wall crossing

[Griff]

What would cause two walls to not cleanup where they cross when they are the same wall type and on the same phase? If I drag the endpoint back to where the two walls cross so they form a tee and not a cross, they clean up fine???

[adegnan]

Think construction! To build that wall, you build one continuous wall and frame two shorter walls into it. Essentially two T's. Revit works the same way, you need to have two walls joining the continuous wall, one going either direction. Then you can align and lock them if you wish to ensure they are colinear.

HTH.

[Scott D Davis]

Use the Split tool and pick one of the walls at the intersection, and then they will clean up.

[Griff]

Thanks again guys,
Looks like I'm going to keep running into problems till I start drawing the BMI like it will be constructed. I guess Master Yoda was right, but it's was so hard to learn ADT I'm finding it's just as hard to unlearn it. I hope I don't try your patients too much. Thanks again

[adegnan]

Use the Split tool and pick one of the walls at the intersection, and then they will clean up.

I could have said that the easy way, right scott? :?

[beegee]

Despite the building construction analogy and the split tool solution, I've always felt that Revit should clean up a cross junction of the same wall type properly and automatically.

[adegnan]

Despite the building construction analogy and the split tool solution, I've always felt that Revit should clean up a cross junction of the same wall type properly and automatically.

That is a good point, but how would you decide which wall gets split? For Revit, it probably doesn't matter. In real life, it is decided for framing efficiency (unless there is any structural reason that it needs to go another way-- in which case there would probably be a note or detail in Revit as well). So there could probably just be a default that the 2nd wall drawn would automatically split.

[Chad Smith]

I too think crossing walls should cleanup.

Think of it this way. If you run a wall into another perpendicularly, the grip at the end of the new wall at the 'T' section is located in the middle of the other wall (See attached image). If you then mirror a copy of that perpendicular wall to the other side you end up with 2 walls whos grips are in the center of the first. Essentially, these 2 perpendicular walls are now 1 wall because they meet in the middle.

Even if you split a crossed wall into 2, the construction still 'technically' isn't correct because of the overlap at a walls end. So a crossed wall should be cleaned up automatically, without the need for a split.

[Scott D Davis]

I hope I don't try your patients too much. Thanks again

No Problem! That's what we are all here for!

[aaronrumple]

Actually the fact that two walls have the same end grip point doesn't make them the same as one continuous wall. Try this: make two walls that cross and overlap. Copy the same two walls and split one to make a correct overlap. Now export this information to a ODBC Database. You'll see that the split wall add up to less volume and area <as they should> than the two overlapping walls. If these were different wall styles and Revit did an automatic cleanup, the BIM report woul be wrong.

I think the concept Revit is using now is the right way to go. It makes the architect think about construction, not just drafting.

[Chad Smith]

Actually the fact that two walls have the same end grip point doesn't make them the same as one continuous wall.
Sorry, I probably stated that not quite right. What I meant was that they might as well be one wall.

If Revit can calculate the volume for a wall that is butt into another then it should be able to just as easily caluclate the area for a crossed wall (by removing the appropriate crossed components from the calc.). Why not make it only walls of the same family that cleanup at a crossing. If they were different, then don't cleanup, and that would then make the user think a bit further.

Revit is about making drafting/modeling easy and quick. This would be another step forward.