Grids & Building layout

[johnf.77896]

Looking for some constructive thoughts/ comments on what to use for building layout. We are having 2 school of thoughts on how to accomplish this. One is to use grid lines and modify them so that they are different in appearance than a regular grid line, ie no bubble and different line color/type. The other thought is to use work planes. The reason that this is an issue is because construction lines are view specific and instead of drawing/ copying the lines on every level and if you move one and you forget to do it on the rest of the levels your building you end up with problems. Also we use the out to out of plywood wall sheathing equal to out to out of concrete for easier dimensioning. Trying to use the power of Revit to make the design process simpler, and make it easier to transition into CD's with minimal changes/ redrawing.
Any and all comments appreciated.

John Fleming

[Dimitri Harvalias]

Before I offer up my 2 cents why do you feel the need for something other than the grids as a layout aid?
I'd probably avoid the grid approach and go with ref planes. Once you set them up, group them so they can be easily and quickly managed and you know they are the 'layout' lines as opposed to other ref planes you might use.

[johnf.77896]

Dimitri, thanks for the reply.


Before I offer up my 2 cents why do you feel the need for something other than the grids as a layout aid?

So we can lock the walls to them and adjust as required when changes to the building are made. So when you move a stud wall 2 1/2" the concrete wall below moves in conjuction with it. I know that you can lock a wall to another wall but in the design phase it is easier to have a grid to lock it to. Dont think you can lock a wall to a grid line unless it is in the center, face or core. We use grids for column center lines which are 3" from the outside face of concrete which goes up vertically thru our exterior stud wall so all columns are buried within the wood stud structure. Since we use a numbered grid to show column centerlines and exterior walls, we dont want to have another grid bubble right next to it. To confusing in the field.


I'd probably avoid the grid approach and go with ref planes. Once you set them up, group them so they can be easily and quickly managed and you know they are the 'layout' lines as opposed to other ref planes you might use.
We design custom houses where there are no 2 alike. The benefit that I see to using grid lines is that you can have a curved grid line and you cant have a curved reference plane. The only complaints that I have heard are that the numbering can get confusing but I think that is less than minor in the scheme of things.[/QUOTE]


Any other ideas?

John Fleming
GMK Architecture, inc.
www.gmkarch.com

[aaronrumple]

Looking for some constructive thoughts/ comments on what to use for building layout. We are having 2 school of thoughts on how to accomplish this. One is to use grid lines and modify them so that they are different in appearance than a regular grid line, ie no bubble and different line color/type. The other thought is to use work planes. The reason that this is an issue is because construction lines are view specific and instead of drawing/ copying the lines on every level and if you move one and you forget to do it on the rest of the levels your building you end up with problems. Also we use the out to out of plywood wall sheathing equal to out to out of concrete for easier dimensioning. Trying to use the power of Revit to make the design process simpler, and make it easier to transition into CD's with minimal changes/ redrawing.
Any and all comments appreciated.

John Fleming
Use ref. planes. The only time I use non-grid grid lines is for centerlines of construction - like the centerline of an entrance on a symmetrical building. If you use grid lines for layout, you'll end up with all sorts of visibility issues for printing. The walls should be the layout lines. Make sure your team is working to face of core with your plywood in the core. This will keep things dimensionally correct as the exterior cladding changes.

Just looking at the sketch it seems like the ref planes are unnecessary. Couldn't you just dimension to the face of core and be done with it?

[johnf.77896]

Aaron, thanks for your reply. I personally use walls for layout, but there are a couple of guys around here that still have that blue pencil and parallel mentality, whereas I changed when I started working on computers 15 years ago. Granted it isn't easy to do (change that is) but when you are going to draw something you might just as well use a wall as use a line. You are going to end up moving one so why not move the wall and forget about the line. oh well I am rambling now. If I could lock walls to a grid that wasn't on a centerline, face or core then this would be a non issue. Don't think that I can thou. One of the biggest problems that I have is that a reference plane is just that, a single plane, vertical and horizontal only. With a grid I can have an arc or even a zig zag line if I so choose. The visibility portion doesn't bother me a whole lot because you can edit the grid line type and color so they are always the same and not confuse them with anything else.
Also when I think of layout, I think of a grid system and if you want to have something that is odd then use a reference plane to complement your grid system.
Any other thoughts?

John Fleming
GMK Architecture, inc.

[aaronrumple]

...but there are a couple of guys around here that still have that blue pencil and parallel mentality

If I could lock walls to a grid that wasn't on a centerline, face or core then this would be a non issue. Don't think that I can thou.

John Fleming
GMK Architecture, inc.
Cut their pay in half as they are doing twice the work to do the same job. That will stop them.

Dimension your wall to the grid. Lock the dimension. Delete the dimension. The constraint can be left and the wall will move with the associated dimensioned reference.

[johnf.77896]

Aaron, would like to but he is the boss. I wish it were that easy.

That seems to be easy enough to do with out having to create a bunch of extra planes or grid work, thanks.

John Fleming
GMK Architecture, inc.