split face on walls forgetting material

[t1.shep]

I have split face a number of walls and painted different materials. For example, instead of adding trim pieces to the corners of a wall and along the base I've just split the face and painted another material. Basically just getting the building to look right in elevations.
Now, the problem is that randomly, it seems, the walls forget what material they are supposed to be. I'm not sure what is causing this. And it's difficult to explain because I don't know when it happens. I'll fix it, start working on something completely different in a different view, and then at some point i'll open up the elevation or 3d view and notice that the materials are all wrong again.
Any thoughts or someone else been having this issue?

The attached image shows the correct materials, but ,for instance, when it goes bad the cedar shake walls will take on the material of the trim.
We're getting ready to send these plans out the door and I'm tired of constantly having to check if the elevations are correct. I'm sure that ideally you would use a wall hosted trim piece, and include trim in the window family, but this is my first project and I didn't have the time to work that all out. Split Face just seemed to be a quick way to do what I needed.

[Gadget Man]

The Split Face material fill has a bug in it since at least version 5 (since I have been working with Revit). I don't know why it hasn't been fixed for so long, but it is a minor problem comparing with other much more annoying imperfections of Revit...

I found, that when you create a Split Face on a wall and than, at any time in the future, every time you just touch that wall (or a window or anything else in that wall for that matter) the whole wall adopts the material specified for the Split Face.

What's more, while adopting this material from a Split Face sometimes it even takes it away from that Split Face, leaving it... blank!!! Sort of like swapping its material with the Split Face...

While this behaviour has been extremally annoying for years, I always accepted it as yet another sad fact of life with REVIT... I simply learned to work arround it by creating the Split Faces at the very last practical moment. If it swapped the materials with its "host" wall afterwards anyway - bad luck - I simply re-assigned the materials...

Of course it should have been fixed years ago! But so should so many other things that it makes this particular problem rather insignificant... Very sad indeed...

[Calvn_Swing]

Just out of curiosity, have one of you at least submitted a support request about it? I find that sometimes these nagging issues don't get on Support's radar because people assume they know about them. I get the feeling that not many firms use the split face tool so perhaps this one hasn't been brought up before?

[t1.shep]

Just out of curiosity, have one of you at least submitted a support request about it? I find that sometimes these nagging issues don't get on Support's radar because people assume they know about them. I get the feeling that not many firms use the split face tool so perhaps this one hasn't been brought up before?
Didn't know I had such power! Do I do that through the help menu in Revit under "create support request"? Or is that something different?

[Calvn_Swing]

That's how you do it! Submit it as a bug. You can even include a link to this post! Usually they'll leave the SR open until the bug is fixed. If enough people submit it, their yearly reports start to look bad when they have so many open SR's. It probably affects their evaluation too. Powerful motivation that is...

[david.kingham]

FYI I've had the same issues with split face/paint and what I've found is that if you set the material in the wall to something more generic (say white with no surface pattern) and paint on all your materials the problems go away for the most part, the problem with just painting a portion of the wall is when you move any door or window that paint will 'spill' out of that area into the next adjoining area that isn't painted, but if you paint everything there is nowhere for the paint to spill out to.

[Gadget Man]

Just out of curiosity, have one of you at least submitted a support request about it? ...

I am sorry but I run my own, two people architectural drafting practice and, as such, I have already three full time jobs in it: the secretary, the cad manager and - usually after hours - the draftsman...

To submitt a support request for every small thing that doesn't work properly in Revit would require almost another full time job - something I can't afford and have no wish to do. Instead, I learned that if I find a work-around quickly enough, I master Revit much better and my life (= my work) goes on relatively smoothly.

From my sad experience with so many releases of Revit I found that bugs seldom are fixed - more new features are added instead. It had been commented numerous times on this Forum - no need to exercise it again... So, what's the point?


... I get the feeling that not many firms use the split face tool so perhaps this one hasn't been brought up before?

Well, in my part of the World it's quite opposite - it was even suggested to me (to which I objected...) that all the floor coverings (e.g. floor tiles, etc.) should be done as such.

Judging from this I was under impression that with so many people using the feature (at least for the walls) somebody else will raise the question sooner or later...In the mean time I learned to live with it.

[patricks]

uggh Split Face is a terrible way to do floor patterns. Your split lines invariably end up getting shifted around if the floor changes shape at all, or like has been mentioned, some of the patterns disappear.

If you don't need to tag or schedule your floor finishes, then using thin ceiling objects is a great way to do floor finishes, since it will automatically fill a room with a single click.

But back to the topic at hand, yes I've had plenty of problems with the same thing. And it's not just the split-face tool, either. Sometimes I need to paint different areas of a wall that are separated by host reveals, and I usually end up going around with the paint bucket over the same areas many times over because anything that modifies the wall makes my painted areas go away.

[Calvn_Swing]

Let me start out with a disclaimer, I'm not trying to pick on you, but I really get offended by the attitude expressed in your post. So, here goes...


I am sorry but I run my own, two people architectural drafting practice and, as such, I have already three full time jobs in it: the secretary, the cad manager and - usually after hours - the draftsman...

While not running a two person firm, I run four different software implementations at an international firm, am also the Revit manager nationally and locally until I find someone to take that on, and frequently go by the title "Revit Help Desk" in whispered conversations. So, I can appreciate having more to do in a day than can possible be done...


To submitt a support request for every small thing that doesn't work properly in Revit would require almost another full time job - something I can't afford and have no wish to do. Instead, I learned that if I find a work-around quickly enough, I master Revit much better and my life (= my work) goes on relatively smoothly.

While our firm may not be as deep into the features of Revit as yours, but I usually find that per project I can find three or four things worth reporting (things I really think are bugs). We've got 11 projects in Revit currently, and so I usually submit one support request a week. Not really such a time consuming pursuit, and I figure it is part of my "Revit Manager" duties.


From my sad experience with so many releases of Revit I found that bugs seldom are fixed - more new features are added instead. It had been commented numerous times on this Forum - no need to exercise it again... So, what's the point?

Ahh, what came first the chicken or the egg? Why are bugs seldom fixed? Perhaps it is because all we do is complain about them but never submit them to AutoDesk. People often forget that AUGI does not equal AutoDesk. Why do people not submit reports? Because bugs are never fixed. It's a vicious cycle. Look, maybe I'm naive, but I figure the bugs have a much better chance of being resolved if we submit them than if we don't. So, I take the 10-15 minutes a week required to make sure that there is a log of these bugs that need fixing. Otherwise, I wouldn't feel like I had the right to complain.


Well, in my part of the World it's quite opposite - it was even suggested to me (to which I objected...) that all the floor coverings (e.g. floor tiles, etc.) should be done as such.

I don't know that local has anything to do with a particular tool combination called "split face" and "paint" in a software application. It might have a lot to do with a reseller in your region that favors the tool, but that doesn't mean that somehow your particular area has particular need of the tool. I doubt that painting is any more or less popular where you work than where I work. I find that that combination is easier than most of the other options in Revit, which suggests that Autodesk do a better job of refining the tools, but that doesn't mean it is the only option by any means. The only thing we use the paint tool on is membrane finishes. For everything else we model a separate wall element with the dimensional and material properties that would actually be built. We do this for various reasons, primarily because we try and leverage the data in our models for estimating and construction scheduling; and we find this solution is far superior to painting things like tile or wood paneling onto a wall face. We do the same on floors.



Judging from this I was under impression that with so many people using the feature (at least for the walls) somebody else will raise the question sooner or later...In the mean time I learned to live with it.

Ahh, and with this statement does democracy fail... Seriously though, that's the "it bothers me but someone else will deal with it" philosophy. I'll tell you one thing, I sure as heck don't have enough time to submit your support requests for you! Getting back to the point, I understand that there's never enough time in a day, and that there are plenty of things that seem more important than submitting a SR to AutoDesk... But, if you use the tools, and they affect you regularly, perhaps you're under-valuing the the importance of getting your voice heard by the programmers.

I'm not saying that SR's are as effective as I'd like, or as they should be, or that every time you submit one you'll get a favorable resolution. But, don't knock the system if your admitting that you don't use it. If you ask me, the attitude you expressed in this post is exactly why these little bugs don't get fixed as often as they should. If every single person who experienced this bug submitted a SR about it today, I guarantee you that it would be fixed in the next build...

[Calvn_Swing]

uggh Split Face is a terrible way to do floor patterns. Your split lines invariably end up getting shifted around if the floor changes shape at all, or like has been mentioned, some of the patterns disappear.

If you don't need to tag or schedule your floor finishes, then using thin ceiling objects is a great way to do floor finishes, since it will automatically fill a room with a single click.

But back to the topic at hand, yes I've had plenty of problems with the same thing. And it's not just the split-face tool, either. Sometimes I need to paint different areas of a wall that are separated by host reveals, and I usually end up going around with the paint bucket over the same areas many times over because anything that modifies the wall makes my painted areas go away.

Whether this is the right way to be applying material finishes to objects is a whole different issue, and perhaps AutoDesk isn't fixing this bug because they see something else replacing the paint tool in the near future. They can't tell us if this is the case. Just like complaints about Accurender needing updating/fixing etc... There are a lot of unresolved issues about that out there, and I've got a hunch that there's a reason for this.

Right now (along with rooms, site tools, and rendering) the entire process of applying finishes in Revit is about as dumb and un-BIM as it can get. I'm really looking for Autodesk to make a major "new feature" sometime in the future that completely replaces the need for the paint tool.

Using ceilings for floors works great, just like using a floor slab edge to place base in a room with a finish floor object works great. But in terms of data integrity both solutions are AWFUL! So, workarounds are great and all, but the more you use BIM in your workflow, the less they work. Keep that in mind.

[t1.shep]

Whew! Thanks for the enlightening discussion. Sounds like architects need to go back to the old school way and just be on-site and tell the builders what you want.:)
Sounds like a lot of issues that just goes back to representing a physical built object and representation in a analog/digital way. And in respect to Revit, is it worth modeling all the individual parts of a building (time consuming) as they would be built, or is it better to represent in another method, like a paint/split face tool (quicker)? Now throw in the added complexity of BIM/database parametrics. I guess I can cut the programmers a little slack. Just a little (we are paying good money for their product aren't we?):lol:
And the learning curve just keeps going...

[Calvn_Swing]

If the software continues to develop as fast as we need it too, the learning curve will continue for all of us for quite a while...

[Gadget Man]

Let me start out with a disclaimer, I'm not trying to pick on you, but I really get offended ...

WOW! You really "didn't" pick on me - disclaimer or not... And by not picking on me, you didn't leave a dry thread on me at the same time - quiet an achievement... I feel privileged - to attract so much attention! Love me or hate me, but for Gods' sake don't ignore me!

But seriously now...

I come from an old school of the perfectionists - sadly it is less and less of us as the time goes by.

During my university studies of computer programming many years ago, at the time of the "286" and "386" computers, we were taught (and it was demanded from us too) that it's an absolute duty of a programmer to test his or her software throughout before release. It was a matter of pride too. And also the case of shame if a bug was found by the user later...

Tell me, if you bought a car (you can get a car for the price of Revit) and it wasn't functioning properly and you complained to the manufacturer and if his response would be: "Oh, ok, we will try to fix it in the next version" would you be happy? And if many small things weren't working as expected - perhaps maybe not very important things, like: a cigarette lighter, one of the speakers, the glove box wasn't closing properly, the heater was either on cold or hot - without nothing in between, would you accept it? I bet you wouldn't! Especially if you had to work using it for 12 hours a day... But if you had no choice - you spent your money on it and you were stuck with it - would you try to get used to it (cursing it all the time of course) and keep on working or would you keep on spending time (off work and off your income) to send numerous reports to the manufacturer? Especially, that you have no GUARANTEE that these things will actually get fixed? Well, I am the kind of person that would try to learn to live with it and do my job - you may be different of course.

But there is another, much more important reason why I will NOT send any SR to anybody.

I will start with an analogy.
Many people think that they do a great thing feeding (or leaving food scraps for) wild animals, birds and the like in the National Parks, picnic grounds, etc. In fact they do a lot of harm. When the wild animals have an access to easy food for a long time - without a need to hunt for it, they get used to it, they get lazy. In the end - when suddenly there is no easy food anymore - they perish... They lost their instinct and ability to feed themselves.

Similarly, when the software developers rely on the market to do their job of testing the programs for them - and the market happily does that - why should they bother anymore to test their product themselves?

I am NOT talking about the Beta releases - that's exactly what they are for - the TESTING. And if you choose to participate in a Beta testing process you do it knowing it! You take the risks, you are willing to devote your time to check the functionality of the product and than return a feedback.

But if you pay a lot of money for a software that claims to do certain things, you expect this software to function flawlessly! You expect that it's already PAST the testing stage! That's why you agree to pay for it!!! You put your trust in that product, you believe the developers/distributors and you want to use it - NOT to TEST it!!!

When the set of plans leaves my office, I (and all my clients) expect it to be FLAWLESS!

Of course, nobody is perfect and SOMETIMES (rarely) some minor flaws occur - but if they do, I bloody make sure that it NEVER happens again!!! I don't introduce new features to cover for it - I fix my mistakes first. That's professionalism in my book...

I don't believe that Autodesk is NOT aware of the problems with Revit - I believe that (for whatever reason - could be very valid) they choose to ignore it.


... I don't know that local has anything to do with a particular tool combination called "split face" and "paint" in a software application. It might have a lot to do with a reseller in your region that favors the tool, but that doesn't mean that somehow your particular area has particular need of the tool...

If you read my post carefully, without concentrating on how not to pick on me, perhaps you would notice that this particular remark was a straight answer to a certain statement and (within my limited English) was intented as a sarcasm... Sorry if that wasn't clear...


... Ahh, and with this statement does democracy fail...

Sure, your views presented here are so democratic - with such a tolerance to any opinion different to the only correct one - yours!


... I sure as heck don't have enough time to submit your support requests for you!...

I can't recall asking you (or anybody else for that matter) to ever do it for me! In fact, I stated that I learned to live with and try to find the work-arounds for most of the bugs.
And if I find something worthwhile I raise the question - don't you worry about it!


...I really get offended ...

Gee, you really get offended easily, don't you? Especially about something not even addressed to you...

Cheer up young man! No need to be so jumpy :) There are more than one correct answers...

[Gadget Man]

If the software continues to develop as fast as we need it too..

Do we? Or perhaps the well known (for years!!!) issues should be fixed first - once and for all...