Does anyone else consider this a bug?

[gordonp147484]

So I like the Override Graphics in View, but I am limited to choosing only a pattern, I can't choose a material. Which then means I can't Tag by material. To my mind, this is at best a hole in the functionality, at worst a bug. It seems to me that I should be able to override in a view and still have some sort of BIMish behavior, specifically the ability to intelligently tag things.
Or am I alone in this and others are fine with how it works?

Just curious,
Gordon

[Scott D Davis]

If you were able to override materials in a view, wouldn't this lead to coordination issues? You could go to one view, set a material to brick, go to another view and override the same material to concrete...which is the correct one to tag?

[Dimitri Harvalias]

One of the problems I have with the overrides is that people might start to get lazy and get into the habit of 'painting' their buildings rather than constructing them.
In my opinion, the whole BIM approach that Revit takes is based on creating a library of materials, and assemblies made up of those materials, and construcing the project as it would be built.

As soon as we start getting into extensive use of overrides that foundation falls apart. If we use an override to assign a material to a wall assembly will it affect the actual assembly and how it appears in plan, section and elevation views? If so, will Revit create another wall style on the fly so it can be scheduled properly?

At present I try to avoid using the paint tool and overrides for anything but special view types (code compliance, 3D presentation views etc) that way if changes need to be made I am sure that the changes are global and I don't have to hunt through a project to find all the overridden parameters.

So, to answer your question... I don't have a problem with the current functionality.

[twiceroadsfool]

I agree with Dimitri 100%. I tell Operators here the Graphic Overrides are only for simple convenience issues (if you want to make something dashed and transparent to show something behind it, for some reason...).

I completely freak out on people who use the Overides (or any other workaround) as a way to get out of not having to build their models appropriately, lol...

[gordonp147484]

If you were able to override materials in a view, wouldn't this lead to coordination issues? You could go to one view, set a material to brick, go to another view and override the same material to concrete...which is the correct one to tag?

Well, whichever it is painted in that view is what it should be tagged as in that view. In a perfect world I would like to filter annotation, and be able to turn the annotations that point at overridden materials red, for example. But at a minimum, I think if I can change the look, the tag should follow.

And to address Dimitri's point, I agree that eventually I should have 'constructed' items, but in early design, it sure would be nice to just paint a different color of 'plaster' onto a face, tag it, and call it a good design drawing. The reality is, Revit is a great DD/CD tool, but at the moment less adept at really major parallel design processes. Sure I can iterate, but I iterate on the one idea. I can't easily do multiple 'design options' unless I am actually replacing whole walls and such. What about later in the process when the 'options' are just colors and finishes? I might need to show three or more 'schemes', and the underlying architecture doesn't change. Currently the only option is a very non BIM export to PhotoShop process. I would much rather be able to paint those materials on and tag them in a BIMish way, and avoid the Adobe product all together. I especially see a benefit when I can then schedule and price this stuff. Imagine three different paint schemes, with prices applied to paint, and I can see and shape my decisions based on how much of the more or less expensive paints I am using!

Anyway, maybe more thinking out loud than anything... ;)

Gordon

[twiceroadsfool]

Sounds like a use for Design Options and splitting the walls up in to multiples.

Even with Split Face and Pain Materials, i dont believe you can schedule the differences. Thats why when i do complex tile patterns, i now set the tiles up as different floor types, instead of splitting and painting with different materials...

[Dimitri Harvalias]

Gordon,
Not saying that's the only way but it is the way I like to do things. I come from a working drawing background and tend to relate problems to that end of workflow.

As for just changing materials, I'll do early design with placeholder walls, not real assemblies. All my preliminary design wall types have an interior and exterior finish material that is the same thickness. If needed, I just create a new type with a different material and and just swap it out for another to create the options you're talking about.

I agree that some design decisions are made based on the aesthetic consideration and require 'option' views, but cost decisions can be just as easily made from a schedule. As long as each material/finish has a unique name or type it can be scheduled and then a cost factor can be applied in the schedule for comparison. So you'll have Material -A B, C and , Paint -1, 2, 3 assigned to the surfaces and the area of each shows up.

If the design drawing is being developed to illustrate a material or color option then I don't tend to put a lot of notes or tags on the drawing anyway. I let the grpahic do the talking.

Different strokes I suppose :beer: