Linework Tool - Fragile results?

[3dway]

I'm fairly new to Revit and have not had much luck getting my elevations to look nice and a good depth profile. I'd love any tips on getting this to work without using the linework tool.

RE the linework tool.

Are the results of the linework tool meant to be this fragile? If I make any kind of change to a part of the model, the linework goes away. Sometimes the linework is still there but the thickness doesn't show. If I go in and drag the blue dot off then back on the original linework thickness comes back. If the geometry has changed significantly, the linework is gone.

This following one probably belongs in the whishlist topic:
Could we have point to point linework please? Zooming an elevation view of a complex model tends to be slow and I often find that the other end of a line I'm tring to change goes way off behind in the model and I have to go fishing for the blue dot. Why not have an interface that duplicates the process of drawing a line by picking the two points and selecting a line style, but operates the same way as dragging the blue dots. Dragging the blue dots is capable of multiple segmets with varying line styles, which seems pretty complex to me. Surely point to point drawing of the limits of the linework would be feasible.

[3dway]

I would sincerely appreciate any words of knowledge.

Sometimes even, "the community has griped about this since releace X, and you may just have to accept that there is no better alternative. Here's what I do to cope...." helps.

Thanks.

[bbeck]

We've made it our in-house policy to leave our interior/exterior elevations and sections until the very last possible moment in our CD process (one or two weeks prior to submittal). Linework tool and masking regions are the only way we can get those plans to look correct and they just don't hold up with constant changes/tweaks to the design. The hard part is getting staff to understand this process. A correctly modeled building isn't always graphically what people want to see. I personally see the need to start including more perspective views in our CD's.

[twiceroadsfool]

I put perspectives on the sheets next to the elevations, and leave the elevations with their lackluster lineweight demonstration. It just doesnt seem value adding to me to sit there and click the lines one by one, dragging blue dots this way and that.

I concede they dont look as good as traditional elevations, but ive NEVER had an RFI or construction issue arise from the lineweights in the elevations being bland. I always make sure the information is there, even if it means a ton of perpectives...

[3dway]

So how do you output design drawings for clients in the earlystages?

Perspectives only?
Another software?
The archtiects do them by hand?

Elevations with good aesthetics, early in the project, seems like a big oversight. Though, no software yet has ever come up with a good way to interpret depth profiles.... not even sketchup. Oh, there I said it. The bane of Revit users and the jemstone of Revit newbies; it doesn't do it either.

[twiceroadsfool]

I use Revit for them. Shaded, with light shadows on them. In the FEW cases where that wasnt sufficient, i broke the elevation in to multiple views, and placed them on sheets, and overrode the elements in the views further "back" so they were lighter.

I really havent faced too much client disappointment in the lineweights of the elevations. Especially since when theyre getting the elevations, they also get perspectives.

As a "youngster with no established drawing convention," (as ive been called) im not really a fan of presentation elevations on the whole. I find them an offensive drawing. You cant see a building like that in real life, so why try to show it that way? Especially on a 1000' long building. What the heck? It will NEVER be seen that way.

[Calvn_Swing]

The only tip I haven't seen posted yet is to create multiple elevation views and place them overlapping on a sheet. By controlling the view ranges of the elevations so there is no overlap, you can get nicely receding elevations very effectively. (No filters, no element overrides, etc...)

This works relatively well for us when we need a nice elevation, though overall I'm in agreement with Aaron. The only documentation reason for elevations is dimensioning, not presentation. People prefer and understand perspectives far better for presentation or general understanding of the facade, and the only reason people used to use elevations for presentations is that they were far easier to draft/CAD than perspectives were. We don't have that excuse/hindrance anymore - so why stick to it.

[3dway]

I could use some help understanding that last suggestion about overlapping and setting the view depth.

It's funny how often the answer seems to be, "update the outlook of your boss who was trained in the 50s and 60s."

[twiceroadsfool]

You literally place more than one elevation marker, with different fields of depth and location. ive done it for a few presentation sheets, and such... You just need to be cognizant of having more views to manage and elevation markers that show up everywhere.

One way to deal with that is make an elevation type called (dupe) or something, and select all instances, hide in every view... Or something.

Ive also used kellys suggestion, and altered the AMG of each... Shaded with shadows for bold, HL with shadows for next in line, and HL no shadows for farthest back. Its not proper and correct, but it gets the points across

The answer is often *Update your boss, not your workflow* because were an antiquated industry hell bent on keeping *our ways* even though they have no validity in the process, besides our pre-madonnaish need to *have it our way.* :)

[Rick Houle]

While i fully concur that people have to "change their ways"... i also understand it is not always "the answer" that the boss will accept... and the last thing i want to hear is,
"Oh, Revit doesn't do elevations like we need them."

...one of my teams came up with a good alternative to the Linework tool... They draw detail lines where they want things to "pop" and "override in view" anything they want to fade... They then group the detail lines together so they are easy to manage and occassionally turn on shadows when printing time is not a factor... WHile some may not agree that detail lines are necessary (and i am one of them), this team has created the best looking traditional elevations i have ever seen come out of Revit... and their boss is just tickled that they "solved the Revit elevation problem"...

Revit problem... pfft.

[twiceroadsfool]

Yeah, that solution is all good and well until someone is detail a facade that is in 16 different views, and theyre adjusting walls a fraction of an inch this way and that while they coordinate with structural and so on and so forth.

One of the beauties of Revit is that you can change something one place, and have it change everywhere. Another is that i can make as many elevations as i want, of the same thing. I make a TON of views, with different purposes. And yeah, i get that with a detail group i still only have to change it once. But now its a detail group for every facade/element. Then some get mirrored, some become one offs...

Yeah, someone wanted to do that at my old job, and its JUST my humble opinion, but it seems nuts. All that extra stuff to manage and take care of, to make an elevation *pop* which doesnt do a gosh darn thing besides make it look *the way we used to.*

Sorry, hot button topic for me. :)

[Rick Houle]

I understand the argument all too well...
Revit (BIM) methodology vs. the traditional orthographic elevation...

So then the question is, "Do we even need orthographic elevations any more..?"
Because they will take some work to be made up pretty like before...

I am with you, sure... But you know that is a tough sell to any team manager trying to buy into this new approach...

[twiceroadsfool]

As Kelly mentioned, the only real need for them is for notating and dimensioning certain elements. The flat/ugly/boring/non-traditiona/bland elevations that we HAVE in Revit do that sufficiently. The funtion perfectly, as intended, with no value lost besides an art form we dont really need.

Dont get me wrong... I love the *art* of old traditional drafting, MUCH more than comes across on these forums. Heck, if i had my druthers id hand draft. Ive still got my old lefty Vemco swing arm set up at home, that i bought in college. LOL... But the *look* and *feel* of the hard profiled edges and the lineweights... Its not getting anything built.

[d.stairmand]

has anyone tried the "Silhouette" tool in the view advanced settings?
we use this solely, and try to minimize the line work tool as much as we can

[craighowie]

Hi all

Any chance that you guru's can share some elevations which illustrate what you talking about.

Thanks

[SCShell]

Hey there,

One other method which hasn't been shared here is to us a 3D view, oriented to the Elevation View needed.
This technique gives you a very different feel from standard elevation views. Especially glass transparency, colors and the ability to then render it.
I use this on Preliminary Presentations; however, it could be used for CD's too depending on how you want you drawings to communicate.

Good Luck
Steve