Joins and attachments - work actually only in section, don't they?

[radu.grosu]

I started a thread on this matter, but more particularly stated: "Attaching walls to floors with nonstructural layer" and didn't get an useful answers.
Maybe if I put it more in a more general way: all the joins and attachments Revit does look OK (function) only in a section view - not in elevation or 3D - where they looks false - by false I mean "not the truth".
So realizing that, it came to me that this was maybe their intention from the beginning - so my question sounds: is this true? - were these meant only to function in a section view - was it too complicated to resolve in a general way? Thanks.

[dhurtubise]

Don't know if it's intended but i can't foresee why it would be a problem in elevation view ? It doesn't really matter if the join is correct since you can see that join in elevation view.

[radu.grosu]

Don't know if it's intended but i can't foresee why it would be a problem in elevation view ? It doesn't really matter if the join is correct since you can see that join in elevation view.

You cannot foresee why it would be a problem? That's odd... So if I show an elevation with a foundation wall and the elevation shows the wall being shorter (with a quantity equal to the total thickness of the slab it is attached to - which, how I mentioned in my first post can be a great deal different than the thickness of the structural layer) than it really is, that would be no problem?

[CGM]

... if I show an elevation with a foundation wall and the elevation shows the wall being shorter...?Hi Radu,
I have to agree with Daniel, I don't see why it would be a problem in Elevation view. Maybe I'm missing something? In a sectional view I can see your point, but for elevation you shouldn't be seeing the parts of the building shell under ground level. Perhaps if you attach the file, somebody could have a look at it.

[radu.grosu]

I hate it when no-one agrees with me - makes me think about several psychological disorders common to this century and the previous one as well..But assuming I'm not mad and not completely idiot, I guess I'll have to think again.. So here it is:

1. I will sometimes use elevations and 3D view to show things about my building - great thing this possibility exists already, I would have asked for it and people would have said - why do you need elevations and 3d views? - but anyway here's:
2. If I show a side of the building in an elevation view I will see the walls attaching right to the underside of the slab, in extension - to the finish face if there is any. This is not the truth..how can I explain truth to you and my desire to show this truth to others..More precisely, the difference between truth and what I have is the sum of the thicknesses of air/substrate/finish underneath the slab in this case. When the finish/substrate layer(s) is (are) really thick, the difference between truth and what I have is staring with its big wet shy eyes back at my and my contractor who immediately thinks he should find somebody else for the job..

[Joef]

You can build your walls with their tops anywhere you please. If you attach them to your floors and you do not think they are attached in the correct location, then you should change them to the correct location. I fail to see your problem. A less condescending tone to your post will elicit more helpful responses. A picture describing your problem would also help.

Joe

[kpaxton]

I hate it when no-one agrees with me - makes me think about several psychological disorders common to this century and the previous one as well..But assuming I'm not mad and not completely idiot, I guess I'll have to think again.. So here it is: You're mad? No. Condesending? Yes. But probably because you're not being eloquent to what it is that you're requiring. As they say - a picture is worth a thousand words - especially in the design world. I believe that I understand what you're saying - and that is... what you're drawing/building is not a correct representation of how it is to be built in the 'real world' (i.e. what you call the 'truth'.)

As joef says, this is totally dependent to what and how you're building your model. As they say - 'garbage in = garbage out'. Personally, I've had no problems what so ever showing 'reality' in the way that I construct my models, which I believe is a direct result from actually knowing how a building is put together in the real world. This is shown in many firms by some people 'getting revit' and some people not.

I know that didn't directly answer your question, but again, it goes back to how you're constructing the wall. Does your foundation go past your floor structure or does it support it? This is going to determine the wall heights.

-Kyle
P.S. one has to get used to not being 'agreed with' in the world. not everyone will.

[radu.grosu]

I guess I ****** some guys off..well let me apologize.
But I feel quite strange because what I was explaining seems pretty obvious, has nothing to do with a model or a procedure of modelling in particular, it is simply general to Revit.
So I attached two pictures of a model consisting of a multi-layered slab (the default commercial slab) and a wall attached to it (the default generic wall). One is the section, one the elevation.
Let me know what you think..Bye