R8 Roof issues

[SkiSouth]

Okay, who else finds this frustrating. Simple roof plan. Can't get R8 to deal with the layout correctly. Image 1 on plan left shows ridge condition correctly, right ridge as a flat section. (It was a separate roof). Image 2, mirrors plan left, and get the new roof layout. Wing tie ins are correct, but center section blows up. Any suggestions?

Ran a search, seems like a similar thread was around, but couldn't find it.

[aaronrumple]

Somthing changed between 6 and 7. 6 would give you the roof on the left. 7 the one on the right even using all the same sketch lines. It was "more correct" in 6.

[iru69]

While the image on the right doesn't make much sense from a design standpoint, it seems one of the difficulties for the developers is: what's the "correct" way?

It seems like there needs to be a way to flip through different roof options, kind of like the "Edit Wall Joins" tool... where you could select a portion of the roof and then flip through the all the possible ways that portion of roof could be constructed.

That's just off the top of my head, maybe someone has a better idea of how that could work - but I think it's important that more user choice is incorporated (while keeping it simple), since the "correct" way will be different for every design.

[lev.lipkin]

Factory is aware of this issue. Both roof layouts are correct from roof construction. Revit chooses one of them (and choice was changed in 7.0).

I wonder if proper solution would be to allow user either to pick ridge line and say 'I do not want this ridge line' or to pick 2 slope defining lines and say 'I want ridge line between planes of those 2'. I wonder if first solution would be enough?

[aaronrumple]

From my experience ver. 6 got it right 80% of the time. 7 and 8 get it right 20% of the time. I much preferred 6.

[SkiSouth]

I wonder if first solution would be enough?

I think Revit's ability to "think" and solve these roofs is great. I think a simple - hold the ridge left/right here (vs up/down- whatever) would be enough. Perhaps the control switch like doors etc. Select a ridge and the controls pop up - allowing a 90 switch of ridges etc.

[Mr Spot]

What if in these situations revit came up with a warning dialogue stating there are multiple solutions to this sketch.

Then when you select the roof you get a toggle for the different options, kind've like wall joins?

[clarkitekt]

To me, the roof tool should allow for more maliability. None of Revits roof tools work for me, any of the time. What I would like to see is a roof modeler similar to the manner in which software like formZ models.

The draw the lines and pray method takes more time by trying to do more for me wrong than it would if it did less for right. What I mean is that by the time I am trying to coax Revit into building my roof right, I could have modeled the roof in its entirety in something like formZ.

What I am envisioning is something similar to the in place component modeler. You can create pretty much any shape you want for your roof and then go back and add framing, adjjust the pitch, offset, etc my moderling it that way...

[MRV]

I can't understand how anyone would see the roof on the right as "correct", with the long, flat valleys. However, I see Revit 7 & 8 doing this a lot. This is a BIG issue in the residential design world.

[mlgatzke]

I agree. I haven't run into this, personally, but I am quite leery of the problems it will present when I do run into it. This is a huge bummer of a problem. I agree that it would be nice to have "controls" of some sort to allow us to toggle different conditions. However, DON'T give us a situation like wall joins. Wall joins are the most user-unfriendly interface within Revit. Why should I, as a user, have to keep hitting the "next" button - sometimes more than 50 times, just to get to the condition I want. There's got to be a better way. Perhaps an "Edit Cut Profile" tool that actually works three-dimensionally or "sketch" lines for ridges, hips, and valleys - similar to stairs.

[iru69]

Why should I, as a user, have to keep hitting the "next" button - sometimes more than 50 times, just to get to the condition I want.
Yowzer! 50 times? It's funny - for me, the Edit Wall Joins tool was one of the easiest tools to learn how to use.


There's got to be a better way. Perhaps an "Edit Cut Profile" tool that actually works three-dimensionally or "sketch" lines for ridges, hips, and valleys - similar to stairs.
Well, that just goes to show you how different we all are - I find the stair tool to be one of the most confusing tools in Revit.

What I like about the current roof tool is that it generates roofs that I would have had a hard time figuring out. Or sometimes it comes up with a design that I hadn't even thought of. I think we just need a way to give it "hints" as to what to try next, after it generates something we don't want. But keep it simple and fast. If that's not adequate, then maybe there needs to be separate tools for manually "modeling" a roof.

[jwilhelm]

I would like to chime in on this issue, I have found roofs to be generally problematic for anything but simple roofs, stairs are also complicated as $#* * , I suggest that the REVIT team deal with getting "basic" functionality working right before adding a bunch more of bells & whistles, not to sound negative, but this is a serious issue for those considering major purchases of REVIT stations. mot to say that REVIT isnt awesome in mosty respects, but frankly the novelty is wearing off for me at this point and I need to spend my time productively, not working around REVITs limitations because they haven't taken the time to get some basic functionality right. I hope this is constructive, im not generally such a winer.

[mlgatzke]

Wait a minute, wait a minute. I was only making a comment/suggestion regarding roof generation and editing. All of a sudden there are people dissin' Revit because of a couple of comment I made. I apologize to all - this was not my intention. Nothing of the sort.

First of all, yes, the "edit wall joins" tool is easy. All you have to do is click the next or previous button. However, in complex situations, this does not allow a quicker solution for someone who already knows the connection they're looking for. Also, it does not allow for a higher level of control for more complex assemblies. Keep in mind that "easier" does not necessarily mean better.

Secondly, I happen to like the stair generation tool within Revit. Granted, there are problems. However, I haven't seen a stair generation tool that works any better, with the same ease of use, yet allows for such high levels of user interaction.

Granted, Revit isn't perfect, buy it's sure a hell of a lot better than anything else on the market.

I understand that sometimes we have to vent, but we also have to be careful to keep our frustration in perspective with the overall functionality of the application.

My apologies to anyone miffed by my comments or any result of them.

[BillyGrey]

Peeps all over the world...

Just for the record, I am having allot of difficulty editing roofs after creation in 8, in addition to the problems above. The file is a 7 import, and I have to rebuild the roof anytime I edit the main structure. What happens is I have to click through a few error messages (unjoin/can't join)and in the end I get the "can't make footprint", even if it is a minor adjustment. The hip over the garage (forward left) only works if I create it separately, and will not join the abutting plane. Never had these prob's before 8.

No angst here, perspective clear, I just want to get this out so that our best and brightest are apprised (didn't mean to hijack, so back to the topic at hand!).

[iru69]

My apologies to anyone miffed by my comments or any result of them.
I for one don't think you have anything to apologize for... you were offering a constructive critique of why it doesn't work for you and offered a suggestion of how it might work better. Others may have differing opinions, but that's all part of the conversation. I don't think anyone can ask for more than that.

Regarding the other post, and not to zero in on anyone else (for I live in a glass house) - I sincerely feel the same frustration many times, but I don't think blasting away at the software in general gets us anywhere - we end up discussing the conversation itself rather than contributing to it.

[trombe]

What if in these situations revit came up with a warning dialogue stating there are multiple solutions to this sketch.

Then when you select the roof you get a toggle for the different options, kind've like wall joins?


I agree with Mr Spot I think he has it "spot on".
His option is straight forward, sensible, simple, and will allow the flexibility to direct the variability and iterations that we commonly seek as solutions to this ongoing issue.

It would seem unnecessary and perhaps limiting, to dictate a single option for Revit to follow when the potential design options are so many and so important.
cheers
trombe

[SkiSouth]

Following Aaron's hint, I exported the roof plan to Acad 2000. Imported Dwg into Revit 6.1. Used select line tool, Generated Roof and grouped it. Saved Group, imported group to Revit 8. No other changes. Revit 6.1Program's roof logic hit the desired roof first time. (Image 1)

As an experiment, I ungrouped the 6.1 Roof, then edited the roof in 8. Logic remained (Image 2).

Lesson - Always keep the previous versions of Revit Handy.

[Damo]

....Wall joins are the most user-unfriendly interface within Revit. .......You have scratched an Itch.

Following a few problems on a project and clicking through the Edit Wall Joins - Previous / Next configuration' I wasn't sure whether I was in a loop back at the beginning or still going through the options. I'd like to see an indication of the number of options that are being presented for wall joins, and where you are in that list. Like "Option 3 of 12 possible solutions".

[Damo]

I too have been having problems with Roofs in Revit 8, eventually seeking help from my reseller.

Strangely, when my reseller led me through a step-by-step solution on my file (which I had e-mailed to him) we both get different solutions. His eaves went up, my eaves went down!

[sbrown]

For residential roofs and those who are used to drawing roofs in plan by drawing the valleys and hips, recognize this technique still works in revit. Basically you make a series of triangular shaped roofs in plan, with usually one line slope defining. Note that I try to make the overall main form of the roof with one "real revit" roof. then create as many other roof sketches as necessary for complex roof scenarios. This is not to say I don't agree that the roof tool could be better. I'm just giving you an option to get work done. Once you have all the roof pieces made you can use the opening tool to create the openings in the roofs as needed.

One quesion on the mirror issue. What happens if copy your good half. Then edit its sketch, mirror the sketch lines, finish sketch. does the mirrored half look bad or right. If its right, then jsut do a paste align and your original roof will be placed back where you had it.

[SkiSouth]

What happens if copy your good half. Then edit its sketch, mirror the sketch lines, finish sketch. does the mirrored half look bad or right. .

My first point. The mirrored "sketch" generates the screwed center section.I did find a solution by switching to R6.1.

[Wes Macaulay]

That's right, Scott... you're trusting Revit to make a lot of assumptions and these are good examples of why making the roofs "manually" sometimes is the easiest solution.

But it would be great if Revit provided different roof resolution options much like the wall join tool does.

[SkiSouth]

these are good examples of why making the roofs "manually" sometimes is the easiest solution.

.


Yeah, I have a copy of ADT, but I don't want to use it.... :-D :-D

[BWG]

We have been tinkering with Revit since 6.0 trying to decide if we want to make the switch. The first thing we did after the tutorials is bring in a simple house plan to see how the roof tool works. Well, just like all the other complaints, we got the flat valley situation, which is not correct roof construction. Can it be done that way, sure, if you want the roof to leak and hold trash. If a choice was changed, why can't it just be changed back to where it was in 6? That is kinda like turning left on a road every morning you know is a dead end and knowing you should have went right. Doesn't make much sense. Well, I am ready to buy Revit. First, the roof thing was a show stopper, but Aaron showed us a work around, which I think will work anytime this happens. Also, it doesn't happen like that every time, because I sketched other floorplans without any problems. The one thing I would like to see with roofs is a tool that does a better job of recognizing different plate heights without building separate roofs. I don't know how familiar you are with Softplan, but I can put a roof on just about anything in that program, without a lot of trouble or knowing a bunch of tricks. Splitting pitches and changing plate heights is very quick and easy; however, the program lacks badly in every other area, especially compared to Revit, which looks like the best BIM solution that I have tried. I guess it could be worse. Has anyone put a roof on something in Bentley Architecture? They seriously need a better roofing tool as well, but this is not a bentley forum, so I digress.

[Scott D Davis]

You should be able to change plate heights of a continuous sketch roof, by changing the level-offset of the sketch line itself. Highlight sketch line, go to properties, change Plate Offset from Base.

See image, this is one continuous sketch, with front part of roof with a 1'-0" plate offset.

[BWG]

Yes, I see that, but that roof is wrong. the higher part should go past the lower part distance depends on roof pitch, at 12/12, it would overlap the lower roof by 1'.

[Scott D Davis]

Then build as two separate roofs and attach them using the roof join tool.

[Gadget Man]

Then build as two separate roofs and attach them using the roof join tool.
Yes, of course you can do it that way!



But this is exactly the method Info.87295 tried to avoid (if I understood correctly...)!



Your method, while works OK, is something I would consider still being just a work-around!



Even cheap and relatively primitive program like CadsoftBuild (even version 3 based on AutoCAD R14!) had the decency to at least ask you if you wanted a "spandrel" or a "barge", when the adjoining top plates were different! Your first example would be created with the "barge" option and it would be a rather rare choice... More correct (usually) option would be the "spandrel", where you could even extend your roof "wings" under the higher roof if desired! All this still remaining a single roof body!

Something like that would also be nice in REVIT!

[Martin P]

I find that building roofs as more than one object sometimes many objects is by far the best way to keep 100% control over what I want. I tend to this all the time even for the simplest roofs - which I ought not to do I suppose, but they always work out fine for me and really dont take all that much longer to create.

I would say the example above is not going to be any harder to create as 2 objects than it would be to do it as one if that option were made available? There are infact advantages in the above example being 2 objects as they can be edited moved and copied separately. I dont see making roofs from many objects as a workaround. I prefer to make the decisions for myself rather than letting Revit do it, so would always do it this way anyway.

If we were to have Revit cycling through different options for roofs could there be danger with Revit not seeing an option, so people just assume its not there and the software ends up influencing the way something is designed? I dont like the sound of that.....

[Gadget Man]

... There are infact advantages in the above example being 2 objects as they can be edited moved and copied separately. I dont see making roofs from many objects as a workaround. I prefer to make the decisions for myself rather than letting Revit do it, so would always do it this way anyway...
OK Martin, following your reasoning, why don't you create your roofs exactly like they are built? Made of single "boxes" with hidden hips, various roof pieces joining where girder trusses would normally sit, saddle trusses filling the spaces between them, etc. Then your roof would be perfect, exactly like in the real life! Except, that it would take you probably too long and there are people (even architects that I know!) who don't understand the roof construction to such extend anyway! The program shouldn't require such knowledge from the user! Simpler is better! Yet, if you want to create it this way - you should have this opportunity too! Your choice!

Martin, please don't take the following part of this post personally - they are just my general views, that happen to fit in the topic of this discussion...



I can't understand persistence of some Members of this Forum in trying to complicate things! Let the computers do the thinking, calculations and creations of things! That's what they are for! We should be concentrating on the architectural (artistic) aspect of the design - not for ever trying to solve how to create things, how to make this program to create this particular roof, how to overcome software shortcomings, etc!



If it can be done in several different ways, why the software can't have it, with all the options available (if feasible)? Why we always can have only this or that? Why not both? If you don't like something it doesn't mean it is wrong! It just means, that maybe you are not comfortable with it - others might be.... Some features were available in the past, but are not there now. It means that they can be done and once introduced should remain for ever (unless were totally wrong!) - perhaps as one of the choices if new (better ?) features become available!

Gosh, I am tired of people who know what's better for others... :banghead:

[Martin P]

Not taken personally at all Jerry :) I also have strong opinions on Revit (and most things infact ;) ) and you shouldnt apologise for expressing opinions here - (Revit ones anyway) its what the place is for really. As you say everyone has their own ideas on Revit and how to best use it, of course we all believe the way we do things and want to do things is the best way - or we wouldnt do or want it like that! - it would be a very place boring if we all agreed every time anyway...... Having the choice to do things more than one way is not bad thing I agree.

[Damo]

I must agree with jetisart. My current interest in roofs began with a simple roof that ended up being difficult to achieve. I even had beegee & my Revit reseller helping me, as we all got different results. http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=18974

The problem with creating a roof with several elements is having to then go around and create openings, something that doesn’t always work cleanly. On this ‘simple’ roof create a dormer opening didn’t work and I had to use Cut Geometry.

If only I was able (had the choice) to make the roof in one process……
:(