View Range-Why?

[zenomail105021]

It is 3:49 AM in the morning and I have just spent hours working out (more like floundering around) a View Range problem. I feel the need to VENT!!

Since I have been using Revit the most recurringly frustrating thing for me is dealing with the View Range. Is it me or was whoever thought it up just not thinking "lets make this real simple"? Probably me, but it just seems overly complicated. What is this with Top, Cut Plane, Bottom and View Depth? All I ever want (I think) is Top and Bottom showing everything in between, perhaps with offsets, and with an optional underlay. And what is the purpose of Cut Plane anyway? Is there a list of what and when a Cut Plane is applied and if so why?. Is this Byzantine or am I just ignorant?

It seems to me that Plan Regions would be unnecessary if the Cut Plane aspect of View Range were eliminated (and with the option of Hide/Isolate being a plotting option ..... please factory!!!). But, then again, I can't seem to get my brain around the theory as to why it is set up this way (I don't think it was mean spirited) so maybe, not understanding the rationalization, I am out of my depth and don't know what I am talking about.

Most of the time I just live with View Range and somehow it works (too often, however, after a bout of non-intuitive blind trial and error) but, since I am on a roll, why the tortuous route to View Range if the Gods have determined that we must live with the way it is (i.e. View Properties .... Scroll To View Range .......... Edit ....... back to the drawing to see if it works ........ back and forth .............back and forth .......... ).

I have checked the threads, done the tutorials, studied the manuals, read the books and still it is, too often, a mystery.

Bill Maddox

[gbrowne]

I have to agree with this. View range confuses me too.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

BIll,

Not sure who orginally posted this example but this simple graphic may help explain the terminology and thought process behind how view range works.

[zenomail105021]

Thanks Dimitri:

I have that and it does "explain" the idea of the thing. However, when I go to work out a View Range "problem" things somehow go awry. I wonder if anyone knows how one determines what are "cuttable" elements and what are "projection" properties and I wonder if I can make them so that I can see anything within the Top to Bottom Range? Isn't that the idea? Probably a rhetorical question but wouldn't it be nice. It would seem to eliminate the problem but what do I know. I appreciate the help. Thanks again.

Bill Maddox

[Steve_Stafford]

Revit uses three linetypes/weights in association with view range. Cut is used for objects that pass through the cut plane, Projection is used for objects within the primary range and Beyond is used for objects that are within the View Depth. So three lineweight representation of objects automatically, dependant on the settings.

Cuttable objects are easily determined by looking at the Object Styles table ... Settings > Object Styles. Objects with no entry for CUT do not have a cut representation. Help also defines which objects are or are not cuttable. See the image attached.

I agree that many folks struggle with this but it is really pretty slick once you get comfortable.

FWIW, by default all plan views other than site in a Revit template have a cutplane of 4 feet above the associated level. This is typical of a floor plan which is really just a horizontal building section, right?

All RCP views are using a cutplane of 7.5 feet and View Depth really "flips" to above the primary range for these views.

In plan views you really only need to be concerned about cut and the bottom setting for the primary range.

You typically will use a view depth value to see things beyond/below the floor level you are on, such as a lower roof, terrace or a split level. To see structural elements below you typically will need to lower the bottom of the primary range so the beams are within the primary range. When you lower the bottom of the primary range you also need to adjust the View Depth by at least the same amount or Revit will complain.

The Plan Region feature is meant to allow us to alter the View Range settings of a view for a smaller portion or portions of a view. This will let us alter how a lower roof is cut, windows above are cut or not, doors similarly and stairs. A plan region must completely surround a stair to affect it. It won't do anything to a stair if if only covers part of it.

I wrote all this knowing that the attachments that James Vandezande provided in the past and attached here by Dimitri say it all too...sometimes just saying things again...and again... :smile: helps makes things "pop" into place.

[SCShell]

Hey Steve,
Nice explanation!
Steve

[aaronrumple]

Thanks Dimitri:

I have that and it does "explain" the idea of the thing. However, when I go to work out a View Range "problem" things somehow go awry. I wonder if anyone knows how one determines what are "cuttable" elements and what are "projection" properties and I wonder if I can make them so that I can see anything within the Top to Bottom Range? Isn't that the idea? Probably a rhetorical question but wouldn't it be nice. It would seem to eliminate the problem but what do I know. I appreciate the help. Thanks again.

Bill MaddoxA "cuttable" element is anything intersecting the cut plane. For Revit, a plan is just a horizontal section. The one exception to the rule are walls less than 6' tall. These are shown as below, and that does make the plan a little clearer. You can fool Revit into thinking 6' walls are taller by attaching then to the level above and then using the top offset to lower the top.

Can you make it so you see everything from the top range down? No. That's not how it is used. In simplest terms - you see everything in true projection from the cut plane down to the bottom range.

As for the ranges below the lower limit and above the cut plane: That's up to you and how you make your objects for how they display. There's no blaming the system here as it is up to you to create the graphics.

You'll see in the attached I've placed 4 cabinets. These have been modified from the stock wall cabinets. If the cabinet intersects the cut plane - it is sectioned. This is a function of the visibility settings of the 3d objects in the casework family - not something the view range just makes up on it's own. The other cabinets are above or below the cut plane. These display the linework I've set up as a "projection linework" based on the visibility properties in the family.

So it might not be an issue of your view range, but how some of the objects are configured.

[dbaldacchino]

Great thread guys. I was about to post a question because I was having trouble understanding what was happening. I think the view range concept is straight forward. The problems I was having was because I couldn't figure out whether something was using a line style or the object style. So, here's my 2 cents:

a) When trying to figure if something is being cut or not, just turn off "thin lines"! That was my first hurdle. I thought some elements were being cut because I was in thin line mode and certain walls looked the same as walls I know are cut.

b) If your view depth is set below your bottom clip plane, the linework will be according to Settings>Line Styles, <Beyond>. Try changing the line color....I did and it makes it easier to understand what's what.

c) If the object is visible because it is within your top and bottom clip plane but it is not cut, then the line properties are taken from Settings>Object Styles (for walls, it would be the projection setting for walls). Once more, change the line color to understand it better.

Edit: Well this is really what James' dwf example illustrates really well...just realized that, but writing made me understand it better.

See my attachment. There is one thing that still makes no sense to me. Take a look at the Roof view. The blue linework is a box that extends to Level 2 (lowest form) and shows up because my View Depth is Level 1 (<Beyond> line style set to blue). Why would this linework print heavier and is not "greyed out" like the other two boxes (one extends to Roof, the other to 5'-0" above Roof?). The two other taller forms are controlled by the projection line style from the object style, yet are showing and printing out more faded than the "beyond" objects. This is quite confusing.

Edit: Ok, figured it out. I had the Underlay turned on....that's what was showing greyed out. If you turn them off, it'll help you understand View Ranges better. You can turn them back on once you've mastered the concept.

Thanks all!

[BillyGrey]

The thing people struggle with is the conceptual nature of implementing view ranges, vs. a more graphical tool. One idea (one this week, I'm on a roll) might be to augment the feature with a horizontal section marker that would act exactly like vertical sections, including grip enabled ranges. Include the split feature, which could be used like, or to compliment the plan region tool. In fact, make secondary horiz. sections which would include dragable range grips available in the z and xy axis and you could then easily isolate parts of the model via horizontal section cuts, and nicely document portions of the building and various ranges of the model just like we do with sections now. These horizontal sections could enhance the overall functionality greatly, and be a snap for those that are more graphically inclined learners/users.

[archjake]

This is one of those hard things to grasp. Thanks for the great info, diagrams, and Revit files.

[hworrell]

I am having problems with a view range...with items in levels below showing up, even though my view depth is 0'-0" and the bottom is set at 0'-0". Can anyone explain why I can see the floor that is on the "T.O. Footing" level when it is clearly below "Level 1"? (and no underlay)

I have attached the file. Ok-I hit the upload button this time...

[jtobin.68416]

I can't explain the view range problem in the previous message, but I think the problem with view range is definitely terminology.

Why not simply call the view range parameters 'Cut' 'Projection', and 'Beyond' to match the terminology of the linetypes that describe their appearance?
I hadn't realized before that view depth utilized the 'beyond' line type

I also found the dwf's very informative.

What purpose does the 'Top' serve if you can't see in that direction?
Isn't the 'Cut' plane the top of your view.

[dbaldacchino]

What purpose does the 'Top' serve if you can't see in that direction?
Isn't the 'Cut' plane the top of your view.I believe that those objects above the cut plane should show in Hidden line.

[ctdrafting]

does anyone have a trick for showing the windows in plan view when some of the windows are not in the cut range. for example, you might have a 4 x 4 slider with a 6'8 header and then a 4 x 1 slider with a 6'8 header in the bathroom. now if you have a split level with a window at 6'8 on the midlevel it will appear but the other two won't. Or if you set the view range to display the first two windows, the latter on the midlevel won't appear. how do you get revit to display all the windows on a level no matter where the cut range is?

[aaronrumple]

What purpose does the 'Top' serve if you can't see in that direction?
Isn't the 'Cut' plane the top of your view.See my casework example posted above...

Now to answer the big mystery:

It ain't got nuthin' to do with the view range.

The foundation view is set to Structural. However, the floor isn't defined as structural, so it doesn't show up. If you're working in Revit Building, you can't make a floor structural. That is reserved for Revit Structural.

So set your view to Architectural or Coordination.

[dbaldacchino]

Now to answer the big mystery:

It ain't got nuthin' to do with the view range.

.

Ok, that doesn't make sense. I mean, Aaron's right, but the way it works doesn't make sense. I would expect things over the cut plane to be depicted with line style <Overhead>. I wonder if this is something to be incorporated in future functionality? I mean, if I have a skylight and I'm on the second floor, I would like to see the opening above dashed and I expect to set that by adjusting the top plane of my view range. Guess not.

I know the "workaround" for this.....set your cut plane above what you want to see, use the linework tool and draw/pick overhead lines, lock them and re-set your cut plane. I still wish that objects above the cut plane are visible with the overhead linestyle. If you're reading this Wes, perhaps you could add to the wishlist? ;)

[aaronrumple]

I mean, if I have a skylight and I'm on the second floor, I would like to see the opening above dashed and I expect to set that by adjusting the top plane of my v iew range. Guess not.Your guess is mostly right. <Above> and <Beyond> are really used for system families.

For other famlies - use symbolic linework of a >Projected> Category. See my casework example above.

This works for windows and skylights and allows you to display transom windows with whatever linework you like when above the cut plane.

The prblem with making EVERYTHING display with an <Above> linestye would mean that you would have so much clutter you couldn't see the plan.

[dbaldacchino]

I can't view your casework example. Something is wrong in the casework family (it's saying it's an incompatible version when I try to load a wall based casework family with the name "family1" in that example file).

Ok so I was wrong, there are certain families that display when above the cut plane and below the top clip plane. Here's what the help file states:

There are a few categories for which an element located above the cut plane but partially below the top clip is shown in plan. These categories include windows, casework, and generic model. These objects are shown as viewed from above.

So are these displayed with <Beyond> or <Overhead>?

[zenomail105021]

Thank you all. Read your responses, printed them and will study them carefully tomorrow in hopes of some enlightenment.

One thing still nags me however, and going back to my original post, why couldn't things be made much much easier by simply having a Top and Bottom View Range (with an optional underlay) and a plottable Hide option to eliminate the objects you don't want to plot or see within the chosen range?

Or as a practical matter (assuming View Range is tied into some other esoteric function and therefore necessary) if we had a Plottable Hide/Isolate option, then just make everything an Unlimited View Range and between Visibility/Graphic Overrides and a Plottable Hide/Isolate Option get just what we want without all the hassle.

I'm thinking that the View Range thing is very badly designed somehow but if I am wrong could someone please explain the flaw in my logic here?

Thanks again.

Bill Maddox

[aaronrumple]

I can't view your casework example. Something is wrong in the casework family (it's saying it's an incompatible version when I try to load a wall based casework family with the name "family1" in that example file).

Ok so I was wrong, there are certain families that display when above the cut plane and below the top clip plane. Here's what the help file states:

There are a few categories for which an element located above the cut plane but partially below the top clip is shown in plan. These categories include windows, casework, and generic model. These objects are shown as viewed from above.

So are these displayed with <Beyond> or <Overhead>?
Neither. They use the linework defined in the family as projected....
<The casework file was 8.1>

[dbaldacchino]

<The casework file was 8.1>
That's odd....I have 8.1, Build:20050804_0100. I only get a wall in your example file and no casework family shows up.


One thing still nags me however, and going back to my original post, why couldn't things be made much much easier by simply having a Top and Bottom View Range (with an optional underlay) and a plottable Hide option to eliminate the objects you don't want to plot or see within the chosen range?

Or as a practical matter (assuming View Range is tied into some other esoteric function and therefore necessary) if we had a Plottable Hide/Isolate option, then just make everything an Unlimited View Range and between Visibility/Graphic Overrides and a Plottable Hide/Isolate Option get just what we want without all the hassle.

I'm thinking that the View Range thing is very badly designed somehow but if I am wrong could someone please explain the flaw in my logic here?

Bill Maddox
Now that I understand how a view range works, I don't think it's badly designed at all. I was a bit surprised at the limited amount of objects that show up above the cut plane though. I think it would be easier to have everything show up above and below the cut plane between the top and bottom clips and then control their visibility by view in the visibility-graphics perhaps....like an on/off switch. That way, you can unclutter your drawings and only show what's necessary. For instance I might want to show the overhead slab openings in my plan as a reference, or ceiling bulkheads (or furr-downs, depending on which part of the country you are :) ). The fact that objects in the view depth are controlled by something other than an object style (by the <beyond> line style) is confusing to the beginner. Once you know, it's ok, but it's not intuitive at all. And that is really the power of Revit....intuition and fast learning.

[hworrell]

See my casework example posted above...

Now to answer the big mystery:

It ain't got nuthin' to do with the view range.

The foundation view is set to Structural. However, the floor isn't defined as structural, so it doesn't show up. If you're working in Revit Building, you can't make a floor structural. That is reserved for Revit Structural.

So set your view to Architectural or Coordination.

Sorry, what view am I setting to Architectural or Coordination? I do not want to see that floor below...now I am more confused. Why would anything out of my view range show up? Thanks for helping!

[aaronrumple]

[QUOTE=dbaldacchino]That's odd....I have 8.1, Build:20050804_0100. I only get a wall in your example file and no casework family shows up.
[QUOTE]

Whoops - my fault. I uploaded the wrong file. Project1 was for support. It should have been Project - I've uploaded the correct file.

[dbaldacchino]

Thanks Aaron, I'll take a look (BTW, did you get my PM?).

I viewed hworrell's example. The odd thing is that Level1 still shows the footing even though it's outside the view range. The only way I managed to make it disappear was by setting the bottom clip plane offset to 3'-0". I don't understand why it shows up in Level 1. I'm stumped :banghead:

Edit: Well, I'm thinking that Floors are following some different rules that are not documented in the help. I placed a wall with it's top set at the top of footing and then goes downwards. In Level 1, it doesn't show up. So it must be that floors are not following the same rules.

[aaronrumple]

Sorry, what view am I setting to Architectural or Coordination? I do not want to see that floor below...now I am more confused. Why would anything out of my view range show up? Thanks for helping!
I'm sorry - I was looking at the wrong view I guess. I thought you wanted to see the floor in the Foundation View.

It shows in the Level 1 view because of a little known rule. Some objects show up when slightly below a level. This is the case of your floor. Floors will show up when they are below a bottom range from 0 to -4'. At 4' and below they then vanish. Yes - this is poorly documented and confusing. The original intent was to automate as much of the view setup as possible so that you wouldn't have to configure a ton of visibility settings. This works fine as long as a floor is a floor and not a footing. Typically, we would want floors of levels that step slightly to all show up in the same view as in the case of a sunken living space set down just a couple of steps. So Revit in its effort to speed the process can make things confusing when we use object in "non-standard" ways. In your particular example you might get the results you are looking for by moving the bottom range up to 3'. The view depth can remain at 0.

Revit really needs to complete the object model as quickly as possible so there are things like "Footings", Foundations" "Interior Soffit" so everything will have the correct rules for visibility and Revit can better automate the views without resporting to just turning over everthing to the user like they did with ADT. That would be a slippery slope from which there is no return.

[hworrell]

Thanks Aaron, I was going to go mad...I might look for a different way to create my footings from now on (especially on my current project as there are a number of different things that are happening at different elevations, and I don't want some items 'vanishing'). I guess I'm glad that it wasn't just O.E.!

[zenomail105021]

Considering the consternation over View Range reflected in these posts I would like to re-post a previous post of mine. Sorry if it goes against any conventions but I would like a response (if worthy) from those more knowledgable than me about this issue:

Why couldn't things be made much much easier by simply having a Top and Bottom View Range (with an optional underlay) and a plottable Hide option to eliminate the objects you don't want to plot or see within the chosen range?

Or as a practical matter (assuming View Range is tied into some other esoteric function and therefore necessary) if we had a Plottable Hide/Isolate option, then just make everything an Unlimited View Range and between Visibility/Graphic Overrides and a Plottable Hide/Isolate Option simply get rid of the objects we don't want without all the hassle.

I'm thinking that the View Range thing is very badly designed somehow but if I am wrong could someone please explain the flaw in my logic here?

Thanks again.

Bill Maddox

[aaronrumple]

I know the "turn it all on and let me decide" sounds like a quick fix. And it sure would be for the programmers. All that does is throw things back on us and right back into the low tech world of layers. I expect more from Revit.

Absolutely an NO vote for the ability to hide objects one by one for plotting like the TEMPORARY hide Isolate view control. Items would be showing up in schedules which are never on the drawings. It would be a mess for errors and omissions.

I think the view range is the right approach - it just needs more development and certainly a better explanation of the rules in the help file. Revit's object model really needs to come up to speed. That is the key for giving us what we want.

[zenomail105021]

Aaron, with all due respect, and I have really appreciated your insights over time and maybe you have nailed it on this one as those who agree with you, but I really really would like to decide. I just want the CD's to be what I want them to be. What's wrong with that? Without all the esoterica? And, shame on me, (this is important) I want that to be as brainless as possible so I can concentrate on my design. (should I put that in a wish?) The schedules can adjust.

Bill Maddox

[PWguy]

I think i understand the view range now....great insight and info. The casework example was extremely helpful, got all my lab casework to finally show correctly in plan.

My question is: I have a 3' wall underneath my counter but it keeps showing up in plan even though I have set the view range cut at 4'? also my Revit BSCs still show the counter line underneath it, even though they sit on TOP of the counter.

Otherwise this forum has been a great tool.

[Dean Camlin]

I'm not sure if this is true of the countertop you are using, but I think the OOTB countertop family has the actual extrusion visibility turned off in plan views. They use symbolic lines locked to the edges of the countertop to show the counter in your model. With the extrusion visibility turned off, naturally you will see any walls, cabinets, etc. which occur below the counter. This is okay if you want to see a floor pattern as it extends into knee spaces, etc. But in my projects I have modified my counter extrusions to show up in plan views and done away with the symbolic lines.

[lcamara]

I'm only starting to figure this all out for myself, ctdrafting, but try this:
Set the main cut to hit the majority of the windows, then use plan regions (under view) as necessary to hit the others (independent view range for each plan region). Also, you may want to use dimensions to lock the plan region to the window, so if it moves, your plan region will go with it (otherwise it would "disappear" & you would have a stray plan region causing havoc).

[Anthony.d]

I think the whole view range could be simplified if it was shown in a 3D represention. Showing all 3 work planes in the color green and the 3 distances from the work plan in red.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

It doesn't even need to be 3D. Something like the view depth and cut plane indicators that we see for section and elevation marks in plan, that would be visible when we select the level head in an elevation or section view.

[lcamara]

They would need to introduce some other marker in the elevation view to do that, since there can be multiple views for each level, not to mention the plan regions, but it would be helpful to have some graphical way of adjusting (or at least seeing) it. It would also be nice to have some kind of "cut through all openings" feature that at the minimum would tell you if you are seeing all the openings between any two specified levels.

[bbebart]

This is a good thread for explaining some of the minutiae of views and view ranges. However, one important and potentially very confusing item isn't significantly noted: UNDERLAY.

Underlay is a view option that falls outside of the standard view range explanation and is often the culprit to many view related problems. For instance: the partitions for the floor below are visible on your plan and you can't get them to go away. No amount of view range manipulation and late night before the deadlien hair pulling will turn off those damned floor below partitions.They are visible, not because of some range issue, but because that floor is selected as an underlay option. Like Phase Filter, Discipline and Phase parameters, the Underlay parameter can often be the sneaky cause of of an annoying view issue.

What I have discovered is, when I have a difficult view issue it is good practice to look at the numerous other parameters in the "View Properties" dialog box instead of jumping right to the view range and extents portion of the box.

[j_starko]

It doesn't even need to be 3D. Something like the view depth and cut plane indicators that we see for section and elevation marks in plan, that would be visible when we select the level head in an elevation or section view.

YES YES YES !!!!

i've had to sketch a few times for past co-workers showing them the 3 planes involved. top, bottom and cut. I've also mastered the plan region tool too,
but still at times I wish there was a little graphical representation showing where the three planes were .

and zenomail, I think that your late night frictions and frustrations are clouting your understanding and acceptance of the tools we have. What you've asked ( repeatedly ) in this thread is possible, but how many times will the wheel be reinvented ? have a rest, a cup of your favorite relaxing drink ( coffee, tea, beers) , take a deep breath and then look again at the tool that revit has. it'll be like a light switch of enlightenment going off when you understand it. View Range isn't super difficult. just wait till you get to copy/monitor issues with design options with different phases too.

[zenomail105021]

Wow, 2006 when I had just started with Revit. A blast from the past. View range not a real problem now in 2010.

Bill Maddox

[sthedens]

There are a few categories for which an element located above the cut plane but partially below the top clip is shown in plan. These categories include windows, casework, and generic model. These objects are shown as viewed from above.


For families that are totally above the cut plane and are not one of the above categories, you can create a vertical Model Line that drops down below the cut plane. The model line should be drawn using the Invisible Line category. The project floor plan view cut plane finds the Model Line and will display any symbolic lines you've drawn on the floor plan view of the family.

[sthedens]

does anyone have a trick for showing the windows in plan view when some of the windows are not in the cut range. for example, you might have a 4 x 4 slider with a 6'8 header and then a 4 x 1 slider with a 6'8 header in the bathroom. now if you have a split level with a window at 6'8 on the midlevel it will appear but the other two won't. Or if you set the view range to display the first two windows, the latter on the midlevel won't appear. how do you get revit to display all the windows on a level no matter where the cut range is?

This is a potentially different issue that will not be solved by messing with the view range within the project. The problem is that when it comes to displaying stuff line Windows, Revit goes back to see how the Window would display in the floor plan view of the family. If you open the Family Editor for your window and display the 4 x 1 slider in the floor plan view, you will see that the cut plane does NOT pass through the window. The cut plane is probably set at 4'-0" and the bottom of the window is above that. Move the cut plane of the family floor plan view up to 6'-0". This should pass through both the 4 x 4 and the 4 x 1. Save the family, load it back into the project and see if that solves the problem.

Because of this, things like Clerestory windows need to be separate families from windows located at normal floor plan elevations.

[cliff collins]

Excellent discussion here on one of the most confusing/commonly misunderstood parts of Revit.

FWIW,
Another somewhat overlooked trick, which can be used for clerestory window conditions, etc., or anywhere where Plan Views, View Depth, Plan Regions, etc are causing visibility problems:

Simply cut a Section on the Elevation View, rotate it so it is horizontal, move it to the desired location so it cuts where you need it to, and now you have a new "Plan View" with its own separate "view depth" control.

You can "flip" the Section for a "Floor Plan" or RCP view.

cheers............

[lcamara]

...Simply cut a Section on the Elevation View, rotate it so it is horizontal, move it to the desired location so it cuts where you need it to, and now you have a new "Plan View" with its own separate "view depth" control...

The problem, of course, is that's ALL you get (view depth). You don't get a "top" for the view range, etc. You also don't get Plan Regions for local changes to cut plane. I'm sure other issues would come up as well (no underlay, etc.), but for some situations that may be all you need.

One of the things that I do to help visualize the view range planes (when necessary) is to create glass/semi-transparent floors at the various levels. You can put them in a closed workset and/or set them to demo in a previous phase when not needed.

[dbaldacchino]

This is a good thread for explaining some of the minutiae of views and view ranges. However, one important and potentially very confusing item isn't significantly noted: UNDERLAY.

Underlay is a view option that falls outside of the standard view range explanation and is often the culprit to many view related problems. For instance: the partitions for the floor below are visible on your plan and you can't get them to go away. No amount of view range manipulation and late night before the deadlien hair pulling will turn off those damned floor below partitions.They are visible, not because of some range issue, but because that floor is selected as an underlay option. Like Phase Filter, Discipline and Phase parameters, the Underlay parameter can often be the sneaky cause of of an annoying view issue.

What I have discovered is, when I have a difficult view issue it is good practice to look at the numerous other parameters in the "View Properties" dialog box instead of jumping right to the view range and extents portion of the box.

Since underlays represent objects differently than objects within the view range (in Revit 2010, additional line weight, style and halftone brightness controls are now also an option), how would you not realize rightaway if something is visible due to the underlay setting? Is there a scenario where objects show as cut or in projection but do not show halftoned? I never ran across that issue before and am interested to hear more about your experiences.

[gvluisi]

...this belongs in the wish list but wouldn't it be nice to be able to graphically move your top, cut, bottom and depth planes?

[bbebart]

Since underlays represent objects differently than objects within the view range (in Revit 2010, additional line weight, style and halftone brightness controls are now also an option), how would you not realize rightaway if something is visible due to the underlay setting? Is there a scenario where objects show as cut or in projection but do not show halftoned? I never ran across that issue before and am interested to hear more about your experiences.
Why wouldn't I recognize that an item was an underlay right away?

The short answer is: user error and incompetence.

The long answer is that Revit is a very complex program with many options and graphic control features. After four eight hour Revit Level 1 classes, a couple of dozen online Autodesk University classes and online tutorials, three books, this forum and the built-in help menu many items and tasks remain efforts involving a lot of trial and error.

I work by myself and figure out the Revit issues by myself.

For instance, today I decided to show site and topography on a single family house project. It is an interior renovation and isn't required for the contract. The existing landscaping is quite nice yet I think that it is missing a pergola on a deck. I had never needed to mess with site features in Revit before and this was a good excuse to start. After two hours, I have a pretty accurate and decent looking site and show the pergola that I am recommending but the earth will not remove from the basement. Despite placing a building pad, re- placing a building pad, rereading through books, help menu and online sources. The pad is there with earth on top of it. I can't figure it out.

I suspect that the earth remains due to a fairly minor error that is not obvious to me.

Fortunately this site information was not required for the project so I'll show the owner my suggested pergola and then may simply erase all of the site features. Viola. No more earth in the basement.

[Alex Page]

It doesn't even need to be 3D. Something like the view depth and cut plane indicators that we see for section and elevation marks in plan, that would be visible when we select the level head in an elevation or section view.

Even better is if it worked like the camera views - go to a section or elevation or whatever, right click on the plan view - click 'Show View Ranges'....

[StratCat]

I was wondering if anyone might have a graphic describing how View Range works for RCP's. This seems to be a tough concept for newbies (and oldies like myself) to grasp and it'd be much easier to teach if there was a good graphic.

Thanks ahead of time!

[r.grandmaison]

I want to be able to have MULTIPLE cut planes in one view...the problem with Revit now, is that it's really designed for Architects. We in the Structural Engineering arena typically have to show TWO or more levels at once- and NOT the intermediate stuff between. So, having an additional cut plane that could be toggled on in a view (and totally overridden with independant VG settings) would be really welcomed. So, we have to revert to an AutoCAD type of workaround and use a SINGLE underlay or stack views of plans atop each other. Ick.

For instance, for a floor framing plan, I want my cut plane to be WITHIN the floor plan level so it'll show all my sticks, and the walls above the floor framing/sheathing as hidden. I also want my walls below shown as solid, but NOT show the wall headers (at least as walls)...That's the tricky part. If I had the ability to actually have SEPARATE cut plans- and forget about the actual ranges, I'd be set. Then I could say to the top cut plane "Show me all your cut objects as hidden lines"...to the middle cut plane I could say "Show me all your framing elements as stick/course lines"...to the lower cut plane "Show me all your cut objects as fine lines."

Then I'd be a happy structural documenter using Revit.

[SkiSouth]

I work by myself and figure out the Revit issues by myself..

Welcome to where most start. Its a worthy journey as long as Autodesk doesn't continue their journey from the original factory path too much further.



For instance, today I decided to show site and topography on a single family house project. It is an interior renovation and isn't required for the contract. The existing landscaping is quite nice yet I think that it is missing a pergola on a deck. I had never needed to mess with site features in Revit before and this was a good excuse to start. After two hours, I have a pretty accurate and decent looking site and show the pergola that I am recommending but the earth will not remove from the basement. Despite placing a building pad, re- placing a building pad, rereading through books, help menu and online sources. The pad is there with earth on top of it. I can't figure it out.

I suspect that the earth remains due to a fairly minor error that is not obvious to me.

Fortunately this site information was not required for the project so I'll show the owner my suggested pergola and then may simply erase all of the site features. Viola. No more earth in the basement.


Unfortunately, site work is NOT a revit strong suit, never has been and there as quite a few threads related to this area. Don't let it discourage you. Hang with it. Welcome To AUGI.

[tonybo-ak]

View Range Diagram.
People have suggested graphical ways to see and adjust view ranges in sections or elevations.
One problem with this idea is that there may be many different views with different view ranges - so which section would show which view range?

I have been working on a (big) shopping mall with several dozen levels (including mezzanine and 'split-level' carparks levels) huge bulkheads and complex angled atrium spaces. Some floors are just a few feet apart (eg plant room floors tucked in just below adjacent carpark floors) causing some difficulties to make understandable drawings.

With so many view ranges (and a few plan regions), and many people working on the project, I created a View Range Diagram. This was a section view with drafting lines and text purely to show other staff where all the view ranges were.
This became a very helpful diagram, pinned on the wall, that even got used by MEP guys.
(I did need to ensure that any change to view ranges was reflected in my diagram.)