I HATE PADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[fyarch135738]

Are you getting the idea that I HATE PADS!!!!!!!!!!

While for the most part I really enjoy working with Revit (2008), without getting thrown off this site, I can't say how frustrating I find pads. I'm constantly getting error messages that lines can share edges but not overlap, but it never shows where!!!!!!!!!!! Every time I work with pads it's the same and my normally calm nature turns to violent rage.

I'll admit, I haven't been using Revit for a very long time, but I've worked on it consistently for the last 7 months or so and nothing has caused so much frustration.

I'm using the pads to level out a sloping site (where the house is partially underground), so the model doesn't look like a set from "The Mummy" or a similar movie in the Sahara Desert.

Why is it so important that pads can't overlap? The pads are a heap of soil underground - I just don't see why it has to be so accurate. It's not like it's a window frame or something similarly accurate in its manufacture.

Even the smallest overlap can cause the problem. I've gone around the sketch lines and adjusted each one to try to find out the problem line and in one case today, I found the line and adjusted it by 1/32" at a time to see where it finally allowed me to finish the pad. When I looked at the 3D image, there was a skinny little ridge of soil sticking up at that problem line. I'm guessing the ridge would have been about 3' high and 1/16" thick - how on earth do you get rid of that????????

If this overlap is such a huge problem WHY CAN'T REVIT SHOW WHERE THE PROBLEM IS??????? It knows it exists, why not show where? Whenever there's a problem when Editing a Profile, there's a warning that describes the problem and where the problem occurs is easy to see. Why can't this be done for pads if they are so damned important???

The other problem I've encountered is that it's difficult to see where these conflicting pads are. I resorted to turning the 3D model upside down, then isolating the category to see if there any obvious clashes (and generally there aren't). I've found it's quite difficult to do an isolate category in say a Ground Floor plan as the pads are buried and as far as I'm aware, you need to do any editing in a floor plan.

I'll be happy to eat humble pie if someone can write back with a simple method of doing this and I'd be extremely grateful if this cause of major slowdowns and stress is taken out of my life, but at this point I'm just seeing this as a very annoying flaw in Revit.

Here's hoping for my saviour

Frank Y

[Teresa.Martin]

Yeah..I think I am picking up on the frustration. I wish I could give you a cut and dried answer, however you might want to think about modifying the topo surface using sub regions and split surface tools. You can then modify the points as necessary without having to use the pad tool except to create the building pad.

It is generally agreed that Revit needs some more robust site tools. It is very difficult to add sidewalks for instance with curbs without having to use a few tricks and such.

Sorry I could not be of more help.

[sbrown]

I don't bother with pads on tricky conditions. just split the topo around your building, save off the extra piece incase you need it back, then just draft the filled region under it or build new flat topo under your building.

ONe tip if you decide to keep wrestling with pads is to copy paste align the sketch of your first pad, to the second then modify that. this should guarantee they don't overlapp. If it does you can send it in as a reproducable bug.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

You can also use the pick and align tools to aid in exact placement of lines so you don't get any overlap.

[clog boy]

I HATE PADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frank Y
Are there any other things you 'don't like'? ;)

Now to the important questions: does that ridge show in your floor plan? If they're at the same level, can you make them as one? Will that ridge be shown in your presentation drawings?

In other words: how much does this incident affect the overall quality of your work?
God I feel like being on the phone for McAfee again... don't need a reminder of how much I hated... erhm, didn't like that. Hang in there buddy, the worst is yet to come, and as long as you keep thinking that everything else will seem OK.

[dpasa]

Actually , we all hate (but many don't say it) the site tools because a tools must help you do the job, not change the job so that you can use the tool...
Not only we can't have a 3d site but we can't even use some modeling tools to make it 3d... For example, been able to extrude a subregion to make a street and a pavement... For now, these things are just different colors... This is very 90's.
Pads are very annoying. I find the explanation more annoying... What we hear from some guys here... That we have to think how we would build that...
ARE YOU SERIOUS?
We use rails for sweeps, ramps for walls, masses for whatever possible (and with poor results)... I can't even count how many times the word "workaround" exists in these forums!!!

[clog boy]

Actually , we all hate (but many don't say it) the site tools because a tools must help you do the job, not change the job so that you can use the tool...

ARE YOU SERIOUS?

I can't even count how many times the word "workaround" exists in these forums!!!
True, true and true. Revit was born in the 90's, so you're right if you say some components are relics from a previous age. The only thing that would be a big improvement for Revit is a total rewrite of the program.

But we all know that's not going to happen this decade.

[Chad Smith]

The only site tools I use is a topo, and even then I keep it flat so I can subregion it to get landscaping areas. Model the building it 3D but keep to site 2D is the easiest approach.

I don't even know why a pad is a 3D object in the first place. The only definition of what a pad is that I have ever heard, is that it is a flat piece of dirt upon which to place a slab. The pad tool should be nothing more than a 2D region which levels the topo within that defined region.
I would keep things simple and keep the site 2D until they improve the tools.

[clog boy]

The piece of dirt has a specific depth, which makes it 3D. You'd want to excavate some earth before building your home, right?

[Chad Smith]

No. The only depth the dirt has, is the thickness of the earth which is directly below it. A pad is the intersecting plane between earth and slab/floor. It is infinitely thin, and should only have a datum height referenced from a 'level', and not a Structure/thickness.

Since the Pad as it currently stands does have a Structure/thickness, then Autodesk could at least change it so that it behaves as a Floor object so it could be scheduled as one in a Floor/Slab Schedule, so we could have a Pad/Floor tool rolled into one. The current 3D object that the Pad tool generates is generic and as far as I can see, has no real usefulness.

[Gadget Man]

No. The only depth the dirt has, is the thickness of the earth which is directly below it. A pad is the intersecting plane between earth and slab/floor. It is infinitely thin, and should only have a datum height referenced from a 'level', and not a Structure/thickness (...) I couldn't agree more!
From the beginning of my love with REVIT till short time ago, I always struggled with PADS because I was taught so.

However, when my frustration reached the peak I switched entirely to toposurface manipulation, using only "Split", "Merge" and "Graded Region" tools. And let me tell you that I am much faster overall and by far less stressed without PADS, even if repositioning of the house on SITE (in any way) means re-creation of the whole CUT/FILL and battering arrangement again...

I am not coming back to the grim business of PADS, unless they are totally overhauled...


Now, for the short outline of my way of toposurface manipulation (perhaps it may prove useful for some new REVIT adventurers...):


1) Normally, you create a toposurface in the NEW phase (since most likely you work in the NEW phase anyway)

2) If so, after creation of the toposurface, change its phase to EXISTING (since it already exists on Site…) see picture 1a.

3) Using “Split Surface” tool, create your desired building PLATFORM (for not wanting to use the term “PAD”) of any desired shape see picture 1b.

4) Our new building Platform is defined but it still has the original slope. We have to change its grade to flat – using “Graded Region” tool. Note that since our toposurface is already in the previous phase (NEW is our current working phase, so Existing is previous to current…), we don’t need to worry about this anymore… see picture 1c.

5) For the purpose of this exercise, I assumed the CUT/FILL line to be at RL 12500.
The next step is to choose all the PLATFORM boundary points and change their elevation to 12500, effectively “levelling” our building PLATFORM see picture 1d.

6) Right now we should have situation shown on picture 2.

7) Repeating earlier “Split Surface” and “Graded Region” techniques, we create CUT/FILL embankments see pictures 3a, b, c.

The final results are shown on pictures 4a, b, and c.

Now, if for any reason we want to redo anything, there is a "Merge Surface" tool...

[fyarch135738]

Jerry

Thanks for your comprehensive explanation of how to handle topographic surfaces with the split and grading tools. I had seen those in the Design Bar, but had no idea what to do with them. It's an area that my training never reached, so it's great to have your input with the very helpful graphics - it's very much appreciated and nothing more than I'd expect from a fellow Aussie. By the way, I'm glad that you could stop if you wanted to.

I had used P*Ds because someone had mentioned them to me and it seemed like the only way I could have my building emerge from its buried state. For the most part it worked, but when that error message came up, it became a nightmare.

MY SOLUTION - After my tirade that drew out your very helpful explanation, as I usually do, I went back to my drawing and started to work with the P*Ds again and I found a system that actually worked, albeit a fairly round about way to do things. I had to find a view where I could select a P*D (pick a P*D - any P*D), then go into something like Ground Floor plan and in the Temporary Hide tab (bottom of screen), select Isolate Category, which left me only with the P*Ds on screen. Then I could zoom in and find the offending gaps between P*Ds and fix them up. It was important that the View Range was set to a sufficient depth, so I could see a P*D that was partially hidden under another floor.

I like the sound of your method much more - it's far more like what actually happens on site. I look forward to trying it out.

QUESTION - Are the outline of the fill banks you showed on your example, drawn by you, or do they automatically draw themselves, based on the site slopes and a standard batter slope? If the latter, can that slope be adjusted in angle if necessary? Presumably if a retaining wall is in the way of a sloping bank, it overrides the bank?

QUESTION - If a large portion of a site is to be brought down to a common level, is it necessary (best?) to split that area into separate areas, or just do everything on one big levelled area? For example, in my case there's a big main house, a separate guest house, a big driveway and parking area and garden areas with varying levels for ponds and a pool. Most of the disturbed site will be at one level, but the ponds and pool will be at different (lower) levels to the main level.

Frank Y

[Anthony.d]

Jerry

Thanks so much for the graphical explanation.

[sschwartz85916]

Oh. I thought you were talking about something else... ;)

[Gadget Man]

(...)QUESTION - Are the outline of the fill banks you showed on your example, drawn by you, or do they automatically draw themselves, based on the site slopes and a standard batter slope? If the latter, can that slope be adjusted in angle if necessary? Presumably if a retaining wall is in the way of a sloping bank, it overrides the bank?(...)
He he he - as far as I know, nothing draws itsef... apart from the lines on my face - with age.

Nope! No such luck...

And while the procedure I use is childish simple, it could also be a bit tedious at times - if you have a complex contours or CUT/FILL situation to work with.

It involves drawing a section through your BUILDING PLATFORM and altering between Site view and your Section view.

Eventually, you come up with several cross points (between your Section line and a Reference Plane - in Site view) to define the outline of your battering...

I will use the same Site as in my earlier post and an example of situation common in our part of the World - "CUT" battering can be maximum at 45º (1:1 slope) while "FILL" battering can't be any steeper than 3:2 (for simplicity I assume no Driveway).

As previously, let's assume the "CUT/FILL" line (Building Platform) to be RL.12500 (see picture 1 below).

First, create a very shallow (view depth) Section through our Building Platform. It should be "shallow" to avoid any confussion in the Section View (see picture 2a).

It pays to close all the hidden windows except for Site Plan and just created Section View - having only these two opened allows us to quickly switch between them by pressing <Ctrl><Tab> keys.

In Section View we draw our required "Battering". For the easy angles (e.g. 45º, etc.) I simply draw from the end of my Building Platform a Reference Plane representing my desired slope battering. For more difficult angles (rather than calculating them) I quickly draw my slope ratio diagram, using Detail Lines (see pictures 2b and 3d).

Now, where these "Battering" lines cross Natural Ground Line we need to draw a vertical Reference Plane (so it's visible on the Site View) see picture 2b .

In the Site View we mark the points where our freshly created Reference Planes cross Section line (picture 2c). Bear in mind that because we can't snap to the Section line (pity), we have to eyeball the intersection as good as we can.

Follow these steps for all the relevant points of your CUT/FILL situation. In my example it was enough to create 8 (see picture 4a).

Use these markers when you draw the sketch of your shape of the "Split Surface" function (as explained in my earlier post).


(...) QUESTION - If a large portion of a site is to be brought down to a common level, is it necessary (best?) to split that area into separate areas, or just do everything on one big levelled area? For example, in my case there's a big main house, a separate guest house, a big driveway and parking area and garden areas with varying levels for ponds and a pool. Most of the disturbed site will be at one level, but the ponds and pool will be at different (lower) levels to the main level (...) Well, in my part of the World this is usually part of the Local Government regulations - for example, some councils will not allow Cut/Fill to be greater than 1.5m each. This means that, on more difficult sites, we have to create massive retaining walls. But often the height of a retaining wall is also limited by regulations, so we sometimes "split" them into several lower retaining walls (one above the other), with certain width "shelves" between them, forming so called "retaining system". Such systems are also subject to the local regulations... etc, etc...

It's hard to say, as every site may require different approach - best to check with your local authorities what is allowed and how it can/should be constructed...

[rjcrowther]

I haven't bothered with site tools since my first project with Revit - seemed more of a nuisance than anything else. I think I will give this a go.

Thanks,
Rob

[Joef]

Thank you Jerry for this very informative tutorial. You have shined a light into the gloom that was "site tools". :)

Joe

[Andrew Dobson]

I have a simple solution:

The developers should take the pad command out of Revit, and change the behaviour of floor slabs such that if you place a slab below ground level, it will automatically cut the ground out. (i.e. the topo would automatically attach to the bottom of the slab)

This is how it would be built after all.

[Gadget Man]

(...) The developers should take the pad command out of Revit (...) No, that wouldn't be good... You see, PADs have one important feature, that I use occassionally but NOT for the toposurface manipulation. They are hopeless if you want to finish your CUT/FILL and battering nicely but (in the very early stages) they are useful to determine the vertical positioning of building on Site (RL. of the Cut/Fill line).

Very often the desired RL. of the Building Platform is rather obvious and straight-forward but sometimes there are several ways to do it - all of them valid - depending on what you want to achieve. I found, that the ability to instanteniously change the elevation of the building on Site to analyse if there should be more Cut or more Fill (especially, while discussing these matters with a Client in front of your computer) can be very beneficial. You can't achieve that easily with Spilt Surface command (it takes too many steps for every change you want to make).

So, in short: if needed, I use PADs to quickly determine desired RL. of my Cut/Fill lines. Once satisfied, I delete them and in their place create Building Platforms (using methods earlier described).


(...) change the behaviour of floor slabs such that if you place a slab below ground level, it will automatically cut the ground out. (i.e. the topo would automatically attach to the bottom of the slab)

This is how it would be built after all (...) Hmmmm... that wouldn't be good either... You see, if your Slab (Floor) would be altering the Toposurface automatically, it could be difficult to alter Phases of particular Toposurface parts (most likely Revit wouldn't let you to interfere with the automatic process), hence to quantify the volume of earth Cut/Filled. Right now, using my method to manipulate Toposurface, Revit can give you the exact quantities of your total earthworks for your schedules, if you so desire... If the process would be automatic, most likely we wouldn't have much say in it... I don't like this idea...

[Max Lloyd]

Very interesting thread and thanks to Jerry for putting in so much input and sharing your methods (the spirit of the forum lives!)

I too would love to see much better and simpler site tools though!

Regards,

Max.

[Andrew Dobson]

Maybe an option to have topo attached to the bottom of the floor slab with an option to have it turned on or off?

[Dimitri Harvalias]

Maybe an option to have topo attached to the bottom of the floor slab with an option to have it turned on or off?I kind of like this approach. I saw a demo video (I believe it was Vectorworks) and the automation in the site tools looked pretty good. Model a retaining wall or sidewalk or other site feature and the grade automatically adjusted to suit. I've never used the program in question but it sure looked like a slick way to go. I assume the surface could also be manipulated after the fact for fine tuning.

[twaldock]

Are you getting the idea that I HATE PADS!!!!!!!!!!

While for the most part I really enjoy working with Revit (2008), without getting thrown off this site, I can't say how frustrating I find pads. I'm constantly getting error messages that lines can share edges but not overlap, but it never shows where!!!!!!!!!!! Every time I work with pads it's the same and my normally calm nature turns to violent rage.

Frank Y

While we all wait for the Revit developers to make pads more user friendly, you can control them a little better by putting reference planes along all joints between two pads; name those reference planes and lock the pad edges to them. That way it helps to prevent overlaps between pads, as you can see the reference planes when editing one pad, even if you can't see the other pads.

[iandidesign]

I came across this thread when doing a search following some big time newbie head scratching over Pad behavior. First off let me echo others in thanking Jerry for such an incredibly detailed and helpful pair of posts. Now to my current dilemma.

The project is a residential as-built. No regrading or cut/fill (yet). After my initial frustration with pads I followed Jerry’s advice and used Split Surfaces for the excavated areas. But (perhaps foolishly) I used Pads for the slab-on-grade elements, a driveway and some patios. This worked fine and and with slope arrows I achieved just what I wanted—until the last Pad. When I diligently aligned it to the the adjacent one, and to one of the split surfaces, it caused not one but two problems. First the dreaded sliver of vertical grass appeared between the Pads, and second all the split surfaces vanished completely. I have pads just like it elsewhere with no problems.

As a solution of sorts I moved the sketch line of the offending pad that adjoins the neighboring pad by .0001” and all appears well. No one will ever know, but it gives me the heebe jeebes. The screenshots tell the tale (the pad in question is the blue one). Any idea why this happens?


Maybe an option to have topo attached to the bottom of the floor slab with an option to have it turned on or off?

I like the sounds of this. Judging by a 3D cutaway (section box) it appears that walls and footings automatically cutaway their volume from a toposurface. Is this correct? Slabs need the same with the added ability to cut the volume above as well. (In ArchiCAD this is called a Solid Subtraction with Upward Extrusion.) Then again isn’t that what a Pad is supposed to do?

[iandidesign]

I’m bumping my own post because I’d really like to figure this out. But maybe everyone has abandoned Pads or discovered queasy workarounds like I did.

[truevis]

...I don't even know why a pad is a 3D object in the first place. The only definition of what a pad is that I have ever heard, is that it is a flat piece of dirt upon which to place a slab. The pad tool should be nothing more than a 2D region which levels the topo within that defined region....

Thus I make the pad 1/8" thick and it disappears into the bottom line of the basement slab in section.

[Calvn_Swing]

Personally, I now like that it is a 3D object for two reasons.

First, because if you want it thin you can make it thin (1/8" thick) and if you want it thick you can make it thick.

Second, we rarely scrape the dirt down to the bottom of the actual slab and then just pour the slab on top. Typically we have some combination of compacted fill and gravel, followed by some kind of membrane. So, I usually make my pads represent what we think the construction condition is going to be. Makes the sections look that much nicer, and allows us to get some additional material quantities out of the model.

[iandidesign]

I can see the logic behind both of these opinions, although I think I favor Chad’s 2D region idea since the sub-slab build-up can be either part of the slab structure or a separate slab.

So are you guys not experiencing all the weird behaviors reported by myself and others?

And are folks using Pads for driveways and paths, or something else?

Thanks for the help.

[Gadget Man]

... are folks using Pads for driveways and paths, or something else?...

As I stated earlier, I use pads ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY for visually determining the level of CUT/FILL line in front of a client - to show them on the screen how things will look in the real life. How much earthworks will be required for each of his/her options. That's it.

Everything else for earthworks is toposurface and graded regions.

All the pathways, driveways, carparks, garden beds, sculptured lawns (i.e. different from underlying toposurface), stepping stones, water, etc. are done using FLOORS. Especially now, when you can re-shape their 3D geometry, so they start to behave like polymeshes. Very useful tool.

[iandidesign]

Thanks Jerry. No one has demonstrated more acumen with the site tools than you so I will defer. I hate to relegate tools to the dust bin, especially when they could be so useful. I suppose there is hope for the future. Improved site tools are among the most requested “new“ features. So I guess it’s not the dust bin, just the bottom drawer of the tool chest.

[dbaldacchino]

A good analogy for pads that I heard at AU was to think of it as the water proofing membrane under your slab. So you make it be as thin as a sheet of plastic and then place your slab right above it. That would be really close to how things are constructed.
I have only used site tools sporadically and typically only had one pad (one sketch) so I never encountered the issues you're seeing. I would think that by aligning the sketch lines (such as the suggestion to use ref. planes), you shouldn't see overlapping errors. Is this happening despite using this technique?

[iandidesign]

I used the same technique for all the pads—align the adjoining sketch line of the Pad currently being modeled with that of the finished adjacent Pad, using the align tool. This worked perfectly until the last pad where I discovered I needed a gap or all manner of unexpected and undesirable stuff happens. Would the ref line method deliver better alignment than my method? I will try it.

Problems only occur in this one instance, which always makes me queasy.

I will also try the pad as membrane technique.

Thanks.

[Gadget Man]

...I would think that by aligning the sketch lines (such as the suggestion to use ref. planes), you shouldn't see overlapping errors. Is this happening despite using this technique?

Yes! Especially where a curve is involved (e.g. corner of a pad - if you want it rounded to resemble a real life situation).

Because of the horrible approximation Revit is taking with all curves, when you try to align one on top of the other, even if you use THE SAME line (copied and pasted from a clipboard) often - not always - there are errors.

And because if you try to use graded regions adjoining pads you have to follow pads' boundary (otherwise your graded region's loop is not closed), that's where the most problems occur.

Another similar situation is when you want two separate pads to abut and suddenly they either overlap or leave a tiny gap between them.

In any case, as you and Chad Smith mentioned, PADS should be used only as a very thin membrane at best (as close to "0" as possible, not a foot as Revit's default has it !!!), and better still, left only for temporary visual establishment of a CUT/FILL level.

[dbaldacchino]

Haha, I see what you guys are talking about now. Funny how Revit tells you that they cannot overlap but edges can be shared and when you do that, you still get the error!

If you use the pick lines tool and then trim the line, it complains but if you don't trim it and use the entire picked line, it seems to accept it.

[iandidesign]

Interestingly I never got any errors. Revit accepts my actions and acts like all is well. But in this one instance not only do the adjoining Pads squirt that little vertical fin of grass up between them, but my split surfaces vanish (see my screenshots on the previous page). That’s when I have the pads aligned. Un-align them and everything returns to “normal”.

I’m sure that based on everyone’s hard earned workarounds..er..methods I too will develop a reasonably bomber workflow. But clearly the system is too touchy.

[patricks]

FYI to others who may be viewing this thread today - the sliver between aligned pads was a bug and was (finally) fixed 2 or 3 releases ago.

[nancy.mcclure]

Our current project(s) are still in RA2012, updated service packs, and the topo slivers still occur. Perhaps development resolved this for RA2013, but many projects are still proceeding in 2012.

We resolve it by ignoring it until the site design has reached an approval stage, then we edit the toposurface beneath the problem areas to split out the area, and hide or delete it. Still more work than should be necessary.

As many jurisdictions are moving towards 'zero export' of site soils, a 3D site with as accurate of pads/grading as possible is not just desired, its necessary. These tools need more attention from the development team!

[opesch]

As we (& Autodesk) always says here. WE SHOULD DO THINGS IN REVIT LIKE WE WILL DO THEM IN REAL LIFE !

For me, Revit and particularily BIM isn't (I hope so !) there to build "little single family - flat bottom bungallows" but make a fully detailed Virtual model of complex buildings like Museums, Skyscrapers, Hospitals... All of them will have a lot of complex overlapping underground structures or earthworks which need to be precisely schedduled and quantified

Following that point, Revit Pads should behave in a lot wider & simplier (bug proof) manner :

_ We should be able to supperpose multiple TOPO surfs with different materials (rock, silt, sand, gravel,...) AND/OR in different Options/Phases
_ Pads should interract (cut or fill) with (untill) one of those choosen TOPO surf, giving separated area/volumes for every other crossed Topo surf
_ Pads should have a flat bottom surface + a slope parameter for its batter slopes..... the best would be to be able choose different slopes conditions at different chosen boundaries (distance, height, Topo surf)
_ Pads should provide the ability to put different layers on their bottom AND on its batter slopes (geotextile, membranes, grout, gravels....)
_ Pads should ALWAYS be able to overlap themselves
_ Pads should exists in 2 types : Excavations and Backfills

There are different manners to achieve this :

_ Pads can be done like we do gradings in Civil 3D + the option to use the corridor's subassembly composer tools for the slope but with more stability while overlapping themselves and
_ Pads can be a new (inplace) family category where whe make Tapered Extrusions Voids & Fill Volumes which will acts on a selected Topo Surf
_ As proposed in a post here above, Pads can be automatically generated (particular object added) by floors (by an optional checkbox) at their creation when a Topo Surf is the vertically nearest object.
Off course Pads should be able to be shown and filtered separatedly from the floors they are aligned to.

Untill now, I never felt happy with Topo & pads behavior in Revit.... They are 99% useless for accurate - phased or not - ground modelling representations and for accurate earthworks QTO...
So for now I use CIVIL 3D for every ground models I've to make for our BIM projects.... with its lack of Phasing/Option abilities and lack of stability with the grading tools (works better with corridors but not suitable for every thing)

Of course as you see I do not draw bungalows (even if I would like to ! ;o) )... but Boat Locks, Breakwaters & Powerplants & Harbours, Museum (i.e. Grand Egyptian Museum), Hospitals, Skyscrapers, Hostels, Malls, Railway/Subway Stations.... etc !!!! and Revit and Civil3D typical "house architect VS US governemental road & piping works" global vision often gives me headache for those kind of projects !

Have a good day.... and hope that the new Civil 3D Interactive Ground Tools Extension is a small taste of how RAC will handle Ground in the near future !

[Andrew Dobson]

Opesch - all good points.

One key thing for me: Floors should have a tick box to cut toposurfaces. Move a floor down, and more of the "earth" gets cut out (automatically).

This would solve the majority of my issues with pads, in fact, you could largely avoid using them.

Incidentally, I'm not convinced that the "sliver" issue has been fully resolved (I'm on 2012).

[nancy.mcclure]

I can see why pads can't overlap, from a topo/impact processing standpoint, but it makes them very cumbersome to work with, especially with sculpted site development. I think it would be great to be able to set an 'Angle of Repose' to a pad - makes for a more realistic cut/fill analysis if your pads are serving as defining depth of engineered subgrade.

[Seychellian]

Opesch - all good points.

One key thing for me: Floors should have a tick box to cut toposurfaces. Move a floor down, and more of the "earth" gets cut out (automatically).

This would solve the majority of my issues with pads, in fact, you could largely avoid using them.

Incidentally, I'm not convinced that the "sliver" issue has been fully resolved (I'm on 2012).

Brother why dont you work at Autodesk? This stuff is killing me slowly. Pain pain pain in my head.