Using Masses for Stacking and Blocking Diagrams...

[FWSchreck]

Hello:

A project team is experimenting with using masses to produce stacking and blocking diagrams. The idea is that we can use the masses to report floor areas (thru floor area faces) and represent department spaces for 3D and section views.

We're hitting a snag when using "Shaded with Edges" Model Graphics Style for Floor Plan view. The masses (with transparent materials assigned) display opaque. Is there a workaround for this? Any alternative methods for stacking/blocking diagrams?

[sonya]

you could use ceilings or floors for massing/stacking (i.e. 3 metre thick ceilings or floors)
we decided on this because it let us control what was on each floor better as we had 12 existing levels, 12 proposed levels and a bunch of offsets. Also the mass tool is too "gooey" to easily produce essentially a bunch of shapes extruded to a consistent height.

each department / zone whatever is a ceiling or floor type
- the disadvantage of ceilings is although you can schedule the areas you can't place an area tag, the advantage is with your ceiling offset = 0 the bottom sits on the floor
- the disadvantages of floors is they go down from a level. don't know if we tried tagging them with areas

[beegee]

Fred,

Check the material assigned to the mass. OOTB, Default Mass shows a 75% transparency. That should work.

[FWSchreck]

Bruce:

Thanks for your reply. Transparency works just fine when you view a mass in a 3D view... the trouble is when you view the mass in Plan view... the mass turns opaque.

It looks like we're going to use two object types to create our program analysis and stacking/blocking diagrams. We'll use Areas to track department square footages and produce color fill plan diagrams. We'll use Masses to create 3D stacking and blocking diagrams. A compromise, not the optimum solution.

If the Area object had a height property we could use it for both program analysis and stacking/blocking.

[Arndawg]

We have been using massing plans for our initial design development. Take a look at the attached file. If you need more info. let me know.

Arne

[patrick.murphy77679]

Fred,

Try creating a new 3d view and then orienting the 3d view to your section. Works well.

[Steve_Stafford]

...We have been using massing plans for our initial design development...Nice examples, thanks for posting them.

[David Haynes]

Fred,

Also make sure that there is nothing listed in the cut or surface pattern>pattern box in the material dialog box. I found that if you use the Default Mass Material and then modify, you do better than trying to make the masses actual materials.

Hope this helps.

[Chirag Mistry]

Here's another example

[mhaidar]

check pmurphy's reply
i think it will do it for you, create 3D views and orient them to plan, section, or elavations views. i use this method as well when i want to show what's behind the glass in a building's elevation.

I Have a question to the people who posted diagrams. Are your masses created in place in the project? Or is there any attempt to create mass families for programmatic and stacking use, and that can be flexed depending on which space they represent?

That's a great thread - Thanks

[Chirag Mistry]

We created different mass families with the area requirement parameter embedded in them.

[david_spehar]

We created different mass families with the area requirement parameter embedded in them.

Could I be so bold as to ask if you would post an example of one of these families? We're just venturing into this on a project and I am wrestling with these very issues - this is a great thread. Viva la AUGI.

[Chirag Mistry]

Here you go.:)

[david_spehar]

Thanks Chirag.

Question for all. In order to maximize the flexibility of our block diagram we are just using in-place mass families (in case a space is something other than a rectangle). This gets cumbersome since every time you copy or create a mass (say "mass1") it creates a new family ("mass2"). Each of these families holds only one type and I have not found a way to create additional types within an in-place family. Our initial thought was to create families by program group (say "admin") and then have types within it for program spaces (office, conference room, etc). Can this be done in-place? Am I way off base? Any input on how people are organizing the data would be appreciated.

[comhasse]

If the Area object had a height property we could use it for both program analysis and stacking/blocking.
Good idea, should be a wishlist item. Very REVIT-like to keep everything flexible.

[psundharam]

We have been using massing plans for our initial design development. Take a look at the attached file. If you need more info. let me know.

Arne
Hi Arne,

I am new to the Revit World. In our office we are trying to use Revit for Programming analysis and Massing. I learned from this thread, that using massing families for appropriate spaces, we could accomplish our massing needs. But how do I attach an area tag to this massing family? or is the area information just a text?

Any advise on the whole programming and massing phase would be a great help.

Thanks a ton.

Prem

[david_spehar]

You use a massing tag. The default tag extracts the gross floor area of each mass.

[psundharam]

Awesome!! the mass tag works great. Thanks David.
Prem

[david_spehar]

You can also modify the tag and add some shared parameters (run the tutorial on shared parameters if you're not familiar with them). We created shared parameters for things such as "program group", "department", "space ID" that tie into our programming documents. You can assign these to your masses and then schedule them to track your model with your program. Have fun.

[gsucci]

Hi all,

This is similar to what already asked, but not answered:

I designed a couple of mass families, with parameters for the dimensions and different materials per every type (admin, circulation, etc.). They schedule great, using the family name as first grouping item (name of the family, like (N)program, (E) bldgs etc.), then the type as second grouping (admin, etc.). Also, I use the istance description field for additional info on the mass.

All cool, except not all program can be fitted into regular boxes, and I cannot make an external family per every weird shape I need to mass and schedule...

So I started to create in place mass families....

Big troubles.

You can make one family name with one type only, so all my scheduling goes to hell, because the two type of masses are simply not compatible when scheduled.

So, I am thinking of simply adding comments and descriptions (or new shared parameters) to both in place and external mass families, but frankly, it seems like I am wasting time and feels like I have to go back to a dumber way of doing things.

Is there anything I am missing?
How would you schedule a complex program, while doing a site and staking diagram? I mean, external families are great, but how do you make more than boxes?

Thank you

regards

gio

[david_spehar]

We ran into the same issues. What has worked best for us are in place families (yes, you end up with a billion single families with one type each). We created shared parameters for scheduling departments, etc. and it works pretty well. We also created multiple object styles under massing and different materials for each department. By assigning the different department object styles to each mass we globally control visibility settings, colors, etc. It sure would be nice if multiple instances could be created in one in place family. Maybe this is being addressed...

[amatosfermin]

Hi Arne,
is this a dual use of tools, massing and area tools overlayed?

Alejandro Matos
Integra Design Group
San Juan, P.R.

[amatosfermin]

Hi David,
i tried using the mass tag, but it won't calculate the gross floor area.
Am i missing something?
thanks!
Amatos
Integra Design Group
San Juan, P.R.

[david_spehar]

Hi David,
i tried using the mass tag, but it won't calculate the gross floor area.
Am i missing something?
thanks!
Amatos
Integra Design Group
San Juan, P.R.

Go to the mass' properties and assign "floor area faces" to populate the gross area. You can associate one or multiple levels with a mass.

[jack.gray]

I am glad to see so much use of the Mass tools. It looks like a number of work flows and work products are being modelled with the existing tools.

Are there any brave souls that are willing to describe the work flows and work products you would like better support for? I can collect the information then see what gets traction for future releases. Maybe even come up with a work around or two in the mean time.

I am the development lead responsible for Mass tools and Design Options, and am a trained architect, so feel free to tell me just what you want.

-Jack

[amatosfermin]

Hi Jack,
i'd like to know if in a not so far future Revit might develop it's masing tools to create complex geometries sush as the tools already into Archicad, although these were initially developed by independent developers?
I think Revit's got a huge potential to get there.
Thanks

Alejandro Matos
Integra Design
S.J., Puerto Rico