Edit Wall Joins: Best Practice

[ron.sanpedro]

I am wondering what others are doing with respect to Miter or Butt Wall Joins at corner conditions? It seems to me that the extra work of making all corner conditions Mitered pays dividends when using Split Face on walls or using Linework to embellish a view. I have also seen any number of wall cleanup issues that are usually dealt with by Join Geometry just go away when corners are Mitered, and two identical walls will report the same area and volume if Mitered, but different values when Butt Jointed, which is rather problematic when it comes to that I in BIM. Kinda argues for BiM rather than BIM.
So, has anyone just decided that a little time dealing with corner conditions first is a worthy effort, or do you just wait till Revit frustrates you then "fix" only those conditions that are currently giving trouble?

I do find it interesting that a Wall Sweep is smart enough to handle a Butt Jointed wall "correctly" but neither the Linework nor Split Face tool is. For that mater I would expect Revit to be smart enough to identify a corner condition and miter it for me. I guess both can be added to the list of small, non sexy, under the Marketing radar fixes that won't get priority, and when they are fixed won't get documented, so we will just have to find them randomly and then share them here.

But all griping aside, I would like to hear from anyone who has tried just doing a Miter at every corner condition, and how that went. I would especially like to hear from anyone who also uses Split Face in SD for quick design studies, Linework in 3D views to profile and otherwise embellish the view, etc. I think/assume the approach would be less valuable to anyone who just doesn't have any need for those tools that abhor a Butt Jointed wall.

Thanks,
Gordon

[kathy71046]

I use butt join, as we do concrete panels and this reflects the actual joins.

Most of my "pretty stuff" will be along the front wall anyway, so I usually don't need it to wrap around corners.

I did try using reveals on the last project, and they were along a stepped out office area, and there were a few issues with that, but I also ended up with corners that wouldn't butt or mitre join correctly, so not sure if the butt or error caused the reveal troubles.

[ron.sanpedro]

OK, it gets even more interesting. I figured only corner conditions would really benefit from a miter Joint. But take a look at the attached images. The Butt joint shows the new wall end pushing all the way thru the existing wall, which is 100% false and misleading. Lord knows I don't want a price for new gyp on that west face of the (E) wall. Repeat that a few hundred times in a TI and see what it does for budget accuracy. ;) And yet, change the joint to a Miter and everything cleans up as it should. Now hopefully I am just missing something and there is a way to get all those butt joints to look right in a remodel/TI situation. Because if there isn't, someone is going to want to know why Miter isn't the default, or why they have to change every joint one at a time, using a click happy tool.
Any thoughts anyone?

Gordon

[Scott D Davis]

In a true remodel condition where the outside wall is existing and the inside wall is new, you dont want these to join at all. Use the Disallow Join option and make the new wall butt into the exisitng wall.

[twiceroadsfool]

This is probably irrelevant for your original inquiry, but i dont let walls "join automatically" with existing walls at all. I set them to disallow join, and i manually adjust them to where i want them, for reasons of things joining and then shifting, when theyre *existing* and cant actually move...

I tend to leave them on butt join, and switch the ones to miter where i have different wal definitions that are turning hokie with finishes on the exterior of one sides "thickness."

[ron.sanpedro]

In a true remodel condition where the outside wall is existing and the inside wall is new, you dont want these to join at all. Use the Disallow Join option and make the new wall butt into the exisitng wall.

But that leaves a grey line running thru a black end to the wall, which is not graphically correct or the slightest bit graceful. Then again, that is also still using the Revit defaults of R2008 style phase lineweights We are going to not override lineweights on (E) walls (NICE new feature in 2009, I might add) so we will get just the continuous grey line of the existing wall, which looks OK if not to the office standard, as long as you are in Course detail.

All that said, I just discovered that we actually had a broken (E) wall here, as in two walls, one each side, so the wall end translating thru was operator error on our end, not a Revit issue. The attached image shows a butt join to a single (E) wall, which looks basically right in Medium Detail. I would like to see the (N) linework take precedence over the (E) linework, but that is minor I guess, at least in this condition. But in general black lines should trump screened lines. hopelist item I guess.
I would also like the option to have (E) walls show more than just face of finish, as connecting a new brick veneer wall to an existing one (for example) really needs to give some indication of how materials relate, even at plan scales. Again somewhat moot as that level of detail also falls apart at openings, so we are likely to have to punt to Course in that case anyway. But hopefully that level of graphic refinement will get addressed in a future version, ideally a 64bit version that can handle the load.

Best,
Gordon

[twiceroadsfool]

But that leaves a grey line running thru a black end to the wall, which is not graphically correct or the slightest bit graceful. Then again, that is also still using the Revit defaults of R2008 style phase lineweights We are going to not override lineweights on (E) walls (NICE new feature in 2009, I might add) so we will get just the continuous grey line of the existing wall, which looks OK if not to the office standard, as long as you are in Course detail.

All that said, I just discovered that we actually had a broken (E) wall here, as in two walls, one each side, so the wall end translating thru was operator error on our end, not a Revit issue. The attached image shows a butt join to a single (E) wall, which looks basically right in Medium Detail. I would like to see the (N) linework take precedence over the (E) linework, but that is minor I guess, at least in this condition. But in general black lines should trump screened lines. hopelist item I guess.
I would also like the option to have (E) walls show more than just face of finish, as connecting a new brick veneer wall to an existing one (for example) really needs to give some indication of how materials relate, even at plan scales. Again somewhat moot as that level of detail also falls apart at openings, so we are likely to have to punt to Course in that case anyway. But hopefully that level of graphic refinement will get addressed in a future version, ideally a 64bit version that can handle the load.

Best,
Gordon

I may be incorrect, but i believe youre only getting face of finish because your Phase Override (if set to default) is using a MATERIAL Override, instead of a linestyle/lineweight/line color override.

I revised our Phase overrides in our template, so the ONLY thing using a Phase MATERIAL Overide is demolished items, and that stopped occuring.

Now, our (E) Items show all the lines of the different layers, just in a much mighter line than the gray...

EDIT: On that note, are you really taking that bad of a performance hit with the medium level of detail? Ive got our 1/16th inch plans on Fine level of detail (against better judgement) for a 480,000 SF complex, and its only an issue with all 13 linked models loaded.... and even then, only if i tell it to PDF the entire damn set... LOL...

I want x64 as well, but honestly... Revit on Vista64 has even cured the memory issues...

[ron.sanpedro]

I may be incorrect, but i believe youre only getting face of finish because your Phase Override (if set to default) is using a MATERIAL Override, instead of a linestyle/lineweight/line color override.

I revised our Phase overrides in our template, so the ONLY thing using a Phase MATERIAL Overide is demolished items, and that stopped occuring.

Now, our (E) Items show all the lines of the different layers, just in a much mighter line than the gray...

EDIT: On that note, are you really taking that bad of a performance hit with the medium level of detail? Ive got our 1/16th inch plans on Fine level of detail (against better judgement) for a 480,000 SF complex, and its only an issue with all 13 linked models loaded.... and even then, only if i tell it to PDF the entire damn set... LOL...

I want x64 as well, but honestly... Revit on Vista64 has even cured the memory issues...

Good call Aaron, thanks. That was exactly it. I really wonder why the Default template is set up the way it is. At this point I have now changed something like 80% of the settings, and I don't think our needs are that odd. I mean, the "new" feature is the fact that your existing stuff can use By Category line weights, and yet the template actually overrides those. Either make the template show off the new features, or make it actually useful. This one is neither. :( Another bummer is the fact that hatches don't get overridden for color unless the whole material definition is overridden. So a nice diagonal hatch for brick remains black in an Existing wall, while everything else goes gray. And yet doing a Halftone Override on the wall element works, so obviously the graphic subsystem is capable. Of course the same is true for an existing 2X4 ceiling, the hatch lines stay black, but an override works. Really annoying.

As for the medium detail, it is not so much a performance thing, tho' I do think taking the material hatch out of gyp board and such helps. It is more that showing all the layers of the wall looks great, until you place a window or door and the materials just don't behave anything like reality. If we could have ref planes in the windows and doors for all the different layers to return to then we could get a plan to look right without a ton of extra work. Currently the sense is just go with Course, it looks just like the last 40 years of Architectural drawing. True, but I expect Revit to actually do more. ;)

Gordon

[twiceroadsfool]

Good call Aaron, thanks. That was exactly it. I really wonder why the Default template is set up the way it is. At this point I have now changed something like 80% of the settings, and I don't think our needs are that odd. I mean, the "new" feature is the fact that your existing stuff can use By Category line weights, and yet the template actually overrides those. Either make the template show off the new features, or make it actually useful. This one is neither. :( Another bummer is the fact that hatches don't get overridden for color unless the whole material definition is overridden. So a nice diagonal hatch for brick remains black in an Existing wall, while everything else goes gray. And yet doing a Halftone Override on the wall element works, so obviously the graphic subsystem is capable. Of course the same is true for an existing 2X4 ceiling, the hatch lines stay black, but an override works. Really annoying.

As for the medium detail, it is not so much a performance thing, tho' I do think taking the material hatch out of gyp board and such helps. It is more that showing all the layers of the wall looks great, until you place a window or door and the materials just don't behave anything like reality. If we could have ref planes in the windows and doors for all the different layers to return to then we could get a plan to look right without a ton of extra work. Currently the sense is just go with Course, it looks just like the last 40 years of Architectural drawing. True, but I expect Revit to actually do more. ;)

Gordon


Gordon- I have found that you CAN override the hatch pattern lineweight... see the attached. The thing is, you have to communicate to the team. Instead of using lineweights, i actually change the line COLORS to a dark gray. I get a lineweight i am happier with if i do that. Then you just need to make sure that in your plot settings (if you have them standardized) that its NOT set to force color to "black lines" as that will kill the entire thing. Since i have these set up in the template, it works well...

Its not ideal, since you have to monitor the plot settings... But i consider this not a band aid at all, as it does exactly what i want it to.

Now, i am TOTALLY in agreeance with you... MATERIAL Overrides being the default in the template is horrid. I took most of them out, as you can see. I think they give a bad impression of how you can customize the software as it pertains to phase. I want existing to show as the actual construction, not as a general "void" of outlines...