Rendering 2D elevations?

[wfdesigns]

Is there any way to render 2 dimensional elevations so as to get the plant materials shown. The rendering option won't allow you to render from the stock "north,south,east,west" views. I thought I saw a way to do it during one of the Revit distant learning sessions but can't remember how.
Thanks all!

[aaronrumple]

Go into 3D.
Open the Dynamic View with the F8 key or toolbar.
Use the Flyout butom and set the Orient to a Direction to North Elevation, etc.
Use the Floppy to Save the View.
Render away... simple enough.

You can't render drafting views. But and 3D view can be rendered. This includes parraline projections of isometrics, elevations and plans.

[wfdesigns]

That's it! I somewhat rember now doing it like that. In any case Thanks alot.

[SCShell]

In addition to elevations. you can use the 3d view oriented to plan view, set up the view range as desired, and do a rendered Site Plan or Floor Plan (complete with shadows etc!) Very cool for presentations.

To really spruce up rendered elevations, you can copy and paste a regular "Hidden Line" or "wireframe" elevation drawing directly over the rendered one. (it takes a little work to match your scales) I usually make copy of an elevation view,with detailing, then, I remove all model elements in order to leave just my notes, dimensions and levels. Sometimes, I leave a dark drafted set of lines in to represent the ground plane. I change the fonts and level indicators to "white" and use a black or other dark color background "sky" for the rendered elevation. Then save it as a jpg or pdf for printing and e-mailing.
These can look really nice!
Enjoy!

[David Haynes]

Can you post an example?


In addition to elevations. you can use the 3d view oriented to plan view, set up the view range as desired, and do a rendered Site Plan or Floor Plan (complete with shadows etc!) Very cool for presentations.

To really spruce up rendered elevations, you can copy and paste a regular "Hidden Line" or "wireframe" elevation drawing directly over the rendered one. (it takes a little work to match your scales) I usually make copy of an elevation view,with detailing, then, I remove all model elements in order to leave just my notes, dimensions and levels. Sometimes, I leave a dark drafted set of lines in to represent the ground plane. I change the fonts and level indicators to "white" and use a black or other dark color background "sky" for the rendered elevation. Then save it as a jpg or pdf for printing and e-mailing.
These can look really nice!
Enjoy!

[beegee]

David,

here's a nice example posted a while ago by Scott Brown, its the Loveland Medical Centre.

http://www.zoogdesign.com/forums/phpBB2/download.php?id=400

[Henry D]

Here is a rendered Elevation I did a while ago to show a client what his house was looking like - very useful tool.

http://www.zoogdesign.com/forums/phpBB2/download.php?id=2216

[Paul P.]

I'm after doing some renedered elev's but I was wondering how to go about showing the poche/site in section. Is it just a filled region or am I way off track.

Regard's Paul.

[Scott D Davis]

If you have a site built with the topo tool, it will automatcially show up in section. The default patter is 'earth' crosshatch, but yuou could make this anything.

If you dont have a site topo built, you can make a simple rectangular flat topo very easily, so those site sections will show the cut.

[Paul P.]

Scott, I don’t think I've explained my self properly. What I'm after is a rendered elevation as the Scott Davis example above but showing the site in section as he has. I can get the site to show as I want in a section through my building but not in my rendered elevation view (orient to a direction), that’s why I was wondering if it was a filled region. Hope this make's sense.

Regard's, Paul.

[PeterJ]

I got around this by drawing a wall just in front of the building and using the elevation profile tool to make it run immediately beneath the topo

[Paul P.]

Thank's Pete I'll give that go.

[studioCJF]

Paul and Others,

UPDATE: Version 7 now does the ground plane in section automatically... at least it does if you set up a section box... :)

But what I'm having trouble with is the sky... I have searched the archives and have tried the various ways discussed (IE: 3D set to orientation and/or set camera with perspective box turned off). but the sky always shows as a light grey. I've tried Automatic Sky, Solid Color, 2 and 3 color gradient and still no sky... what obvious step am I missing:?:

Clark

Edit: I forgot to mention... If the view is not and elevation but a true perspective camera view the sky works great...

[Scott D Davis]

In your elevation, is your 'Far Clip Plane' active? If it is, maybe this is cropping the view depth, so the 'sky' beyond isn't showing up???

[studioCJF]

Scott

(see attached images)

No the far clip selection is not checked... in fact it is not selectable (not exactly greyed-out but check box does not respond at all) I thought it might have to do with the active section box, but when I deactivated the section box and again oriented the 3d view to a cardinal elevation I still didn't get a sky. Like I said... I have tried all the sky setting I might try to place a background image to see if that works...

Also Medium size tree to the right of the elevation (near horizon) should be a very large tree as shown in the perspective view. In other views (Shaded and Hidden Line) the wire frame tree shows the correct size :screwy:

Clark

PS1: It looks like i have to make some transparency adjustments to the second floor frosted glazing... looks like metal spandrel panels... oops!

PS2: Some of you may recognize this. I posted an earlier scheme of the same house as "My First Revit Model" about a year ago. The images are still here someplace...

[beegee]

Nice elevations cj !

[Scott D Davis]

Sounds like one for the Factory to respond to.....

[SkiSouth]

I might try to place a background image to see if that works...

...

A background image will work. I'm not sure that clouds have ever worked in rendering an elevation. I agree with Scott that only the Factory can answer this one. (I think the idea is you are looking "up" at the clouds in almost any rendering, but when looking straight on as in an elevation view this is where the "where is the sky " would become an issue, (so the program doesn't perhaps understand the 90 degree look?, or to Accurender - a 0 (zero) plane)

[Roger Evans]

Mr CJ Fell .. That Elevation is pretty close to perfection as it stands .. (in my book anyway) .. I can see where a graded sky without clouds would be useful but if the only way is to use a background image then you could screen capture your own & then import that .. I reckon this would keep the ethos of the graphics in the image.

I loved this design before .. you have got to post up more of it .. like a set of plans / elevs /sections / construction docs ..

[studioCJF]

I'm not sure that clouds have ever worked in rendering an elevation... (I think the idea is you are looking "up" at the clouds in almost any rendering, but when looking straight on as in an elevation view this is where the "where is the sky " would become an issue, (so the program doesn't perhaps understand the 90 degree look?, or to Accurender - a 0 (zero) plane)Skisouth hit it on the head... clouds do not render in an elevation view... the problem I was having was that I had the haze box checked in the clouds setting dialog box (not to be confused with the advanced haze setting) which gave me the grey sky. once I unchecked the haze box (or turned clouds off altogether) everything works as it should, but after a quick test with the 2 and 3 color gradient tools... I'm not sure they will work either probably because of the same reasons Skisouth noted about the horizon/zero plane location.


you have got to post up more of it .. like a set of plans / elevs /sections / construction docs ..I will try to post more when I get a chance... Thanks to all

Edit: the issue with the tree is that it was not replace with a smaller one as I first thought but as it turns out. if rendered in elevation in R6.1 the tree shows just fine... But in R7.0 no tree? may something to do with the 6.1 to 7.0 conversion? I will keep trying...

Clark

(sorry I can't resist... these lyrics really date me though)
"...But clouds got in my way... I've looked at clouds from both sides now; From up and down, and still somehow; It's cloud illusions I recall; I really don't know clouds at all..." (Joni Mitchell)

[SkiSouth]

cj, love the "corbu guy" waving in the window...

[studioCJF]

...Also Medium size tree to the right of the elevation (near horizon) should be a very large tree as shown in the perspective view. In other views (Shaded and Hidden Line) the wire frame tree shows the correct size :screwy:
OK... I think I have isolated the disappearing tree issue...

First...:Oops: The assumption made in my earlier post (see quote above) was not correct. the tree near the horizon in the elevation image is correct and should be there. However the very large tree that appears in the perspective image (behind the right side of the house) has disappeared.

This phenomena appears to be related to the use of a section box. In the elevation that I posted earlier a section box was used to cut the site about 10' in front of the building thus removing trees and topo that would block the elevation and you get the nice section cut poche/fill. By adjusting the cut line so that it was further away (trial and error) I was able to find a location where the tree appeared. However, this phenomenon only occurs in version V7.0... I did a study in V6.1 and you can cut the ground directly in front of the tree and it will still show... in fact if you cut past the trunk the canopy of the tree will still show floating in mid air, but in V6.1 you don't get the nice automatic section cut poche/fill.

Now after a little more trial and error in V7.0... I discovered that the visibility of the tree is determined by it's canopy size and it's relationship to the section box cut line. Again in V6.1 this does not appear to be an issue the tree will just cut through the canopy along the section box line.

V7.0 Example: By placing a large tree with a broad canopy (IE: Oak, Beech, Maple...) close to the edge of a section box the tree will not show at all... but if you move the cut line farther from the tree (trial and error) it will eventually show. However, if you change the size or type of tree that is not showing in the previous example... without moving the section box line... to a tree with a smaller/narrower canopy or a taller more slender variety/species it will again show up... unless of course you move the cut line to close to the tree. (NOTE: An example of this can be seen in the elevation image that I posted yesterday... The small tree to the right of the house and to the front of the image is actually closer to the section cut box than the large tree that is missing)

Now... IMHO... the visibility behavior of trees in relation to a section box in V6.1 is much preferred. I hope this, and the sky issue discussed previously, helps others...

Clark...

(Note to moderator: I tried to isolate this as much as possible so I believe it is not just an anomaly in my file/model)