Geodesic Dome

[swissclive54638]

Hi

Does anybody out there know how I would model a geodesic dome (as a roof) in Revit? The structure would be something like the attached image.

Many thanks.

[tomnewsom]

I wouldn't even attempt it.
I would use 3d studio or similar to create the mesh, and then import that back in Revit. Unless you do all the facet calculations by hand and do individual cuts for each face, Revit just can't do this sort of modelling.

[davidwlight]

Tom is right...3dstudio max or viz is probably your best option. Export that geometry as a 3d dwg from max, create a new mass in Revit & then import the 3d dwg into the mass. Then use curtain wall be face to generate the form. Its not going to be exactly how you want it, but its probably a good start place.

[sbrown]

I would think it fairly easy to create a dome, then a face based family in the shape of your structure, then piece it all together.

[dhurtubise]

The dome wont be an issue, it's the panel that will be. So i also think that your best bet would be to do it in another program (faster).

[Brian Myers]

3DS would be the best option, but it wouldn't be impossible to do in Revit, just time consuming and likely a bit frustrating. Another option (if a fudge factor or just looks is an option) would be to create a massing object (Solid/Void Revolve, etc) and then apply a geodesic material/surface pattern to it.

[aaronrumple]

... and then apply a geodesic material/surface pattern to it.
Unfortunately, Revit materials don't map to compound curve surfaces...

[Phil Read]

I believe this could be done in Revit as a series of blends if you use maintain three or four sided faces. More than this will be dang tricky and probably worth creating elsewhere and importing.

-Phil

PS. Does it bug anyone when the word "Revit" is not recognized when you Spell Check before submitting? :shock:

[twiceroadsfool]

LOL, for what its worth...

I thought i had a way to compile one in a family pretty quickly... I did a test with it, and the whole thing (so far) took like 5 minutes.... Until i hit finish sketch, LOL... My computer has been grinding away with one processor maxed out since then, bwahahahaa....

Doable in Revit, but probably way easier elsewhere. Especially if Max will automatically compile the geometry measurements...

EDIT: Phil, thats what i had done. The blends work fine, as ling as where the "points" have to be the sketch technically has a very small line there. That way it doesnt default to "twisting" to connect the top and bottom. You need a line with two vertices to connect to the sketch below.

I had the same happen trying to create a blend like the Freedom tower. Square in a square sketch = rotated square. A square with 4 tiny chamfered corners in another square = triangulated transformation.

Sadly, those tiny lines in the sketch are killing my computer right now, LOL...

[Brian Myers]

Unfortunately, Revit materials don't map to compound curve surfaces...

Ahhh.. second thing I've learned today. Amazing program it is, its a never ending exploration of different features and how far you can attempt to break them...

[swissclive54638]

Thanks to you all for your help; it's much appreciated. I think I'll head down the 3DSMax route for the moment. Watch this space for developments!!

[David Harrington]

I picked up a lisp program years ago for modeling geodesic (sp?) domes. Use that in AutoCAD and then trace the wires in RS. Should work I would think.

[truevis]

...I thought i had a way to compile one in a family pretty quickly... I did a test with it, and the whole thing (so far) took like 5 minutes.... Until i hit finish sketch, LOL... My computer has been grinding away with one processor maxed out since then, bwahahahaa....LOL...Yeah, I've found out the hard way that I need to save before doing blend solids. If the blend is too complex the computer chugs away with no way to cancel except kill Revit in Task Manager. Funny, Revit has slow-warnings for things that aren't slow but nothing for this one.

[noah]

You could use Sketchup to make the geomtery - base it on one of the domes that's already in Sketchup's library and scale one of the struts to your desired length. Then bring that into Revit. Just a thought since Sketchup is free and 3DS is not.

You could then make a face based family for each of the unique panels in Revit and attach them to the mass faces (the sketchup model). Once complete you could turn off the mass.

I bet it's pretty easy to do once you get going.

[twiceroadsfool]

Yeah, I've found out the hard way that I need to save before doing blend solids. If the blend is too complex the computer chugs away with no way to cancel except kill Revit in Task Manager. Funny, Revit has slow-warnings for things that aren't slow but nothing for this one.

So true! :LOL:

[twiceroadsfool]

You could use Sketchup to make the geomtery - base it on one of the domes that's already in Sketchup's library and scale one of the struts to your desired length. Then bring that into Revit. Just a thought since Sketchup is free and 3DS is not.

You could then make a face based family for each of the unique panels in Revit and attach them to the mass faces (the sketchup model). Once complete you could turn off the mass.

I bet it's pretty easy to do once you get going.


Geodesic dome from sketch up > DWG > Revit Family > Revit Curtain system. Took 5 minutes. Great suggestion! I didnt put any of the stl in, but i imagine using the pick tool would work just as fast as teh curtain system...

[cosmickingpin]

is it me or is it fugly that sketchup can model this much more easily than revit? I mean a lot can be done with those four options and Phill is a jedi with that, but a fifth modeling tool, well it's just about time.


Geodesic dome from sketch up > DWG > Revit Family > Revit Curtain system. Took 5 minutes. Great suggestion! I didnt put any of the stl in, but i imagine using the pick tool would work just as fast as teh curtain system...

[twiceroadsfool]

People keep saying this, but thats not what sketch up modeled. Sketchup modeled a bunch of faces. I dont seen any materials, i dont see any intelligent information in it. Its a bunch of shapes. IMHO, the fact that we can at least interact with software like that and use make believe "shapes" to turn them in to building materials is great.

Would i like to see Loft, Dome, Curve Network (oooh, i really want that one), etc... Sure. But i dont consider it a huge loss considering less than 18 months ago i was basking in the glory of 2D AutoCAD drafting :shudder:

[mibzim]

Unfortunately, Revit materials don't map to compound curve surfaces...

Yeah, we had the same problem with a building on the gold coast - luckily tho it changed from the first image to the second and we were able to use millions of tiny curtain panels to represent the steel mesh. Because of the size of this file and the way it slowed everything down, we had it in an external file which we linked in and only reloaded when we needed to print.

I arrived on the project after the first image was produced... apparently they applied a curtain panel, linked the intersections with model lines, set the work plane using two of the model lines, and then extruded each panel. PAINFUL!! Sure there would be a better way...

[Arnel Aguel]

Tom is right...3dstudio max or viz is probably your best option. Export that geometry as a 3d dwg from max, create a new mass in Revit & then import the 3d dwg into the mass. Then use curtain wall be face to generate the form. Its not going to be exactly how you want it, but its probably a good start place.That for sure can be done in max/viz but again that will be a tedious process to make since each face has five sides in the example you have shown that's the default mess for a geodesic dome in max/viz which has 3 sides for each face now making it to have 5 sides for each face is like doing it manually in Revit copy/paste each face to form a dome.

Doing that in any free form modelling program would not be easy but doable I guess it can also be done in Revit as Phil Read mentioned.

[Arnel Aguel]

Geodesic dome from sketch up > DWG > Revit Family > Revit Curtain system. Took 5 minutes. Great suggestion! I didnt put any of the stl in, but i imagine using the pick tool would work just as fast as teh curtain system...Can the model in sketch up be changed into 5 sides for each face? I guess it's the same scenario with max/viz where the the default geodesic dome has three sides and editing it to have as many sides as you want is still a pain in the ***.

[twiceroadsfool]

Im not sure, im not an avid Sketcup User. BUT, the Revit model is easily updated when you reload in to the family, and "remake" the geometry from the mass. I did a test with scaling the sketcup dome in the family, then reloading the family and remaking the curtain systems. Seemed to work just fine.

[AP23]

is it me or is it fugly that sketchup can model this much more easily than revit? I mean a lot can be done with those four options and Phill is a jedi with that, but a fifth modeling tool, well it's just about time.

Wow, this is a very dangerous statement to make here on this forum. It is like talking about someones mother. I have been burned and buried talking about the poor modelling tools in Revit. The improvement of modeling tools are the absolute last priority at the factory. This very very contradicting idea of a so called architectural tool is justified because most Revit user don't need these tool. The "we only have clients that want square boxed buildings" or "stararchitects have their own tools" is what keeps the priority low. Anything out of the ordinary is extremely difficult or in most cases impossible to model in Revit, but I never that the factory people considered a dome shaped roof anything special or even stachitecture like.

[Steve_Stafford]

...Wow, this is a very dangerous statement to make here on this forum. It is like talking about someones mother. I have been burned and buried talking about the poor modelling tools in Revit...What I personally object to is how you say what you say. The broad sweeping generalizations you toss out, like it is dangerous to say something here. If I disagree with you am I not allowed to say so?

In my opinion the only reason people take you on here is because this is the ONLY thing you say here. Do you reply with help when someone is asking for it? No you just harp on the fact that what they want to do is hard to do with Revit.

Do you really think that, take me for example, I am so blindly in love with Revit that I don't want more modelling features in Revit? Please... Revit isn't perfect and there are things that are hard to model that other software makes easy. But those other software don't do what Revit does easily either as you well know. Keep on flogging the horse if you must....

[twiceroadsfool]

Wow, this is a very dangerous statement to make here on this forum. It is like talking about someones mother. I have been burned and buried talking about the poor modelling tools in Revit. The improvement of modeling tools are the absolute last priority at the factory. This very very contradicting idea of a so called architectural tool is justified because most Revit user don't need these tool. The "we only have clients that want square boxed buildings" or "stararchitects have their own tools" is what keeps the priority low. Anything out of the ordinary is extremely difficult or in most cases impossible to model in Revit, but I never that the factory people considered a dome shaped roof anything special or even stachitecture like.

Im curious what one tool you use for your architecture that has been able to accomplish all of these difficult and fascinating architectural elements. Im guessing, by your thick sarcasm and complete distaste for the factory development of Revit), that you use ONE tool for all your needs, and that it happens to meet every single one of your expectations?

You certainly got my attention now. Which program is it? Id love to know, because id love to use it. I dont think too highly of myself, but ive had the fortune (or misforturn, if you must) to work with a lot of different platforms before i finally stayed with Revit. I drew in AutoCAD for years, then i drew/modeled with Vectorworks, then ArchiCAD, with a short stay in Gehry technologies Digital Project, and now im here with Revit.

I know there are also those programs that free form model incredibly, and are also capable of producing stunning documentation... Is it one of those? Form-Z? Rhino? Oh wait... They do half of that, but not the documentation.

Shoot, im running out of ideas of what you could be using. Which ONE solution does it better thats made you so sour about Revit and the development team?

/sarcasm

At the end of the day, i dont really care if i get a loft tool in the next release of Revit. This platform has allowed us to push forward in a lot of different areas that architecture was extremely dificient in for quite some time. Our documentation has gotten easier to coordinate and check for errors, the amount of live information we can carry and manage has gone up, while the difficulty of said management has gone down... And at the end of the day, we can stay put together final deliverable products that are what they should be: Beautiful buildings.

Your PRIMARY concern is that generating a generic shape by which to start the model that will become your building... Is difficult? Good grief.

[cosmickingpin]

Well, I am not sure I agree with Andrew's context myself. Many Revit users have been asking for model improvements for a long time. Andrew seems to have grown up some since his 3 posters in 1 days. But Andrew's sole purpose here seems to be to build as much buzz about other software platforms as he can and then hide it behind some rhetoric about how Revit could be better. If I am unfair to you Andrew, I apologize.

Having said this, the answers to Revit grips from corporate HQ seem to mainly be "other AutoDesk Products."
Want Better Modeling- Get Inventor or Max
Want Better Rendering: Buy Viz
I forget who it was but at AU when they had the Building industry Q&A we were told that Viz will never, ever be built into Revit.
The only thing I see as a corporate step forward is that they seem to have overcome their confusing stand on ADT vs Revit.
I think its Shite we haven't seen an additional modeling feature in Revit- ever. the only story I have ever gotten from ADesk is the line about other products that do have them, that's shite too.



What I personally object to is how you say what you say. The broad sweeping generalizations you toss out, like it is dangerous to say something here. If I disagree with you am I not allowed to say so?

In my opinion the only reason people take you on here is because this is the ONLY thing you say here. Do you reply with help when someone is asking for it? No you just harp on the fact that what they want to do is hard to do with Revit.

Do you really think that, take me for example, I am so blindly in love with Revit that I don't want more modelling features in Revit? Please... Revit isn't perfect and there are things that are hard to model that other software makes easy. But those other software don't do what Revit does easily either as you well know. Keep on flogging the horse if you must....

[AP23]

The firm I work for had 70 Revit seat, but only upgraded 20 when 3 projects failed miserably. The cause of the failure was more due to high expectations from the partners. Now we use Revit only on small residential projects and small to mid-sized commercial projects with a simple clean geometrical shape and that works very well for us. We had very good results with Revit and we will continue to use Revit on these types of projects. Everything else is done in Rhino and AutoCAD.

Like I said before, Revit is a great product that suites a particular segment of the market. Considering what we pay for a seat, I personally would like to see it expand a little bit more.

Coming back to the discussion, I was quite surprised that domes are not considered as mainstream, (the market that Revit targets), thus makes the creation of a dome in Revit difficult. However, this doesn't make Revit a bad product

[dbaldacchino]

Dear Andrewpage23,

Before I will start to even care about getting more modelling features, I want workflow things fixed, like groups, room tags that follow rooms, managing revisions as snapshots of sheet views, etc. These are the most manpower-draining things we face on a daily basis. We do great work, but I've never seen a dome like that on one of our projects, and I'm sure that we can resort to 2D for certain things if they're difficult to model in Revit at this time. After all we've been doing that for hundreds of years. And we're not a small company by the way....we have about $40M in annual billings. Revit's documentation features are the main reason we're transitioning to it, so we can waste less time documenting, be more accurate and solve more issues in the office rather than the jobsite, and spend more time designing delightful and economical faciities for our clients. We want to dedicate more time to designing the building (finishes, resolving different material junctions, etc.) rather than get caught up in manual coordination and drafting.

Please don't come around here typing lame statements like you do. We welcome criticism but it helps if you're constructive. Please don't let me add you to my ignore list; I wan to keep it empty.

[sbrown]

Domes are easy in revit, there is an OOTB family for them, its the geodesic dome that is a tough one.

[AP23]

Dear Andrewpage23,

Before I will start to even care about getting more modelling features, I want workflow things fixed, like groups, room tags that follow rooms, managing revisions as snapshots of sheet views, etc. These are the most manpower-draining things we face on a daily basis. We do great work, but I've never seen a dome like that on one of our projects, and I'm sure that we can resort to 2D for certain things if they're difficult to model in Revit at this time. After all we've been doing that for hundreds of years. And we're not a small company by the way....we have about $40M in annual billings. Revit's documentation features are the main reason we're transitioning to it, so we can waste less time documenting, be more accurate and solve more issues in the office rather than the jobsite, and spend more time designing delightful and economical faciities for our clients. We want to dedicate more time to designing the building (finishes, resolving different material junctions, etc.) rather than get caught up in manual coordination and drafting.

We all are on the same boat here. We started using Revit for the same reason. The only difference is that in some cases we spend more time documenting in Revit than the traditional way. That is why at the beginning of each project we make a decision which software suites that particular project best.

[sbrown]

We all are on the same boat here. We started using Revit for the same reason. The only difference is that in some cases we spend more time documenting in Revit than the traditional way. That is why at the beginning of each project we make a decision which software suites that particular project best.


This is a great practice. We do a similiar "Go-No Go". Its usually based on the delieverables. A No-Go may still use revit as a design aid, just not the delievery method.

[cosmickingpin]

In defense of us modeling bitches (and I do realize you weren't talking to me), I am not asking for new modeling features. I would settle for just one. I have my imaginary Revit modeling feature all picked out. I call it the swarp- it's a sweep with two profiles, sort of a hybrid of the blend and sweep. So around the office when I am answering a user's questions as to how to model something I will sometimes tell them from time to time to use the "swarp command"- which translates "do it in max, or cad or some other software." Until Revit gets a single new modeling feature, its limitations will be severe, and our complaints- legitimate. Andrew has a valid point about Revit shortcomings, and so do those who speak to Andrew's conduct. Two separate issues.



Dear Andrewpage23,

Before I will start to even care about getting more modelling features, I want workflow things fixed, like groups, room tags that follow rooms, managing revisions as snapshots of sheet views, etc. These are the most manpower-draining things we face on a daily basis. We do great work, but I've never seen a dome like that on one of our projects, and I'm sure that we can resort to 2D for certain things if they're difficult to model in Revit at this time. After all we've been doing that for hundreds of years. And we're not a small company by the way....we have about $40M in annual billings. Revit's documentation features are the main reason we're transitioning to it, so we can waste less time documenting, be more accurate and solve more issues in the office rather than the jobsite, and spend more time designing delightful and economical faciities for our clients. We want to dedicate more time to designing the building (finishes, resolving different material junctions, etc.) rather than get caught up in manual coordination and drafting.

Please don't come around here typing lame statements like you do. We welcome criticism but it helps if you're constructive. Please don't let me add you to my ignore list; I wan to keep it empty.

[Scott D Davis]

Swarp = Loft

[cosmickingpin]

right, but swarp sounds more fun, and since I am talking about a fictional Revit feature- seemingly more appropriate,


Swarp = Loft

[Scott D Davis]

Swarp....i like it. Since its a blend-sweep combo, maybe its a "swend", or maybe a "Bleep"!The Factory would think we were cussing at them..."Where is the Bleep tool!"

Naw, i like swarp.

[brakware]

This has devolved into the Taco Bell "Sweet vs. Spicy" discussion.

Is it "Swicy" or "Sweecy?"

I think its "Speet."

[DaveP]

PS. Does it bug anyone when the word "Revit" is not recognized when you Spell Check before submitting? :shock:
Hey Phil!

http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=54476&highlight=spell+check

Yes, it does

[rushiti]

Yeah, we had the same problem with a building on the gold coast - luckily tho it changed from the first image to the second and we were able to use millions of tiny curtain panels to represent the steel mesh. Because of the size of this file and the way it slowed everything down, we had it in an external file which we linked in and only reloaded when we needed to print.

I arrived on the project after the first image was produced... apparently they applied a curtain panel, linked the intersections with model lines, set the work plane using two of the model lines, and then extruded each panel. PAINFUL!! Sure there would be a better way...

Can you explain procedure of creating the "diamonds" in the dome?
I am in proces of creating similar to your dome that you are showing in your drawing.
One thing I cant find and probably dont know, how to use model lines in 3D space?

thanks in advance,
Fisnik

[AnyMedia]

there is a great little program called WinDome that can give you a DXF of any frequency geodesic dome

[Live2Dive]

I know this thread is about to pass it's expiration date, but I thought I'd post here in a project that 'fits' the theme here.

I had a small project to produce a rendering of a radome that our firm had worked on. We do not have Studio 3D or Maya to generate the geodesic form, so I jumped back into Autocad to produce the faces of the sphere then imported that into a Revit mass. Finished the mass and applied a curtain wall system to the mass. It took me three days to figure out the approach, and two hours to execute the exercise. It was loads of fun (and irritating at the same time), but the final results made the upper management happy.

[AP23]

We are all hoping things will change in the next release, where these structures can be built within Revit.

[MRV]

there is a great little program called WinDome that can give you a DXF of any frequency geodesic dome

I've looked everywhere for this program, but can't find it. The web site is long gone and now hosts ads. Do you know where to find it???

[George Mokhtar]

Hi

Does anybody out there know how I would model a geodesic dome (as a roof) in Revit? The structure would be something like the attached image.

Many thanks.

Hi, Iwan Peverett and I had a quick bash at a hexagonal geodome using adaptive components... we based the geometry on a classic Icosahedron based dome [see eden] which consists of multiple hexagonal panels and a few pentagons. Seems to work really well although we had a little refinement to do with some of the formula before it fulfills its potential, we have brought the parameters through from the 'inner layer' of families so the dome is parametrically adjustable [wouldnt fancy medelling one every time we use one]. Have you developed the solution any further without going outside of Revit? If so I wouldn't mind taking a peek!

http://collab.northumbria.ac.uk/bim2/?p=915

http://collab.northumbria.ac.uk/bim2/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/section.jpg
http://collab.northumbria.ac.uk/bim2/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/dome.jpg