Area

[neb1998]

One question, Why is there no area command in revit other than area plans?

This seems like an extremely simple feature to implement....and its extrememly useful, drawing area plans of complex building shapes is a pain and wastes a lot of time.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

Between room tags, area plans, floor scheduling, room separation lines etc. I haven't really missed this 'feature'. There have been numerous discussions about this on the forum and some workarounds have been put out there.

I find the area calc tools pretty useful myself. The fact that the boundaries lines on area plans can be locked to walls and floors pretty much guarantees that you only have to create the area plan once and it will always be up to date.

[neb1998]

Taking areas of multiple rooms is not accurate with the area plan tool unless you are very precise about where the area boundary lines actually attach to the walls.

there should be a simple area tool like with autocad or any other drafting program on the market....pick a number of points and get total area in return.

Area tools i agree are pretty nice for maintaining area measurements or for other presentation purposes, but they are still not a great option for running quick area calculations on interior spaces.

[PeterJ]

What do you need an area command for?

Isn't the ability to place a room name with the associated area enough? The same work will also create schedules which will give you totals and allow you to increasingly subdivide (and if need be filter) the areas as you need to to provide reports for lab-space, toilets, circulation, worship area or whatever you decide is appropriate to your building type.

After this I would expect you to have only a small number of reasons to use area plans, except where you are using them to provide graphical information, such as sprinklered areas, unit types, pre-let space, acoustic ratings blah blah blah.

If you are still stuck consider placing a filled region and checking it's properties, that way you can draw your area then delete it - similar to AutoCAD just one more step.

[Joef]

If you are loooking for a quick way to get an area, you can use the property line like a polyline. I cannot recall who originally posted this trick (thank you!), but it is very handy. You can always erase the polyline or turn it off in Visibility/Graphics.

[iru69]

If you are still stuck consider placing a filled region and checking it's properties...
I just tried that (went to elevation view, Drafting>Fill Region), but I'm not getting any area information under properties...

[neb1998]

Sure, everyone has provided great workarounds.....but admitting there is a problemand providing no solution is not a solution.

Wouldnt it just be easier to provide a button that had a tool tip of AREA, take 4 or so clicks and end up with a popup box that states the area....

Then we have one step...remember ladies and gents....less is more

[Joef]

Perhaps now that the tape measure can do a running length, it could give an area when you close it. I guess this should be a wishlist item.

[iru69]

Now, that's a really ingenious idea!

Perhaps now that the tape measure can do a running length, it could give an area when you close it. I guess this should be a wishlist item.

[neb1998]

surely autodesk could spare the area button from autocad and implement it in revit....its that easy right?

[Dimitri Harvalias]

Taking areas of multiple rooms is not accurate with the area plan tool unless you are very precise about where the area boundary lines actually attach to the walls.

there should be a simple area tool like with autocad or any other drafting program on the market....pick a number of points and get total area in return.

This seems to be a common comment in these threads about the lack of an area tool. "Area plans require too much precision, but I just want a quick area by picking four points"
How accurate is that?
If you really need this tool I like Joe's idea; a close option for the tape measure tool.

[neb1998]

Yes that would work well, i have thought of that in the past but before revit 8 introduced the chain tape tool......so it should be an easy implenetations. Acad reports back perimeter and area information at the end of the chain....I do not see the exact need for perimeter but perhaps it would help some.

Perimeter can be a useful tool when working in section and the ratio size of ductwork is important. However most of the families i believe have this feedback already, or it would be easier to implement there.

[LRaiz]

surely autodesk could spare the area button from autocad and implement it in revit....its that easy right?
But that would not be an approach that ultimately benefits users. Revit designers need to consider a number of issues prior to an implementation.

Here is just a sample in case of area command:
1. The biggest question is the question of associativity. Should the resulting command be parametric? Should it provide an output that continuously updates when other things change. If yes then what is wrong with current area plans, tags, schedules, etc.? Should the graphical indication of the shape persist after the end of the command?
2. What are the typical use cases? (Not in terms of geometrical complexity but in terms of architectural applications)
3. What is the intended workflow?
4. What is the range of shapes? Should they be limited to polygons or curved lines are desired? Should the command recognize holes?
5. What is the required flexibility of output? Should it always be in the same units as set in Settings | Units? How about the number of significant digits?
6. What is the priority of the need relative to all other needs?
7. Etc.

In my experience the best solutions usually emerge when users focus on expression of the need and developers focus on figuring out how to fulfill these needs. I do understand that it is often easy to think of a problem in terms of a solution that already exists elsewhere (e.g. Autocad). However copycat approach would miss the point. Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating reinvention of everything just for the sake of reinventing. I do advocate however to focus on the analysis of needs (and their relative priorities). If in the end an existing solution is found to be most appropriate then it should be repeated. If the need is found to be pressing enough then it should be moved to the front of development queue. But that should be a conscious decision substantiated by an analysis.

I urge users who want to contribute to product improvement to focus on articulating the need and relative priority, not implementation specifics.

The alternative is a development organization that grows to be incapable of true comprehending of implied needs and intended workflow. Such organization would proceed with a straight forward implementation of simple requests exactly as requested and end users would be left not really liking what they got. Besides, this organization would have no time or resources left to tackle difficult problems that were not previously solved by someone else.

[neb1998]

Wow....Well i have a few ideas that i can share....The area tool could be a function like that of the Ceiling tool....Highlighting a particular part of a building and it would try to snap to different possible spaces (rooms, parts of a building, structural elements, etc) or one where we could just select 4 points, 10 points or however many points and get a total area as the feedback.

and you mention holes.....Primarly i would see this tool as one for using on single planes..perhaps we could set the plane before we used the tool or the tool would just default to the plane already selected (floor plan, elevation, section, etc)

Parametric association will really be unnecessary...if we need areas that are associated with other areas surely we can create area plans and use their totals in formulas and schedules in there existing existance.

And to quote another augi poster...."Why a tape measure tool then, why not just create a dimension and then delete it"

Sometimes the answers are simpler than the questions...






But that would not be an approach that ultimately benefits users. Revit designers need to consider a number of issues prior to an implementation.

Here is just a sample in case of area command:
1. The biggest question is the question of associativity. Should the resulting command be parametric? Should it provide an output that continuously updates when other things change. If yes then what is wrong with current area plans, tags, schedules, etc.? Should the graphical indication of the shape persist after the end of the command?
2. What are the typical use cases? (Not in terms of geometrical complexity but in terms of architectural applications)
3. What is the intended workflow?
4. What is the range of shapes? Should they be limited to polygons or curved lines are desired? Should the command recognize holes?
5. What is the required flexibility of output? Should it always be in the same units as set in Settings | Units? How about the number of significant digits?
6. What is the priority of the need relative to all other needs?
7. Etc.

In my experience the best solutions usually emerge when users focus on expression of the need and developers focus on figuring out how to fulfill these needs. I do understand that it is often easy to think of a problem in terms of a solution that already exists elsewhere (e.g. Autocad). However copycat approach would miss the point. Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating reinvention of everything just for the sake of reinventing. I do advocate however to focus on the analysis of needs (and their relative priorities). If in the end an existing solution is found to be most appropriate then it should be repeated. If the need is found to be pressing enough then it should be moved to the front of development queue. But that should be a conscious decision substantiated by an analysis.

I urge users who want to contribute to product improvement to focus on articulating the need and relative priority, not implementation specifics.

The alternative is a development organization that grows to be incapable of true comprehending of implied needs and intended workflow. Such organization would proceed with a straight forward implementation of simple requests exactly as requested and end users would be left not really liking what they got. Besides, this organization would have no time or resources left to tackle difficult problems that were not previously solved by someone else.

[Steve_Stafford]

What happens to the data when the area tool is used? Is it used by the designer to think about the space and redesign? Is it a one off situation where you want a value and don't care if you know what it is 10 minutes later.

Revit is about capturing data and making it useful. So the assumption has always been if you wonder what an area value is once, you probably will care about knowing what it is later?

An area tool like AutoCAD is used to gather a single piece of data and put it into some other place like Excel or a block with attributes or a text and lines schedule in AutoCAD.

Revit's assumption is that data should live in the project in some fashion so you can return to it, knowing it's been updated. If the data is meaningless 10 minutes later, how much value was it in the first place?

[neb1998]

It is about collecting simple data, the data is often used to answer a yes no question. Like this morning i could have used the tool to determine the max square footage of one zone of a building to determine if it was over the max sf allowed by the state of illinois per fire zone in healthcare buildings. Instead i had to go create an area plan thats generating data that i will never used again, so i created the plan and then deleted it once i had the total sq of the area. Which took about 5 min instead of less than one minute had i been using a tool similar to acad's.

Although i see your point of reusing accurate parametric info, some information on a project is never needed again.

I do agree this is not a top wishlist item but one that would be nice should the developers have extra hours to burn during a development cycle.

[Steve_Stafford]

...Like this morning i could have used the tool to determine the max square footage of one zone of a building to determine if it was over the max sf allowed by the state of illinois per fire zone in healthcare buildings. Instead i had to go create an area plan thats generating data that i will never used again...But...IF you did need it again? :smile:



I do agree this is not a top wishlist item but one that would be nice should the developers have extra hours to burn during a development cycle.I'm withya...can we get an amen?

[beegee]

It is about collecting simple data, the data is often used to answer a yes no question. Like this morning i could have used the tool to determine the max square footage of one zone of a building to determine if it was over the max sf allowed by the state of illinois per fire zone in healthcare buildings. Instead i had to go create an area plan thats generating data that i will never used again, so i created the plan and then deleted it once i had the total sq of the area. Which took about 5 min instead of less than one minute had i been using a tool similar to acad's.

Although i see your point of reusing accurate parametric info, some information on a project is never needed again.

I do agree this is not a top wishlist item but one that would be nice should the developers have extra hours to burn during a development cycle.
One very quick way is to place Property lines and drop in a Propert Area tag.

[zenomail105021]

Neb I agree entirely and amen but if I might add that I believe the controversy revolves around whether or not you are using Revit as an estimating program which I do as a small home builder and designer. Quick area measurements are very handy for estimating where you need a quick number to plug into a spreadsheet (or to check codes, etc.). If you are strictly using it as a design program (and leaving the actual estimating to the contractor) then perhaps you have less need for an area command of this sort.

Bill Maddox

[Martin P]

One very quick way is to place Property lines and drop in a Propert Area tag..

Or just pick the floor and Revit tells you the area in properties (obviously only works of you want the entire floor area!)

I would like an area tool also, but not only in plans. I would like to be able measure areas on elevations and in sections by drawing a boundary. There is currently no method of doing this at all in Revit. This would be of great use to me for doing energy efficiency calcs where I have to plug in wall areas to 3rd party software. Picking the walls to get areas is of no use to me as I dont want the entire wall area. Just parts (the enclosing room areas)... Area is a missing tool I would agree, doesnt have to be clever or infact a new tool at all -

Even if filled regions reported areas that would be a massive help! Revit could just multiply the filled region area and view scale and it would be a fine tool for my purposes.......

[neb1998]

Apparently you must work on projects where the budget is unlimited....

The applications for the tool are endless, i believe the need has been outlined, i think its up to the individual architect to determine what applications the tool will be used for.







Neb I agree entirely and amen but if I might add that I believe the controversy revolves around whether or not you are using Revit as an estimating program which I do as a small home builder and designer. Quick area measurements are very handy for estimating where you need a quick number to plug into a spreadsheet (or to check codes, etc.). If you are strictly using it as a design program (and leaving the actual estimating to the contractor) then perhaps you have less need for an area command of this sort.

Bill Maddox

[zenomail105021]

Ben:

Thanks for your reply. I agree with you entirely that there should be an area command (I sure could use one anyway), I was just trying to define why some out there might not think it as important as you or I do. You very adequately expressed why we should have it.


Bill Maddox

[sjsl]

I can't recall in Revit ever needing what has been described. We use the area plan for code analysis all the time. Net rentable gives us the interior gross for the code plans. We use room separation tool to further separate the areas. The beauty is it's ALWAYS available. I guess becuase we work on typically large projects we have more need for longer term project data retention as we design.

[Joef]

What if you want to estimate tiles on a backsplash? Or different pavers. Or you want the gross area of a house to the outside walls, incuding the front porch but not the overhang of the family room. Perhaps you need to do an exposed building face calculation? There are lots of time it is handy to have a simple way to get an area, and right now the simplest way is to export to AutoCAD and use a polyline.

[neb1998]

I think it would be a good idea for everyone that reads this thread to post uses they could use such a feature for....Perhaps then autodesk will see the demand and implement it.

[PeterJ]

Not just the use but the answers to Leonid's other questions. Will the data have a persistence? How will the tool be used? etc.

[LRaiz]

I think it would be a good idea for everyone that reads this thread to post uses they could use such a feature for....Perhaps then autodesk will see the demand and implement it.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to (A) accumulate sufficient experience to be completely comfortable with Revit approach to doing things, (B) see if people agree that this feature should be moved to the top of development agenda and (C) ask nicely.

[neb1998]

Here is just a sample in case of area command:
1. The biggest question is the question of associativity. Should the resulting command be parametric? Should it provide an output that continuously updates when other things change. If yes then what is wrong with current area plans, tags, schedules, etc.? Should the graphical indication of the shape persist after the end of the command?

Associativity or parametric behavior is not necessary for the type of area command i am describing, once the information is generated (after points are selected on a screen) the output would be simple..."Total Square Feet"


2. What are the typical use cases? (Not in terms of geometrical complexity but in terms of architectural applications)

This is being answered on the forumns but a few typical scenarios are (code review, quick floor plan area calcs, section area calcs, elevation area calcs, etc)

3. What is the intended workflow?

Not sure i understand what you mean by workflow.


4. What is the range of shapes? Should they be limited to polygons or curved lines are desired? Should the command recognize holes?

Complex forms may be best used with area plans since you can draw actual lines and see the highlighted space accourdingly, the area tool is for simple and fast calculations, holes would be ignored since area is taken in plane and would disregard back faces.



5. What is the required flexibility of output? Should it always be in the same units as set in Settings | Units? How about the number of significant digits?

Yes, the output would be the same as in the settings | units - desired rounding to perhaps .01 should be plenty for any application i can think of, although this seems like a mathamatical detail and really is part of the units settings already.


6. What is the priority of the need relative to all other needs?

PRiority, well its not going to cause me to return to autocad. But it also does come up at least once a week if not more often as a burden.


7. Etc.

Any other questions?

In my experience the best solutions usually emerge when users focus on expression of the need and developers focus on figuring out how to fulfill these needs. I do understand that it is often easy to think of a problem in terms of a solution that already exists elsewhere (e.g. Autocad). However copycat approach would miss the point. Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating reinvention of everything just for the sake of reinventing. I do advocate however to focus on the analysis of needs (and their relative priorities). If in the end an existing solution is found to be most appropriate then it should be repeated. If the need is found to be pressing enough then it should be moved to the front of development queue. But that should be a conscious decision substantiated by an analysis.

I urge users who want to contribute to product improvement to focus on articulating the need and relative priority, not implementation specifics.

The alternative is a development organization that grows to be incapable of true comprehending of implied needs and intended workflow. Such organization would proceed with a straight forward implementation of simple requests exactly as requested and end users would be left not really liking what they got. Besides, this organization would have no time or resources left to tackle difficult problems that were not previously solved by someone else.

[zenomail105021]

I would add to Bens excellent cogent observations that the developers of ADT or AutoCad, did not put in an area command just to do it. History has some relevance here (ADT did not evolve in a vacuum). There was a need and the need was satisfied. I used ADT for years and found their Area Command extremely useful for the same reasons many have already stated. It is a very practical tool, particularly for those who not only design but also use the program for estimating. This a recurring theme in the forums and probably that is a good indicator of a need. It is needed just as the tape measure is needed.

Bill Maddox

I am quoting others and I have used it in the same manner with ADT

What if you want to estimate tiles on a back splash? Or different pavers. Or you want the gross area of a house to the outside walls, including the front porch but not the overhang of the family room. Perhaps you need to do an exposed building face calculation? There are lots of time it is handy to have a simple way to get an area, and right now the simplest way is to export to AutoCAD and use a polyline

This is being answered on the forums but a few typical scenarios are (code review, quick floor plan area calcs, section area calcs, elevation area calcs, etc)

I WOULD ADD: Quick calculation of a potential deck area or concrete pad for estimating purposes, etc. etc. Or perhaps you want to carpet part of a room and tile the rest. Yes you could probably get something from the current program but it is just not as handy much of the time.

[Steve_Stafford]

Note: I'm not against an area tool like AutoCAD has.


There are lots of time it is handy to have a simple way to get an area, and right now the simplest way is to export to AutoCAD and use a polylineAn Area plan is virtually the same thing? And the data is persistant, a record of calculations you can return too. I get the distinct impression people don't understand how easy area plans are.

An area tool as described here is only good to me if someone is looking over my shoulder and says how much area is that? That's quick! But as soon as you say, I need to estimate something I think...yeah and that's gonna change and I don't want to have to go back through this whole thing completely when it does. If I have to make more than four picks to calculate an area, it's off to area plans for me.

I think a good solution would be for the tape measure tool to report area when the chain option is selected and the endpoints close.

For calculating areas on elevations as Martin has mentioned here and in other posts we need a way to apply area boundaries to those views.

[neb1998]

Again...the need then exists for "fast" area calculations.

[Scott D Davis]

What if you want to estimate tiles on a back splash?
Get the properties from the family. You may need to set this up in the countertop family, but you would only need it once. Set a parameter for backsplash height, and one for backsplash length. Then use a calculated value for Backsplash area which equals L x H. Once you have set this up ONE TIME, it will forever be in your counter top family, and can be used over and over again, and can be scheduled, and exported to ODBC for other cost estimating programs.


Or different pavers.
Get the area from the properties of the sub reguion defining the pavers. Use a schedule to calculate all the pavers used in various areas on the project. If the pavers change configuration, the schedule will automaticlly update.


Or you want the gross area of a house to the outside walls, including the front porch but not the overhang of the family room.
Use an area plan, draw your own boundary including and excluding what you want to calculate. Lock the lines to the geometry. If the plan changes, the areas update.


Perhaps you need to do an exposed building face calculation? There are lots of time it is handy to have a simple way to get an area, and right now the simplest way is to export to AutoCAD and use a polyline
Now I could see this being useful. Pick a face with an 'area tag' and it would report the area of that face, and then have toggles to include/exclude windows/doors/openings etc.


Or perhaps you want to carpet part of a room and tile the rest. Yes you could probably get something from the current program but it is just not as handy much of the time.
Yep! Why isn't it handy? If you've made the floor, part of it tile, and part of it carpet, you can tag it (s Stee Stafford showed us in another thread in 8.0) and it will report the area. If the design changes, the area updates!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to discredit your ideas, I just think there are ways in the program that are much more parametric and powerful/flexible than drawing a one-time rectangle for area.

[Scott D Davis]

Again...the need then exists for "fast" area calculations.
I could draw a parametric rectangle on an area plan as fast as you can draw a one-time rectangle on any other plan. Difference is, mine will change as the plan/model changes. Mine will be scheduleable, calculatable, exportable to ODBC, etc. which is what Revit is all about.

Once again, not trying to discount what you are saying...but there are already tools in the program to do what you want, as fast as you need them to be.

[neb1998]

I could draw a parametric rectangle on an area plan as fast as you can draw a one-time rectangle on any other plan. Difference is, mine will change as the plan/model changes. Mine will be scheduleable, calculatable, exportable to ODBC, etc. which is what Revit is all about.

Once again, not trying to discount what you are saying...but there are already tools in the program to do what you want, as fast as you need them to be.
I will have to respectfully disagree with this.....I would not be spending my time on the forumns with this issue if it did not already waste time. An area tool like that in autocad is extremely fast, its accessible from any view (that being virtual views since they dont really exist) and its consistent.

During a new design where the exterior of the building is changing drastically from one minute to the next, area plans are usually useless. Usually i have to delete all area seperation line and start over again. Which is adding steps otherwise not used. Also having to change from the initial floor plan to an area plan, draw your lines, drop a tag, close the area plan, then proceed back to your initial plan is a waste of time..

[Joef]

You are right about area plans being useful, and I will definitely use them more in the future, but I am not going to model something simply to get its area. I don't usually have a topo to do subregions from.
I don't understand the resistance to a simple tool to do a quick measurement. If we can have a tape measure tool, why not an area?
Why are people worried about the factory spending time on this? I put this in the same category as the nudge tool. We can get along without it, but it is really nice to have it there when you need it!

[J. Grouchy]

You are right about area plans being useful, and I will definitely use them more in the future, but I am not going to model something simply to get its area. I don't usually have a topo to do subregions from.
I don't understand the resistance to a simple tool to do a quick measurement. If we can have a tape measure tool, why not an area?
Why are people worried about the factory spending time on this? I put this in the same category as the nudge tool. We can get along without it, but it is really nice to have it there when you need it!

This has been bugging me. For all the beauty of having area calculated within the properties of walls and rooms,etc. , Revit doesn't address the need for quick area measurement in sketches and constantly changing plans where tenants sign leases based on very specific delineations that Revit doesn't always provide in its automatic room bounding. I like the idea of being able to gather area data from filled regions or from a sketch tool or even just using the measure tool (see attached image). This is a perfect example of Revit simply overlooking the simple need for quick, on-the-fly area calcs either because it was somehow beneath them or they thought their solution was much better even though it can't be applied in every way the user might need it.

[neb1998]

Dont get me started on this mess again

[Mike Hardy-Brown]

For all the beauty of having area calculated within the properties of walls and rooms,etc. , Revit doesn't address the need for quick area measurement in sketches ....I stick by my little "shortcut" http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=25379
of using the site tools as a quick area calculation tool. I know this is not the prescribed way of measuring areas, but it is the fastest tool I can find, to polyline>pick>properties (as in ADT OR ACAD)
NOt sure if we should use workarounds like this, but....hey if they work why nothttp://forums.augi.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[robmorfin]

Here goes my reputation to red color again for being honest.

Why is it that every time somebody that is not a moderator from AUGI says something in Revit could be better or is not working as Architects would like it to work, some Revit users declare war on them?

The area plans are one way to get areas, it doesn't work for everyone, it will be better to have few ways to get areas, adjust them, place the totals wherever we want, and a better customization of area rules.

I think you should read and consider what Ben proposes.

[iru69]

Why is it that every time somebody that is not a moderator from AUGI says something in Revit could be better or is not working as Architects would like it to work, moderators declare war on them?
I know what you mean that certain users of Revit sometimes seem hell bent on demonstrating that there's nothing wrong with Revit when there's obviously users who feel differently... and I think we can all understand how frustrating that might be (there are a few times when I've felt that myself)...
but your generalization seems grossly unfair.

[Scott Hopkins]

I have a very simple solution here. Give filled regions an area parameter. It seems silly that they don't already report areas.

[kimheaver]

Wouldnt it just be easier to provide a button that had a tool tip of AREA, take 4 or so clicks and end up with a popup box that states the area

Use property lines to sketch around the area, finish the command. Then right click on the line, select properties and it shows the area.

I don't understand the resistance to an area tool either, sometimes you want to check an area, nothing more.

Regards,
Kim

[sbrown]

I really like the idea of just expanding the functionality of the tape measure to get areas. This is the exact reason the tape measure is their. Yes you can put a real dim on, but you don't want it to stay, so they gave us the tape measure. Now people need to check the area of a wall or a seating area while in a meeeting or something, so it would be helpful to get a quick measurement. We often have to check the amount of glazing on a wall and unless I'm missing something, there is no easy way to do this in revit. In Naples its a code requirement to have a min. 10% glazing on each wall. I have to print the elevation and use a ruler to figure it out. I can't trust the wall area because in many cases it is not all visible(not the facade area) I also don't know if it is subtracting out openings, etc. so anyway, it would be very helpful to just do some onscreen measuring.

[jbalding48677]

I have to agree with the potential of a quick area tool, and the tape measure tools seems to be a perfect precursor to it. I (proudly or not) have not used the area tool in AutoCAD, but have used the one in DWF Composer and find it rather handy. My vote would be to be able to create a quick area with that tool for rough temporary areas.

As for the moderator bashing, I have to say that they are all very good people and are doing a fantastic job. Not to mention volunteering a ton of time to help make this forum one of the best around. I think what you are seeing can be attributed to "passion" and the fact that they have been using the tool for many years now and are making it work. Also noteworthy, is the fact that these folks have been defending Revit for the same period of time as Revit was the "little" guy and that may spill over into the forums from time to time. While we are all human and do have emotion, I personally would like to thank these guys for their work and dedication to this forum.

Rob you will get no red points from me.

[norman.93625]

What moderator bashing are you talking about? :confused: I read the whole thread and did not see anything that could be construed as mod bashing.

I do agree that the forum mods do deserve some recognition for the quick responses that they do give. Good job!

[jbalding48677]

See the original quote from Rob in Irusun's post above (6 up from here). Bashing might be a bit over the top.

[neb1998]

Good luck with this forum Jim, as i learned there were many different thoughts on what area plans were and what they were supposed to provide.

Area tool seemed like a non-parametric feature to some of the founders, so perhaps we will never get it, but it definatly seems to be something that is at least "Requested" by users.

I will leave it at that.

[k.armstrong]

I can't recall in Revit ever needing what has been described. We use the area plan for code analysis all the time. Net rentable gives us the interior gross for the code plans. We use room separation tool to further separate the areas. The beauty is it's ALWAYS available. I guess becuase we work on typically large projects we have more need for longer term project data retention as we design.

Ok so not quite on the thread but similar - i use area plans - but would like some flexibility to create my own rules - so the measurements reflect our area calculation rules - there are about 4 different ways of calculating "rentable" area depending on the type of building.

Ken

[Joef]

This talk about area plans is not addressing the basic question: How do you get an area of a window or a backsplash or some other vertical surface? Export to Autocad!

[irwin]

Area tool seemed like a non-parametric feature to some of the founders, so perhaps we will never get it, but it definatly seems to be something that is at least "Requested" by users.
I wonder which to which founders you refer. :wink: I don't recall anyone having philosophical objections to a non-parametric area measurement tool; it's just that other things were given higher priority.

[jarkko.rauvanlahti]

I have to say that I haven't needed that much quick area tool - as has been pointed there's ways go around it most of the times. Can see that it's very useful in elevations etc.

What I would need is to be able to make special tags that can use existing parameters like Area-parameter. Here in Finland we also need to have minimum window are in a room so it would be nice to tag the room with tag that calculates i.e. Windows needed = 0.1 * Area. Similar things are maximum number of peoples in certain rooms etc..

It can be done exporting area schedules and using other programs. Somehow it seems to be more revitlike to be able to do it with tags and scheduling them in the Revit model?

[J. Grouchy]

I have to say that I haven't needed that much quick area tool - as has been pointed there's ways go around it most of the times. Can see that it's very useful in elevations etc.

What I would need is to be able to make special tags that can use existing parameters like Area-parameter. Here in Finland we also need to have minimum window are in a room so it would be nice to tag the room with tag that calculates i.e. Windows needed = 0.1 * Area. Similar things are maximum number of peoples in certain rooms etc..

It can be done exporting area schedules and using other programs. Somehow it seems to be more revitlike to be able to do it with tags and scheduling them in the Revit model?
I'm a little put off by the need to use a tag to calculate area. It assumes far too much about the exact area you want to calculate and removes the direct user control from the process. While I appreciate Revit's ability to schedule and automatically do what used to consume our time, sometimes all I want is a quick, old-fashioned way to do something on the fly without having to set everything up perfectly beforehand for some tag or parameter to function correctly.

[robmorfin]

As for the moderator bashing, I have to say that they are all very good people and are doing a fantastic job. Not to mention volunteering a ton of time to help make this forum one of the best around. I think what you are seeing can be attributed to "passion" and the fact that they have been using the tool for many years now and are making it work. Also noteworthy, is the fact that these folks have been defending Revit for the same period of time as Revit was the "little" guy and that may spill over into the forums from time to time. While we are all human and do have emotion, I personally would like to thank these guys for their work and dedication to this forum.

Rob you will get no red points from me.
"passion" sometimes can be seen by others as a state of desire or emotion that represents the influence of what is external and opposes thought and reason as the true activity of the human mind (Merriam-Webster).

Moderators, I have alot of respect for you for all the help you give to others expecting no reward, sometimes you receive offensive posts and you reply with kindness every time, I did bash you,
but changed my mind.

Didn't mean to offend anybody, as I was reading the posts, it felt as if everybody was opposing to this wish defending the area tool Revit has, alot of workarounds, "it's not needed", "available area tools are capable enough",and asking Ben why it should be considered by the Development team, just didn't feel right (my apologies to anybody that felt my post was offensive).

Well, this would be a cool tool to add, maybe we all who want it were AutoCAD users for alot of years and can't live without it, look at the poll, 81.54% as now of us think that area plans don't fulfill our needs for ALL area type calculations.

[Chad Smith]

I too have been after an area tool since day 1 (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=1373) of using Revit, and I still wish I had one.
I would be very happy with the Tape Measure idea and being able to close the running measurement.
I only need rough areas to help set out and to get those occassional obscured areas.

[zenomail105021]

Leaping into the cauldron, I think the developers of Revit should do some serious research on all competitive programs of this ilk and match whatever reasonable features they offer but with more eloquence. As I mentioned before on this issue, those other programs did not evolve in a vacuum. I really cannot understand why a simple Area command would damage the integrity and purity of the program as some appear to be suggesting. With all due respect for the sanctity of differing opinions, the aforementioned posts relentlessly arguing for the exclusivity of existing means of getting a simple area reminds me of the nabobs of established religion fanatically maintaining the company line in the face of obvious scientific evidence, logic and human progress (if not an illusion). Before my time, but was there this sort of resistance to a Measure command? Are the faithful afraid of more features, more buttons, more options, more flexibility, a better program? Has Revit and its flock prematurely become the establishment with its coterie of disciples desperately holding onto existing rituals with the inevitable slide down the slippery slope to ossification and finally oblivion? I went through the inconvenience of switching from ADT to Revit not for its present value but for its future potential and 8.1 is still present value the way I see it. I look at future potential, along with larger issues and fixing screw ups, as accommodating those little conveniences that make CAD flexible, friendly, useful and fun to use. And please don't tell me the developers do not have the time or resources to provide all of these? What else do they have to do and what is my subscription for?


Bill Maddox