Depth perception in Elevation

[RafeRedmond]

In Revit Arch. 2008, is there any way to have lineweights drop off in elevation view as they go farther and farther into the distance. If not what have you used to help distinguish depth perception?

[jeffh]

Look inot using the linework too to adjust lineweight as necessary. Not "automatic" but it gets the job done.

[Carlos GT]

In Revit Arch. 2008, is there any way to have lineweights drop off in elevation view as they go farther and farther into the distance. If not what have you used to help distinguish depth perception?

Unfortunately there is not a direct way to distinguish farther elevations. There are several work around, though. One way is using the line work and changing the lines in a elevation view. Another way is override the elevation to halftone (select elevation, or part of elevation, right click, override graphics in view, by element, halftone.

Another way to do this is creating sheets of glass at different sections of the model (glass is not transparent in a 3d view). Then, being in 3d, you can orient a 3d view to an elevation (view, orient, north). More sheets of glass through the model will give you more depth in an elevation view, so the lines will be more faint.

Good luck.

[mtyp]

There is another work around, it ain't pretty, but who said workarounds need to be...

1. duplicate your elevation or section
2. change the front and back clip of both to meet, i.e. first 5m for one, then the rest for the other
3. override the Visibility/Graphics on the elevation or section behind and make everything halftone or one colour
4. now drag the elevations on to the same sheet and move them so they lock together (should happen on a gird or common elements)


You should now be able to read the elevation with "depth".

There is a indepth tutorial out there on a blog or post, search for "halftone elevations"

Ta
Matt

[rjcrowther]

Sometimes I do away with the lineweight thing and cast shadows on the elevations with all lineweights set to 0.18mm pen and shadow angle at 45 deg to view.

As far as depth perception goes, it works well.

Thanks,
Rob

[amjones]

All,

Considering Revit needs "depth from surface to surface data" to calculate shadows in the first place you would think that data could be harnessed to allocate line weight in elevation too.

For me it is all about "how far past the edge" is something. If I have a building edge that is say 5 feet from the surface in back it would get a lighter line weight than an edge that has something 20 feet in back.

Of course I would want to be able to control the "at what depth does a line weight change" but it could all be tied together quite nicely in my mind.

Drew

[rjcrowther]

All,

Considering Revit needs "depth from surface to surface data" to calculate shadows in the first place you would think that data could be harnessed to allocate line weight in elevation too.



There are plenty who have thought a similar thing - me included.

I imagine that if it were an easy thing to implement then it would have been done. I seem to remember Architectural Desktop had facility for this so Autodesk has already analysed the problem and derived a coding solution. It would seem that solution is not easly transferred to Revit.

Thanks,
Rob

[cblackford]

There are plenty who have thought a similar thing - me included.

I imagine that if it were an easy thing to implement then it would have been done. I seem to remember Architectural Desktop had facility for this so Autodesk has already analysed the problem and derived a coding solution. It would seem that solution is not easly transferred to Revit.

Thanks,
Rob

I agree. It must be buried very far down in the code. I think Autodesk may also think the majority of Revit users have become complacent with the work-arounds we are employing to get our elevations to look right. We've been talking about this problem for 1/2 a decade now. I think the level of "beat-down" people feel whenever someone starts discussing this elephant in the room, is leading to a great deal of apathy on the subject. It's the people who take a project from early schematic to final CDs in Revit who feel the pain the most. The people who hand their projects off before,during or after DD obviously don't view this as a major problem.

Thanks,

Chuck

[greg.mcdowell]

I've been taking a slightly more brute-force approach. I've been overriding Element Graphics in each view. A little time consuming perhaps but it gives me an awful lot of control. Biggest drawback is that as things are added to the model that appear in the views you have to change them manually also.

[rjcrowther]

I've been taking a slightly more brute-force approach. I've been overriding Element Graphics in each view. A little time consuming perhaps but it gives me an awful lot of control. Biggest drawback is that as things are added to the model that appear in the views you have to change them manually also.

This is the mehtod I have gone with as well when I must do the lineweight thing. It has a side benefit of making you look at the elevations closely and picking up any little items that make their way into elevations. Some extra Quality Control. Because of that side benefit, I have given up complaining.

Thanks,
Rob

[ejburrell67787]

1. duplicate your elevation or section
2. change the front and back clip of both to meet, i.e. first 5m for one, then the rest for the other
3. override the Visibility/Graphics on the elevation or section behind and make everything halftone or one colour
4. now drag the elevations on to the same sheet and move them so they lock together (should happen on a gird or common elements)


We've used this method and also
- turned shadows on in the 'front' elevation view
- drafted a wide line outline around elements we want to stand out more

I find that graphic overrides and the linework tool don't give enough choice for elevation views (eg making a roof have thicker lines doesn't suit when I only want the upper edge of it to be thick, using the linework tool doesn't work when I only want the projecting overhang of a roof darker and no the overhang when it is in front of a wall...)

Actually that reminds me, the advanced model graphics setting for override silhouettes can be very effective but I haven't used it in elevations yet... might try next time though..

Although it would be interesting to see an automated tool for view depth I am sceptical that it could achieve a graphic result that would suit many people. Maybe it would be a better starting point though, or maybe not. Elevations tend to be fairly personal (either to the person doing them or to the 'boss' :p ) and in my experience the desired effect is usually about the feel of the drawing rather than any set formula related to view depth.

[Scott D Davis]

Here's one i just did this way with multiple sections. there are 5 sections here, each at 50 foot spacing with 50 foot depth. The front section is set to display per object style with shadows and silouette edges turned on. The next section uses element overrides to turn all line colors to dark grey, and shadows on. Each section past that had element overrides to lighter shades of grey, and the back 2 sections had lineweights set to 1. Looks pretty good in my opinion for about 5 minutes worth of work.

Would still like to see automatic depth cueing, but I like the section method much better than the "glass panes" method! More control!

[cstanley]

the bain of my existence...

we could have major firm-wide adoption if it weren't for this...

ha ha... as i was writing this, i just got an email from one of my teams stating that all elevations were to be kicked out to autocad because it was far too much to keep up with - and I totally agree.

linework is unreliable. half the time when something even nudges, they get lost. tracking down what overrides have been done is a nightmare when new stuff/old stuff is added or adjusted, and even worse when someone else has to take over the task. trying to get them familiar with the overridden states is a nightmare!

I love using revit, and always have. but this one thing is enough to make me want to throw myself out the window! :banghead:

I am utterly shocked at the lack of concern over this subject. There must be incredibly fewer people completing construction documents than there would seem to be. everyone else must only be completing projects through DD, or else the drawings consistently look like flat, emotionless junk...

[david.kingham]

I created a solution similar to the glass but use masses instead. I'm still on the fence on what to use all the time... http://bimmanager.blogspot.com/2007/12/shading-elevations-in-revit.html

[cbaze]

I am utterly shocked at the lack of concern over this subject. There must be incredibly fewer people completing construction documents than there would seem to be. everyone else must only be completing projects through DD, or else the drawings consistently look like flat, emotionless junk...

Constrution documents are supposed to look like flat, emotionless junk. It's easier for the contractor to read that way. The artsy, emotional b.s. shouldn't be handed over to the contactor to try to build the thing off of.....

[ejburrell67787]

Here's one i just did this way with multiple sections. there are 5 sections here You really have 5 sections in that view? I could just about see where the second one might be... 5 seems over the top! :p


linework is unreliable. half the time when something even nudges, they get lost. tracking down what overrides have been done is a nightmare when new stuff/old stuff is added or adjusted, and even worse when someone else has to take over the task. trying to get them familiar with the overridden states is a nightmare! Try using view templates - once you have set up your overrides in one all the others can be done automatically to match!! And can all be updated at once by updating the template and then selecting all the views to re-apply it to. Drafted lines in elevation can be locked to geometry if necessary too.

[cstanley]

Constrution documents are supposed to look like flat, emotionless junk. It's easier for the contractor to read that way. The artsy, emotional b.s. shouldn't be handed over to the contactor to try to build the thing off of.....

I see your point, of course. But they definitely shouldn't look flat. The contractor is trying to build the building from these drawings, and needs the depth cues. I'm not talking about artsy SD level presentation drawings here. those work fine, because i'm able to show shadows, colors, imported images, whatever. Unfortunately, with CDs they are still very much an art in themselves, and many people still want them to, well, not look bad.

still, i find the linework tool to be OK, it's just unreliable. I can't put my faith into hitting "print" from session to session and believing things will look the same.

Albeit I haven't worked with the software as much as some of you early adopters, but I know this has been on my wishlist since I started full-bore in version 6... I guess it's just buried so deep in the code that something major has to be rewritten to make it happen.


Try using view templates - once you have set up your overrides in one all the others can be done automatically to match!! And can all be updated at once by updating the template and then selecting all the views to re-apply it to. Drafted lines in elevation can be locked to geometry if necessary too.

thanks, yep, I've tried this one, too. lots of things get close, but not quite there. unfortunately finishing up the "not quite there" part seems to be the crux of the problem.

It's comical to see a document I produced for our teams regarding the production of elevations. it's something like 8 pages long, and still only gets "almost there."

It's tough, i know, anytime that something is judged by such differing opinions of what looks right and what doesn't, especially when the company as a whole prides itself on high-quality CDs. I personally don't mind using a view template set-up with shadows on. Unfortunately, I'm not the last word on that one.

[Scott D Davis]

The contractor is trying to build the building from these drawings, and needs the depth cues.

But why does he need the depth cues? By the time he gets to even looking at the elevations, the foundation for the building should be completed laying out the shape of the project, and those dimensions came from a plan view.

I don't know....I still think way too much time is spent on trying to make elevations "look" a certain way, going back to hand-drafted "works of art" rather than CD's.

For all the projects I did in Revit that were built, I never did ANY additional work to the sections for depth cueing, and never received one RFI because a contractor couldn't figure it out.

If there really need a sense of the depth of the facade, you have so many better ways to show this now than flat 2D elevation views with depth cueing. Try using a 3D view in your CD's to show depth. Use a 3D view that is just the facade or a piece of the building if necessary. 2D flat elevations exist because architects needed an easy way to draft them on paper by hand.

[twiceroadsfool]

Yeah, they need a depth cue off of the drawings. You know what i do? I place a small perspective on the bottom corner of all of the elevation sheets of the construction documents, to further illustrate the point of the drawings on that page.

I could see this being a much bigger issue if one elevation was ALL the contractor had to go off of. But its not, hes got plans for depth cue, and sections, and elevations from other sides.

Dont get me wrong, id LOVE to see this fixed, and in my programming-ignorant mindset, it seems like an easy fix. BUT, as much as id LOVE to see it get more attention, i think the project is in trouble if the contractor is relying that much on LINEWEIGHTS to tell him how to build something.

[cblackford]

For all the projects I did in Revit that were built, I never did ANY additional work to the sections for depth cueing, and never received one RFI because a contractor couldn't figure it out.


More power to you if you worked for a place that allowed you to place the default elvation view that Revit spits out on your final exterior elevation CD sheets and call it a day. Unfortunately that is not my reality and would only result in a crisis level shortage of red ink in our office.

[Phil Palmer]

I reallt think at times that people loose the process ans 'reason' for production of Contruction Documentation.
I had a discussion recently with a New Autocad users who was insisting dimensions were 'looking' bad in Revit compared to his experience in Autocad

My answer - Does the main contractor have problems building from Revit - NO NO NO

Sometimes we need to get real and speak to the end users of our drawings/output and see what they actually need rather than what we think they need ! !

[rjcrowther]

I reallt think at times that people loose the process ans 'reason' for production of Contruction Documentation.
I had a discussion recently with a New Autocad users who was insisting dimensions were 'looking' bad in Revit compared to his experience in Autocad

My answer - Does the main contractor have problems building from Revit - NO NO NO

Sometimes we need to get real and speak to the end users of our drawings/output and see what they actually need rather than what we think they need ! !

Been away for a while.

I think you are partially correct.

I think the originator of the drawings needs to be given the opportunity to hold some pride in their work. Part of that pride stems from producing a good set of drawings that assist construction. The other part of that pride is being able to sit back and admire your work for its aesthetic (creative) qualities.

In my opinion the raw informational aspect is of lessor importance. The aesthetic part is what brings you back for more...again and again and again........The aesthetic part also adds to the informational part.

Take it one step further to design. Should every house be a rectangular box? They are cost effective and thermally efficient. They are easy to build.

Thanks,
Rob

[cbaze]

I worry about what my buildings look like. I couldn't care less about how 'artsy' my CDs look, as long as the contractor can clearly read and understand them. Architects seem to easily forget that the end product is a building, not the CDs. I've never heard an architecture critic say "Well the building looks nice, but the CDs are just way too ugly for me"