Elevation View Depth Work Around?

[AP23]

Is there away to show different elevation debt by projecting different hatch patterns line weights, gray scale components and all the other tricks you would do in AutoCAD? At this moment you can't see the difference between an building that stands in the front and one that stands 50 yards in the back. Orient to elevation view works to show important building components like stairs behind a glazed facade, but I lose my levels and grids.

[Justin Marchiel]

not a very revit way of doing it, but you could use the linework tool to fade some line to a thinner lineweight, similar to acad.

Justin

[AP23]

not a very revit way of doing it, but you could use the linework tool to fade some line to a thinner lineweight, similar to acad.

Justin

I've tried that already and it works to a certain degree, but with uncontrollable hatch patterns, you don;t a very convincing affect.

[luigi]

...Orient to elevation view works to show important building components like stairs behind a glazed facade, but I lose my levels and grids.
Hi Andrew...Actually, in regards to using a 3d view...I have done that also, to see thru the glass, where I have both a 3d elevation and a 2d elevation and I place them both on a single sheet...one on top of the other and it works great!!!!! You'll see the grids and levels, dimensions, etc...

Regards,

[AP23]

Since we have revit series, we decided to use autocad for elevation presentations and elevation studies.

[luigi]

That's fine Andrew, but this is an example of the Elevation that I automatically get in Revit, with no drafting involved. With this as a basis, I can change the lineweights of the elevation and basically enhance the elevations...but to me, this reads good enough. Shadows and Silhouette Edges using Wide Lines is all I did, and of course overlapping the 3d elevation on top of the 2d elevation (which the 2d is just plain lines, no shadows, no silhouette edges...the 2d model elements get hidden behind the 3d, where the 2d are visibleover the 3d)


Of course, if you are happy with drafting the elevation in autocad, and it works, then by all means you should continue to do it that way.

(BTW, there is nothing extraordinary with this project, but it is the version that we are currently working on, etc....)

Take care,

[AP23]

Luigi, thanks for those images, you can't tell if they were made in Revit or AutoCAD. I've received many complaints of team members that they are unable to get the elevation to look they way they want. I'll use your images to show them that it is possible. But for now, they are very happy that they "are allowed" to use AutoCAD again.

[Max Lloyd]

Luigi, you have inspired me.....

....oh my god....Trick of the year coming up......

On the basis that a 3d view oriented to an elevation see's through glass.....why not use luigi's technique, but add another little element.

why not place a series of glass screens perpendicular to the elevation, say at 5 metre intervals. The further objects are away from the view point, the fainter they will appear as the more sheets of glass will be obstructing them!

Brilliant or what!

Cool thing is, you can make a separate material for these and contol their transparency, even a subcategory so that they don't effect side views in the same way etc. You could even do the same principle for sections.

I reckon its a winner! See what you think?

Linework in elevations now a thing of the past....????

Regards,

Max.

[hand471037]

Max: hooo leeeee shhheet....

wow that looks keen. Managment nightmare, total workaround, but brilliant!

Can I use that in my AU class on presenation graphic tricks in Revit this year? I'll buy you a beer..... :D

[Max Lloyd]

Hey Jeffrey.

Use away! It would be kinda cool to get a mention at AU (nudge nudge) seeing as I won't unfortunately be there.

One little thing to note. When printing, you must use the raster setting. Still, no big deal....

You said it would be a management nightmare which I agree......but what if the glass screens was a linked file? That would make it pretty damn easy to control its visibility and it wouldn't effect any scheduling etc?

Max.

[hand471037]

You said it would be a management nightmare which I agree......but what if the glass screens was a linked file? That would make it pretty damn easy to control its visibility and it wouldn't effect any scheduling etc?

I was kinda thinking of a parametric entourage family, visibility set to only appear in Elevation, with a custom subcategory, in worksets to divvy it up to match North, East, West, and South...

I guess fed-exing beer to England is redundant.

[Scott D Davis]

what if you used a series of thin Masses that were set to Glass material? Then the Show Mass button in the top toolbar would turn them on and off?

[kpaxton]

OK - I gotta chime in... again.

This topic is NOT new. This has been something we've been requesting from release 6 (if not before). I know at one round table we discussed this... and even last year at AU. We have the capacity for View Ranges, etc. in plan, why can we NOT have a similar effect in elevation? Then have lineweight styles/tables, or even View Templates assignable to each range.

My 2 cents.

Max, as for the workaround, by the way... Brilliant! just Brilliant!
(cheesy american beer commercial plug!)

Regards,
Kyle

[rjjlee]

Max's workaround is brilliant, but I'd be leaning towards Kyle's method of assigning View Templates as being more implementable... make a series of elevations assigned with View templates 1-5 (say) and layer them on a sheet.

[truevis]

Filters.

Add a 'face #' parameter to the things you see in elevation. Apply filters to address how you want the things to show up in your views.

[truevis]

Luigi, you have inspired me.....

....oh my god....Trick of the year coming up......I reckon its a winner! See what you think?
What happens when you turn the corner (i.e., look at a perpendicular elevation)?

[Steve_Stafford]

Apparently someone was sleeping in class? :wink: David Kingham (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=44828&highlight=elevation) posted something describing this approach a little while back and I posted an example (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?p=154663) over a year ago... It is a cool trick and nice example though Max. Great elevations Luigi! Be nice if Revit gave us some nice intentional tools though.

[Max Lloyd]

What happens when you turn the corner (i.e., look at a perpendicular elevation)?
Either set the glass to being a sub-category that can switch off in others views, or do as Jeffrey has suggested. If you set up the settings in your view template it will be very simple.

Steve, I had a look back over other threads and had never seen this suggested. There is so much talk about linework in elevation that this seemed such a potential timesaver.

I would of course prefer a proper solution built in, but hey, we have to work with the tools we have!

Max.

[paul.woddy]

Max, brilliant as usual.

Definately a contendor for tip of the year!! You have no idea how much time I have put into finding a solution to this issue.

Cheers,

Paul

[Chris DiSunno]

You could do that. We have a "pyramid law" here for building size where you cannot make a residence that would penetrate a pyramid the size of the property. I create a glass roof to demonstrate this and set it on a future phase called pyramid. This is relevant because you can do the same thing for your elevations and then the glass planes will only be represented in that phase and filter.

[rjcrowther]

Sorry to bring this one back......

I am wondering if anyone apart from truevis is using the filters approach to solve this or is the consensus approach to use panes of glass (semi transparent masses)

I am sick of the line work tool approach and am looking to implement something else and are hoping for some feedback before I start mucking around.

Thanks,
Rob

[Justin Marchiel]

i really think that this is a great tip and i want to thank everyone who contributed.

The way that i have been doing it (as i usually only want 1 plane lighter) is to duplicate the view and use the graphics overrides to match everything 1/2 tone. I then make the "front" view on specific to the front half of the building. I insert them both on a sheet (overlayed) and this gives me the light background appearance.

I have not played around with the headline topic, but i find that my method works great for us. one reason that i use my method is that we shade our glazing. with my method i can override the surface patterns to be white in the background view and the shade goes away. Like i said i would like to try to above method to see what happens but the shaded glazing would be one limitation that i can see with it.

Justin

[BMcCallum]

Another solution is to make a copy of the elevation tag, move the cut depth to the desired location and change it's view properties to Underlay. I name this view with the -BG suffix to remind everyone that it is the background.

Then, change the view depth of the original elevation to overlap the cut depth of the background elevation. Don't want to miss any objects, right?

Place the background on the sheet first and then drag the foreground to the sheet. The alignment lines will help you line things up.

The attached image shows on of these composite elevations.

[twiceroadsfool]

Im curious for those of you going with the elevation duplication...

How are you managing all of those elevation tags in your drawing sets?

I saw that at AU too, and the first thing that came to my mind was the nightmare that must ensue trying to manage a group of 5 users, all making elevations where each elevation is actually 2 or three drawings.

I suppose you can assign all the extraneous elevation markers to a scope box that is forever "invisible,"... But i wonder about the feasibility once drawings start getting tweaked this way and that...

[Justin Marchiel]

it come down to browser organization, hiding tags at scale, and good user education.

One thing that we do is create working views, where we place constrains, extra section lines, background elevation tags etc, that are always visible. This way you can easily go to the working view and modfying constrains, and move elevation tags around without damaging your "presentation" views.

I am also i big believer in once you created it, you own it. in this way a user that starts on elevations, or details, or sections, etc is the only one that continues to work with it. in this way (eventhought there shoud be some consistancy) the user that made it modifys it and is always aware of how it was created. it all comes down to firm organization and communication within the team.

Justin

[twiceroadsfool]

Interesting... But, in terms of "hiding tags at a scale..." For instance, the project im in now has 1/16th inch plans, and it only has 1/8's where they are blown up. So all the elevation tags are on the 16th. Sooo, if i take an elevation of the side of the building, and want to use multiple views with graphical overrides to achieve these elevations (which look great, btw... really great work guys), im going to have 2 or 3 elev. markers on my plans, yes? Unless i hide them somewhere? In a scope box or something?

Still a worthy solution, im just wondering if i could handle that with 5 people running around in a model...

[Justin Marchiel]

what i do is make my working plans at 1" = 1'0" scale or lower. then when i add section and elevation i can hide at coarser then 1"=0".

This allows me much freedom in adding notes, constraints, sections, tags, etc all over the working plan without overlapping information. i can even add "clouds" of problem areas or places that need to be fixed, so that eveyone knows they are a problem.

Again looking at multiple users, i like to assign certain task to certain people based on there skill and capabilities. Once you get this hierachy established and everyone "knows there role" things can work pretty smoothly. another great asset is the view templates. once you have a good one establsihed you can apply it to the other views and graphically at least they will be the same.

Justin

[Alex Page]

Another solution is to make a copy of the elevation tag, move the cut depth to the desired location and change it's view properties to Underlay. I name this view with the -BG suffix to remind everyone that it is the background.

Then, change the view depth of the original elevation to overlap the cut depth of the background elevation. Don't want to miss any objects, right?

Place the background on the sheet first and then drag the foreground to the sheet. The alignment lines will help you line things up.

The attached image shows on of these composite elevations.

This sounds perfect for me - unfortunately though, even though it looks fine on the screen, when I print it both are printed - resulting in a funny looking semi-see through elevation - am I missing a trick?

[jtl]

I played around with both techniques (glass panes & layered elevations) and did not feel completely comfortable with either.

Now (2008) it seems that you can just select the elements that are beyond and use the right-click/override graphics in view/element option. (you can pick the halftone checkbox or override with a specific pen/color combo)

I have used it on only one project so far but it seems to do exactly what we are looking for. Anybody else experiment with this?

[veronica.lamb]

This sounds perfect for me - unfortunately though, even though it looks fine on the screen, when I print it both are printed - resulting in a funny looking semi-see through elevation - am I missing a trick?

We're having the same problem in this office. In 9.1 it worked fine, but suddenly both elevations / sections started printing. Is this a 2008 problem?
--Veronica

[cdatechguy]

Bummer thing, the other 3D building program (http://www.graphisoft.com), has had this feature for a long time. :(
I like the idea of using glass planes or a mass of glass, and I will have to try that soon. Unitl then its the ol' linework tool for me...

[rjcrowther]

I played around with both techniques (glass panes & layered elevations) and did not feel completely comfortable with either.

Now (2008) it seems that you can just select the elements that are beyond and use the right-click/override graphics in view/element option. (you can pick the halftone checkbox or override with a specific pen/color combo)

I have used it on only one project so far but it seems to do exactly what we are looking for. Anybody else experiment with this?

Read about this when the release first came out and then forgot about it. This is probably an answer to this problem as well a few others I have been having.

Thanks for the reminder.

Rob

[Calvn_Swing]

I am wondering if anyone apart from truevis is using the filters approach to solve this or is the consensus approach to use panes of glass (semi transparent masses)
Rob

We're using Filters, pretty heavily. They automatically generate our code plans, etc. I consider filters a less painful workaround than panes of glass. We use our models for quantities, so that one is out the window (no pun intended). I also like the composite view technique, but the extra elevation tags aren't worth it. I have a text parameter called Half Tone in the project template. If you want any object to show halftone in any view, you can just select it and type the view name in the field. If there are already names in the field you just add to the list. The filter looks for "contains" the text "type view name here."

However, this is the one instance where I now prefer the override graphics in view by element setting. There isn't any parametric value to the "halftone" field, so why do it. Hence, in 2008, we're leaving that particular filter behind and waiting for Autodesk to give us a "beyond" region in all view ranges. They're just as helpful for plans as they are for elevations and sections...

Good luck!

[t1.shep]

I've been selecting the elements that are beyond and using the "override graphics in view" and selecting halftone.
That looks fine on the screen and when we plot. However, when we send to the copier the halftone doesn't show up or comes in patchy. Is there a way to override the screening of the halftone?

[veronica.lamb]

I don't think so. I would try creating a PDF first to see if it's any better.
-V

[david.kingham]

Instead of using halftone override the projection line and surface pattern by color, then you can use any shade of gray you like

[israel.olmos]

Ok, guys, i tried that by creating a generic wall and adding material, but it seems transparent in 3d but not in elevation, is there a specific technique to create the glass?

[patricks]

Ok, guys, i tried that by creating a generic wall and adding material, but it seems transparent in 3d but not in elevation, is there a specific technique to create the glass?

For the glass technique, you have to use a 3D view oriented to one of your elevation views. Glass only shows as transparent in 3D views, and looks opaque in actual elevation views.

[david.kingham]

See my post here http://bimmanager.blogspot.com/2007/12/shading-elevations-in-revit.html

Although I prefer just overriding graphics in the view now.

[james.218334]

Once you selected what you want, right click, select "Override Graphics In View". and check the box that say's Halftone

[luke.s.johnson]

Glass only shows as transparent in 3D views, and looks opaque in actual elevation views.

I used the glass elevation workaround with mass technique heavily.

However, when I upgrade projects to 2012, this method no longer works.

The masses are not transparent in elevation anymore. Any idea why, or how to fix this?

The only fix I have so far is to set the Mass category to 'Ghost Surfaces' in the view, but I no longer have granular control over the amount of transparency.

[luke.s.johnson]

Here is a post on this subject:
http://whatrevitwants.blogspot.com/2011/06/purge-command-in-revit-2012-eliminates.html

[bmadsen]

My testing shows there are a couple of potential causes:
1. Revit 2011 and Revit 2012 handle materials differently.
- The purge wanted to eliminate the my custom Material created for my mass objects.
- The purge also wanted to eliminate the Property Set that (in 2012) would be the source of the Material.
2. For some reason, my masses become opaque in elevation view after the purge - but there IS a work-around.

The work-around is to adjust the size of the masses slightly in plan view. This forces a regen which makes the masses translucent again....at least in my test project.

[annie123]

Dear all,

I am working on a goup housing project which has 6 types of unit which was placed to create floor layout for 5 towers. so we have created units 1-6 as group. created typical floor layout by calling loading these groups in new file named typical floor layout Tower$. and then linked this layout file to tower file and arrayed to create tower. see the attached pic. but we are facing problem in elevation

1 I used override graphics by element in layout file elevation to give view depth to elevation.
2 but still facing problem with floor line in tower file( see the pic). i can't do join geometry in link file

Any suggestion to solve the problem. we dont want to issue elevation with floor line. its confusing.

Regards,
Annie

[The Monk]

Attached is an elevation of a building with several view depth conditons. This took me about half hour to create and there still needs some embelshment (profile the building siloette, etc.) But the point I think the origional poster was making, when you have campus projects depth of view is important. So, it can be done. And it will take some work to get the settings correct and working with Duplicate view, etc.

What I did was make several Duplicate view of the same elevation and adjusted the crop region for each, selected the exterior obects and set the color "tone-age" value via the Override Graphics in View By Elements (make use of the filter tool to get what you want to adjust). For those things way in the background use Halftone. This can be adjusted in the Additional Settings under the Manage tab - we use OOTB settings - seems to work best. And then for the other we will adjust both the Projection Lines values and Surface Patterns values in the Override tool. Selecting the Colors adjustment we make use of the gray color (base setting is 128, 128 128). We adjust it from there to get the tones wanted. Seems to work for our Oce.

The one really cool thing is as you place the views on the sheet view Revit will look for Level alignment. It makes the process reall easy. From there it is a matter of snugging things up to each other. And I did make use of the Masking Region tool as I needed.

Like I said you will need to do some work. But in the scheme of things it is not bad. And the graphic communication is there.

I hope this is helpful,

John