCAD solid faces. Revit 7 will not finish the mass I import as a dwg export from SketchUp.

I have to agree with Muttlieb here, I did try one more time using the same dwg model from AutoCAD which i believed was done using surface modeling and try to import directly to the project through create mass but Revit will not allow you to do the massing. It has to be a solid model from any 3d program that will export dwg file in order for Revit to accept it to be converted into a mass model.

Hmmmm unless this can already be done in version 8. Ohhh yeah I smell something nice coming....

[Scott D Davis]

Mass elements must be Solids, 3D faces do not work. AFAIK, this will remain true in the near future as well.

[Scott D Davis]

My 5 minute experiment of a Gehry-inspired form.

[Wes Macaulay]

Why, very nice work Scott!

To be honest, I would agree that improved modeling capabilities are one of my higher wishes for Revit, but that these would be used by a very small number of users. So the need really isn't that great for the bulk of Revit's potential user base.

The reality also is that in-place families can get you quite a long ways in Revit, not to mention the new building-object-from-massing tools, as Scott has exemplified.

People like Lev and others at the Factory have no doubt faced greater challenges in their careers, and my guess is that they're working on the more useful wishes before coming back and hitting these sugar plum wishes.

[mmodernc]

Probably one reason why Autocad is bundled at the moment. So what are the steps for creating an amorphous form in Autocad and exporting it to Revit so Revit can treat it as a mass and you can apply walls, curtain walls etc. to it?

[Arnel Aguel]

Probably one reason why Autocad is bundled at the moment. So what are the steps for creating an amorphous form in Autocad and exporting it to Revit so Revit can treat it as a mass and you can apply walls, curtain walls etc. to it?

I think there is no way you can do that because amorphous form can be done in AutoCAD through 3d face or surface modeling which Revit will not allow you to make a mass element out of it.

I've just experimented a twisting building form from viz/max and import it to Revit but still came out the same Revit won't allow you to convert it into a mass element. Now I'm finding a way to convert a viz/max model into a solid object so that I can import it to Revit.

[roy.70844]

My 5 minute experiment of a Gehry-inspired form.

This is my 5 minute experiment of a Scott inspired Calatrava form!

This is what I love about Revit. A thread which started out as a complaint has blossomed into something totally positive. Keep up the good work everyone.

Roy.

[Scott D Davis]

My example was completely Revit...no AutoCAD involved. Simply a blend, with a top and bottom profile that had curves in different directions, and then a Void to slice the top at an angle.

If you want to draw a mass in AutoCAD, you must use solid modeling. Commands like Extrude, Slice, Interfere, Union, etc. It is very similar to building complex forms in Revit...start with a 'regular' mass (ie a cube) and then add and subtract from it to get the final form.

[cadkiller]

This is my 5 minute experiment of a Scott inspired Calatrava form!

This is what I love about Revit. A thread which started out as a complaint has blossomed into something totally positive. Keep up the good work everyone.

Roy.
Roy;

Do you know what program Calatrava used for that building he designed?
I read the article in ENR and they didn't mention anything about the program he used.

[mmodernc]

Made a "drape" form in Autocad. Then tried 3D Solids /Convert to 3D solids - "failed to convert". Seems to work OK with regular forms. But then you don't need it.

[Joef]

If you want to draw a mass in AutoCAD, you must use solid modeling. Commands like Extrude, Slice, Interfere, Union, etc. It is very similar to building complex forms in Revit...start with a 'regular' mass (ie a cube) and then add and subtract from it to get the final form.

What I really like about Revit is that unlike AutoCAD you do not lose the object that you used to do the subtraction. In AutoCAD (unless things have changed very recently) when you perform a boolean operation you cannot go back (unless you undo). With Revit you always have access to the original shapes.

[roy.70844]

Roy;

Do you know what program Calatrava used for that building he designed?
I read the article in ENR and they didn't mention anything about the program he used.


Sorry I have no idea although... I suspect that Calatrava starts with a physical model (sculpture) as this particular building is very similar to some of Santiago's sculptures involving marble cubes and stainless wire (see images attached) that reflect the human form (spine). I have been unable to determine what software was used to produce the construction documents. If anybody knows , I would be most interested.
I saw a great Discovery channel program about Frank Gehry, he physically modeled the Guggenheim Museum and then used a 3D digitising system to generate a computer model (Catia I think).

I am not sure if such freeform modeling would be of use to All Revit users but just imagine what we could achieve with a little more modeling capability.

Roy

Ps I hope I have not infringed copyright by attaching these images!

[hand471037]

Sorry I have no idea although... I suspect that Calatrava starts with a physical model (sculpture) as this particular building is very similar to some of Santiago's sculptures involving marble cubes and stainless wire (see images attached) that reflect the human form (spine). I have been unable to determine what software was used to produce the construction documents. If anybody knows , I would be most interested.

Last I heard, and this was at least six years or more ago, he drew and sculpted most things, and only later turned to the computer to 'make it work'.


I saw a great Discovery channel program about Frank Gehry, he physically modeled the Guggenheim Museum and then used a 3D digitising system to generate a computer model (Catia I think).

They do use a customized Catia. However, it's not enterly because it's able to make swoopy shapes. I've been reading a wonderful book of his Interviews and Lectures and it sounds more like they use Catia mostly because it can figure out the 'skin', break it down into the smaller squares that make it up, and then using that system they can figure out the most cost-effective way to build that skin, and know how much it's really going to cost.

If you look closely at the Skins of his buildings, most of the squares/romboids that make it up are Flat, which are very cheap, or only Curved in one direction, which are cheap, and only a small number are curved in two directions, which isn't cheap at all. By being able to 'plan' the skin well, they can make it feasible, and know how much it's going to cost. And THATs why they are able to do those curvy skins: they not only can make them meet the budget, they can tell the client how much it's really going to cost with hard numbers to back them up. Catia, being made for airplanes, has a toolset for doing these sorts of operations with skins. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW CURVY THEY CAN MODEL. It has everything to do with knowing how much it's really going to cost, and using a BIM model combined with past experance to get that information.

So my point is: don't get obsessed with what you can and can't do with the modeling software, instead you should be looking at the actual *way* you do things, big picture, and find what is going to work best for you. Just because you can model anything in Rhino doesn't mean that your in any way adding value to the project or helping the client or even producing interesting Architecture...

[Steve_Stafford]

By being able to 'plan' the skin well, they can make it feasible, and know how much it's going to cost. And THATs why they are able to do those curvy skins: they not only can make them meet the budget, they can tell the client how much it's really going to cost with hard numbers to back them up.Haven't his projects run well over budget? Not because of these skins? I have no idea...just remember reading about budget over-runs on several such projects.

[Andre Baros]

Gehry's office also only uses Catia for the complex geometry as a step in the process. In the end, they export to 2d and use plain vanilla AutoCAD to turn it all into CD's. I spoke to someone from their office several years ago and at that time they had a few stations of Catia, a few more of Rhino, and a few hundred more of AutoCAD. On some projects they export their 3d data directly to a manufacturer for CAM but that's still for just small portions of the project and the majority is still built from 2d CD's.

That said, it's the small portion that goes straight from the architects computer to the manufactures computer that's most interesting.

[hand471037]

Haven't his projects run well over budget? Not because of these skins? I have no idea...just remember reading about budget over-runs on several such projects.

Yes, I believe they have. But it's not always due to their design and planning of the skin, IIRC. What I was getting at is that, because of Catia, they are able to plan the skin, and show the client that at least in planning and budget that the fancy skin is only like 10% of the overall budget, and have real numbers to back that up. It's the automated quantities and design feedback of Catia that lets them do that (or, more or less, BIM) and it has little to do with how 'swoopy' they can model things.

Rhino, Revit, Max- all lack tools to model skins like that and to be able to design them to have a minim of double-curved bits and to count up all the pieces accurately, but they do have the ability to make the overall forms- which wouldn't really do you much good, really.

And that's my whole point on this thread: that it matters little what forms your modeler can produce, at some point it needs to be made into a real object, and if the system you're using (Max, Rhino) has no features to help you figure out how to 'make it work' then all you're doing is making follys that will have to be re-drawn somewhere else anyways....

[Lashers]

Great Thread! Inspiring and spirited . . . anyone know what happened to the chap that started it?

[juggergnat]

I agree with Jeffrey in most respects. I believe that extrusions, sweeps, revolutions, and blends...when you combine these as solids/voids, can easily cover 97% of constructible situations. The 'state of the art' of geometric manipulations, as you might find in research modeling programs or in more advanced modeling systems...is very interesting but most architects will not need that functionality within their lifetimes. Constructing buildings using such complicated geometries is not in any way the practical bulk of architecture. It is also not necessarily the best architecture. It is basically only useful to the trendy, cutting edge architecture which dominates magazines. Airplanes need that advanced geometry for overwhelming functional reasons that ARE cost effective, buildings do not have such economic motivators except for pure entertainment value. And for that reason, most buildings will not have compound curves for some time. It would be great if the tools were available, but myself I'd be happy with Revit V21 having that functionality. More importantly, the art of architecture is about proportions fundamentally, and spaces. You can do a lot with those basic tools and in all likelihood your building will be sensibly designed as a result. More simple geometry does not imply worse design.

BUT

I do have some criticisms. I believe Revit fails not in terms of the basic tools, but in terms of their implementation. #1 you can not extract quantity information from your objects. So if I design a cool, easy-to-build concrete bench that is both practical and interesting...I can't determine its quantities or surface area, as I could with almost any cad-based modeling system. Nor can I easily schedule that vital info. That should be easy in the BIM system of the future, that is basic functionality that is missing.

Secondly Revit needs a whole reworking of their modeling abilities in terms of the ability to create complicated objects consisting of many sub-objects. Architecture may not be about complex curving helices, but it IS about the assembly of multiple objects that relate to one another. The modeling tools should allow you to easily model most objects in any context, copy them, rotate them, name and categorize them, store them in libraries, import them, export them, etc. There should be a tree where I can navigate, edit and schedule the parts of any objects. And there should be no limitations on the ability to move geometry around in Revit. Nor should you have to constantly open and close a separate interface. These are things that get in the way of design. If you are inspired by a form in your Revit building shell and you want to design something custom, an in-place-family does not contain much flexibility. Currently when you model an in-place family, Revit will place bizarre restrictions on your ability to copy, rotate, etc..and that's nuts. Also when you have multiple solids and voids within one object, Revit will sometimes not allow you to combine the objects...with no explanation, greatly reducing the modeling power. Finally, all in-place families should have the ability to be exported as non-hosted families, and vice-versa. The whole process needs to be streamlined and made more powerful, and much faster, and simpler. Modeling should be more fundamental and intuitive, and flexible.

JG

[Phil Read]

So if I design a cool, easy-to-build concrete bench that is both practical and interesting...I can't determine its quantities or surface area...
JG
Many structural family catagories are hard-wired to schedule volume in the project environment. Would be a meaningful workaround till we are able to weigh our buildings (hat tip to Buckey Fuller ;) ).

-Phil

[juggergnat]

Nice work, Phil!

I thought I tried everything, but you're right, the structural framing category appears to 'hard wired', and can be scheduled. That will work for now. It good to see that the 'hard wired' functionality is there somewhere...of course it would be great to see the other categories 'hard-wired', too.

Maybe improved solid modeling in V8 will address some of that. Thanks for the tip!

JG