Site Tools

[Chad Smith]

Once again, I am getting very frustrated with the site tools (Revit's biggest downfall in my opinion).

How do others go about defining external concrete slabs, kerbing, paving etc?

Unlike internal slabs, external slabs aren't flat and have multiple spot levels. Using a topo surface is useless because they are still surfaces, so when a section is cut through it, you don't get a true slab showing, just a line on the top with a pattern underneath.

I'd also like to be able to define a driveway kerb which follows my terrain, so when I cut a section I get a true representation.

And then there's the problem with car parks that try and follow a topo surface where one end of the car park is flat and the other end is up in the air. Not to mention when the car park is following a terrain, it can't be dimensioned (which is a requirement for our local authority).

I guess this goes back to my wish (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=2530) that the site tools need to be seriously upgraded. We can't keep using surfaces for terrain/site modeling, it just doesn't work (it never did).
Revit team, can you please fix the things that don't work well before starting on new program improvements.

[dpasa]

I totally agree, post your complain in wishlist forum too.
If you try to design a large site with 5-6 buildings on a greek island, you 'll have no luck with these kind of tools.

I hope we'll see a serious improvement...

[roy.70844]

Firstly I agree that the site tools in Revit are limited, however I find myself leaping to Revit's defence...
In my humble opinion Revit is primarily an architectural modeler, which it does very well (I think we all agree on that!) and while it is obvious that buildings sit on a site of some sort, the detailed design of the earthworks, road etc. is best left to the appropriate software such as Land Desktop, Civil Design, PDS etc etc.
The site tools are great for avoiding the "building on billiard table" scenario and can be used to 'REPRESENT' the ground adequately.
Why not use surfaces to represent the visible surfaces and simply add detail lines in the sections to show the structure?

I don't know how anybody else feels about this but that's my 2c worth...

Roy.

[Steve_Stafford]

Revit could certainly benefit from improvements to site features. Making it easier to model roads, curbs and the like would be very welcome. Great features, previously unavailable to us in various software, spark a great deal of creative thought. So it is no surprise that there are passionate opinions about any weaknesses of a feature.

I've never heard mention of a civil application for Revit. I tend to feel that, to create the "whole" product our industry needs, Revit should include one.

There have been improvements with each release. I'm confident we'll continue to see that trend...

[SCShell]

Hi there,

I agree to a point. Revit does great for Architectural Site Plans. I can use detail lines when necessary. Anything beyond that, I use Civil Engineers! I let them worry about showing all of the spot elevs and grades etc.

For rendering and early design work, Revit does fine. I use topo and surfaces as well as floor slabs for concrete walks etc. If a site has a slope which is great enough to worry about in the renderings and elevs/sections, then I model it so. Concrete sidewalks (floors) have enough slope control for my purposes. Concrete curbs, if they shown up in elev/section or rendering/3D views, can be sloped to match grades if you use "floors" concrete set to 6" wide and modify the profile to show the sloping vertical edge. (I posted this tip a month ago)

Although Revit may not be perfect, (yet) it is still great for 95% of what I do as an Architect.
Sometimes, it is in knowing what "not to show" that makes a difference.

Best of luck
Steve Shell

[J. Grouchy]

I put Sloped Pads in the Wishlist some time back...but it might be useful to be able to create a building pad where you can model it based on spot elevations/slope arrows. To me the advantage of using the Pad command is how Revit cuts into or fills in the area under the pad with the topo surface material.

[sbrown]

I recommend laying out the site with 2d lines first. I use lines called Site-thin, site-med, site - easements, etc. I do this all on a site workset(if its a worksets project).

Once you've laid out your sidewalks, parking lots, etc. Then I create all hardscape, stairs, ramps using floors, stair, ramp and inplace site families modelling tools at their actual elevations. again its good to do this on a sep. workset for visibility control. Now I infill between these with toposurfaces.

When I cut sections I just use the toposurf as a line to trace a filled region over, then turn it off.

The parking dimensioning is a tricky one I don't have a good answer for you. How do the civil drawings dimension parking lots? I believe they pretend its a flat plane and dimension as such, if thats the case just put your parking spaces on a flat plane as well, then if you need some on the sloped surfaces for rendering add them on a entourage workset.

I hope this helps.

[pleru]

Hello,
Do you know the Eagle Point product LANDCADD for Revit, because the next version will propose many Site Tools for revit (grading, berms, swales, streets, retaining walls and many others)
www.eaglepoint.com
Philippe

[dpasa]

So, the guys at autodesk want to make Revit like AutoCAD or MAX? A kind of platform for app development? I already paid too much for Revit (and the subscriptions) and I want these tools inside Revit because it is something we need, it is not a luxury, like a plugin for nice trees for Max...
Adesk bought a number of companies and software and they can't buy this for their top arch application? Or at least make something similar?
I