Stair begining and end stringer

[DO-PRE]

Hi, I attached a picture of stair that I have been working on for a few days now. After reading through many previous post and working through several options I found that the best solution for me is to draw seperate stairs for each level and extend the boundary to half the floor landing to have the stringers and rails cleanup. The problems I am having is that I have a half inch gap between the railings and stringers at the joint (if i get any closer then half inch the lines clean-up themselves and i get an error message that doesnt let me finish) and the stringer at the floor level wont extend to the end. It looks as if the floor plane is cutting into it. I was wondering if anyone has a fix for this?

I feal like I am almost there but every time I think I solved my problem all I do is create another. Any help would be great.

Thanks.

[dpasa]

"Hi, I attached a picture of stair that I have been working on for a few days now..."

For a few days? Bravo! Too much patience! I would have changed the stair or the railings.

[Andre Carvalho]

The problem you are having is that stairs sketches lines can't overlap. The same rule apply to railings sketch lines. Since you are starting sketching you stair from the half of the floor landing bellow up to the half of the landing just above it, your sketch lines have to connect to do it properly (like a closed loop). If you want to keep this way of work and don't want to have the 1" problem and therefore be able to connect the landing and railings properly, you will have to create your stair from half of the bottom landing to the half of the intermediate landing. Then a new stair from the half of the intermediate landing to the half of the top landing and so on...

I wouldn't do it like that, though. I would prefer creating one stair, multistory, and work one of the landings later, maybe as a floor matching the landing characteristics. The same for the railings.

Andre Carvalho

[DO-PRE]

"I would have changed the stair or the railings."

Then I would of been told to change my software.........Im trying to avoid that for as long as possible.

[DO-PRE]

Thanks for the reply Andre.

I tried creating a single stair (offsetting each run by a 1/32") but my riser height did not align at each level, I have a 15'-10" first floor and a 12'-6" floor to floor for 5 Levels and the first level stair is a 3 run stair.

I have accepted the gap but is there any way to have the stringer cut at the vertical plane when it meets a floor landing without using a stringer as a railing.

Thanks.

[Cbain]

I have accepted the gap but is there any way to have the stringer cut at the vertical plane when it meets a floor landing without using a stringer as a railing.[/I]

Look at the type parameters under Construction. There is a parameter called Extend Below Base. (I didn't see it right away either) If you enter a negative value in this field, the stringer will extend below the floor line and give you the result I think you are looking for.

[tomnewsom]

As I just posted on another thread, trying o tmake the Stair tool actually draw the stairs you want is an exercise in frustration. I use the model item to get the treads and railings in the right place, but finish the design off with Detail work.

[STHRevit]

This would have to be my biggest frustration with Revit. The stair tool is unworkable and needs to be updated. To date I have not managed to create a stair that works the first time. There is always some manipulation required.
It is a real suprise that this hasn't ben fixed long ago, instead we get free form modelling and ribbon toolbars.
It really looks like Revit is a design tool trying to include documentation features and failing.

[petervanko]

ARCHDoc,
Failing, huh? I don't mean to be contrary, but <IMO> from a documentation standpoint the software is stellar; it is far more limiting in regard to progressive design (forcing upright walls, not very good at curvature,...). Now, the modeling tools (where this post began) are occassionally challenging..fair enough, but--as it works today--the tool is still quite valuable, right? Has it not saved you time, especially in that schematic phase when you just need a quick representation, or for that simple egress stair?

ALL,
To the root of this post, I hear you. I pride myself in my stair detailing--whether the simple or the super custom. To that end, I rarely ever rely on the stair tool entirely. If I need stringer extension or wrapping (for off-the-shelf egress stairs, etc), I do that with a quick in-place model (then join geometry). If it's a really serious stair...super custom...I do one of two things: 1) model it in another software (Rhino) and import as a generic model, or 2) do an in-place model of the entire stair.

[patricks]

Yeah I agree, the comment about documentation features added on and failing is a pretty unfair representation of Revit's abilities. IMHO the documentation features are 1000x more intuitive and easy to use than AutoCAD's documentation tools.

[STHRevit]

petervanko
you have just added weight to my point.
We shouldn't have to model in an external program and import, If Revit offersa stair tool, the stair tool should work.
Is it too much to ask that a stair tool create the stair that we need, in a way that can be documented properly without having to add, detail items, filled regions etc etc
Same for in place modelling.

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy Revit and its capabilities, we use it on a daily basis to document large projects, however i find the stair tool frustrating.

[Cbain]

Failing, huh? I don't mean to be contrary, but <IMO> from a documentation standpoint the software is stellar; it is far more limiting in regard to progressive design (forcing upright walls, not very good at curvature,...). Now, the modeling tools (where this post began) are occassionally challenging..fair enough, but--as it works today--the tool is still quite valuable, right? Has it not saved you time, especially in that schematic phase when you just need a quick representation, or for that simple egress stair?

Petervanko-

I think if you asked the question you posed at the end of this quote to ten people in the firm I work for, you would get a far different response than what you would expect. The designers in our firm would not resort to Revit for a quick representation or a "simple" egress stair. Most of them have given up on the tool and resort to linework on a floor plan.

I can't believe this conversation is even taking place. We've got someone commenting on the archaic qualities of the stair tool and another person telling them to suck it up.

Revit is a very valuable tool and I, too, pride on getting the tool to work for what I need it to do. Sometimes that comes with great ease and sometimes that comes with frustration. I don't see a problem with a user voicing their frustration with a tool.

[patricks]

I can't say I would EVER want to just "draw lines" for a quick stair layout. How could that be quicker than using the actual stair tool? You set the bottom and top level, the width, and just draw the runs. Takes a few seconds at most, and quickly shows me how much room I need for stairs to reach a certain height. Then I can quickly place a section and see how much head height I have above stair runs and landings, etc.

To draw lines would take several minutes (at least) to do calculations, draw and copy/array the risers, lay out the stringer lines, landings, etc. etc. Then to see the stairs in section to get head heights would take even longer to lay out and draw.

Those who would resort to drawing lines instead of using the tools provided should, IMHO, go back to AutoCAD.

[Cbain]

You are right...bad example. I was just trying to reinforce ARCHdoc's point that the tool needs a makeover and that there is nothing wrong with voicing that.