Give me full control of my 3D space, please!!!

[designviz]

I find working in 3D within Revit frustratingly restrictive. With Bentley's AccuDraw I could totally control where I was drawing within 3D space, and do so very much on-the-fly and intuitively. It virtually eliminated drawing construction/guide lines all over the place. With Revit I am finding myself thrown back in time to having to once again draw a bunch of useless 2D geometry before I can actual start modelling something.

See attached image for reference...

Let’s say I just want to start modeling somewhere in blank 3D space (ignore for the moment the building to the right in the image below :) ). I have no other geometry and do not want to be dependent on any other geometry, except perhaps a floor plane.

The green lines were drawn in my Foundation (plan) view, and thus represent and establish my xy plane. But now I want to draw straight up from the intersection of these two lines in z along a plane that is parallel with either my east/west or north/south axis.

How can establish such a workplane from scratch and ideally without drawing any additional geoemetry? Actually I would have prefered not have even have to have drawn the two green lines. My understanding is the workplanes are akin to UCS and ACS in AutoCAD, Bentley respectively, and can be quite useful if you can get the bloody things setup. Unless I am missing something though, they just don't seem designed to be as easy to create on the fly. It seems you are always forced to have something else already in place to base it on. In this case I do not, so what can I do? Hell, I will even accept setting my workplane lets say to the face of one of my existing walls and then moving or copying it to a location over one of the green lines. Why can't I even do that?

Please advise, thank you,

John

[twiceroadsfool]

Im not really clear on what it is youre trying to make, but i have no idea why you need the guidelines to do it? I model in 3D all the time without guidelines. You dont need to *establish* the XY plane if it is your current workplane. Just turn on the workplane visibility if you need to see it.

Again, i must be misunderstanding your question...

[Gadget Man]

If I understand you correctly, in the previous program you used to model straight in a 3-D view...

Well, in Revit you create a single, full size 3-D model but you do it through a bunch of 2-D views: Floor Plan(s), Elevations and Sections.
These 2-D views are live, so whatever changes in one of them, simultaneously changes in every other view in that project. This is because you are really working only on a virtual model and each view is just like a photo shot of your model from a different camera.

You can view your model in a 3-D view what you like and sometimes even change some things there (NOT recommended), but to actually create anything in 3-D is very inacurate, inefficient and incorrect. And totally unnecessary...

So, to start modelling you simply open a desired level view and... start modelling... That's all - no need to establish anything...

To see/manipulate your model from a different view (elevation, section, etc.), you simply open that view and continue there.

And while at that, it's worthwile to mention that one should really start modelling somewhere near the centre between the elevation marks. That's Revit's centre of universe...

I suggest you read more about basic Revit techniques in the little booklet supplied with your disc.

And one more thing - to be successful in Revit as quickly and as painlessly as possible - unlearn whatever you learned about other modelling programs. At least - stop trying using techniques from other programs in Revit - each program works differently - just accept it...

And Good Luck!

[Joef]

Rather than use model lines in 3d space, place reference planes in a plan view and name them. Then you will be able to select them as your work plane when in a 3d view if that is what you want to do. Tools - set Work Plane - name-. Then you can make that plane visible in 3d if you wish. Tools Work Plane- Work Plane Visibility.
Most 3d construction works best in a 2d view, either plan or elevation depending on what you are building. But it is possible to build something exactly where you want it by establishing reference planes. Hope this helps.

[designviz]

Twiceroadsfool, can you then please enlighten me and tell me how you work in 3D?

Joef, the idea of naming the Ref Planes and then using them to establish Work Planes for working in 3D may be the most useful in giving me something to work with. It still seems like a great deal of extra effort and certainly does not seem very on-the-fly. Furthermore, I presume I need to leave these ref plane lines around for the duration of the project, in case they need to be moved on ocassion and I need any elements that have been constrained to associated workplanes to be modified accordingly. Correct?

All-in-all it is a relatively simple question really. I do not want to be forced to unnecessarily work in orthographic views. I would much prefer to work in 3D model space as much as possible so I can see all my dimensions and any modeling I am doing imediately in context. I totally disagree with the claim of 3D's inaccuracy and that 3D construction is best done in 2D. Any inaccuracy is only due to a lack of tools designed to work with it. In the case of Revit, for instance, since you can't snap to elements in 3D space as you draw a line let's say from the top left corner of my buildings parapet wall to the bottom right of my footing, then yes it will be very inaccurate. I have been modeling in 3D for 20+ years and have found it very accurate, when the approriate tools are provided.

My problem with a 2D/orthographic centric approach, is that if I model in plan and extrude something straight up, I can not dynamically see what is happening. If I move a wall in plan only, I do not necessarily see immediately its ramifications with other items above or below my current plan orientation. Sure perhaps the software will warn me about some of these conditions, but I do not want to rely purly on a piece of software, and I do not want to have to constantly swap around in various views to make chanegs and then see the results of those changes. I find this extreamly counter-productive.

[david.metcalf]

If you tell us what software you are coming from you might help us understand where your thoughts are geared towards. Perhaps Sketchup?

As what contractors use batten broads to layout foundation walls, designers use a combination of datum tools called grid, level and reference planes to layout the limits of our project based on setbacks, area/site ratios, etc. These datum tools are not seen in 3D and using an 3D view alongside the plan view is your best option.

If you are going to free form your building without regard to zoning requirements, area/parking ratios, flood plains, detention basins, solar studies, future expansion, etc. that will be fine; perhaps you have more than enough open land space left after performing all these calculations. However we cannot use datum tools, dimension and annotate in 3D as at this CD stage of a project, because we are now looking to printable documentation.

So go ahead, set your workplanes and model your building in 3D it will be a tortuous effort, and not best practice as essentially we are are expected to deliver a set of drawings for permitting and the contractor expects a constructible building in plan and 3D model form.

[twiceroadsfool]

Twiceroadsfool, can you then please enlighten me and tell me how you work in 3D?



Disregarding the reigning frustration and condescension in your tone, i really dont understand your question. I work in 3D the same way i work in any other view, and it never gives me any trouble.

Perhaps the issue isnt that youre trying to work in 3d, but that youre trying to model something in such a fashion that the software doesnt seem to warrant? Revit is much more than a surface modeler, its not going to behave like sketchup.

What exactly are you trying to *model* that it wont let you do?

[Gadget Man]

... My problem with a 2D/orthographic centric approach, is that if I model in plan and extrude something straight up, I can not dynamically see what is happening..
Yes, you can. Just open your 3-D view alongside your working view and you will see simultaneously all the changes as they happen.


... If I move a wall in plan only, I do not necessarily see immediately its ramifications with other items above or below my current plan orientation. Sure perhaps the software will warn me about some of these conditions, but I do not want to rely purly on a piece of software, and I do not want to have to constantly swap around in various views to make chanegs and then see the results of those changes. I find this extreamly counter-productive.

As per above with one more thing. If I have to keep swapping between two-three different views (say Floor Plan/Section) I make sure that only these two views in question are opened and simply change between them by pressing <CTRL> <TAB>. It takes only split of the second you know...

If you find Revit so extremely counter-productive why don't you go back to Bentley?

[mthurnauer]

I agree that working in 3d space is not inaccurate and the more comfortable a person becomes with working in 3d will improve productivity. I however do not completely understand the complaint you have. I really don't know of any program that does not have some sort of UCS, reference plane, etc. It is a reality of the fact that a monitor is a 2d surface and a mouse is a device that moves a pointer on that 2d surface that means pointing and clicking on the screen, even in a 3d view, can only define 2d coordinate data. The third coordinate must be defined somehow: setting a work plane, distance from another object, on another object, entered coordinate by keyboard, etc. One of the things you may want to try if you have not is the use of reference lines. Unlike reference planes, the reference lines define four reference planes. If you go to set the reference plane and use the pick options, you can cycle through the difference axis on the line with the tab key.

I certainly think there could be some graphical improvements to the 3d working environment, but I understand why they have it the way it is. One item that would be nice to see is that when you edit the sketch of an object, it would be very useful to see the overall object geometry still in 3d, but maybe somewhat transparent. And, it would be useful to be able to modify the extrusion handles without having to finish the sketch. These things would be nice, but they are not that important. One of the items that would be huge would be the addition of reference points.

[Joef]

Revit does lack any sort of graphical orientation to locate you in 3d space. I can see what designviz is talking about. If visual x y z planes are not relevant, why are they introduced in the new conceptual massing environment? It would be nice to be able to locate yourself in space without a lot of UCS like manipulations. As it is, you can visually locate yourself in only one plane because you can only have one workplane visible at at time. I have gotten used to this way of working, but when you look at it closely and from a fresh perspective it leaves something to be desired. Just imagine if you could actually turn on different reference planes in 3d. You could then select the one you want to work on, not because it is named somethng clever, but because you can see graphically that it is the plane that you want.

[Simon.Whitbread]

.... Just imagine if you could actually turn on different reference planes in 3d. You could then select the one you want to work on, not because it is named somethng clever, but because you can see graphically that it is the plane that you want.

Which you CAN do if you work in the family, it just depends upon what you are trying to achieve. If its a component, or a building mass, do it in the familiy editor and use a Reference LINE

[dpasa]

I agree with Joef... It seems like Adesk wants to create a way of modeling never used before... Not even from Adesk... We see gizmos like Max but they don't exist in normal 3d views and can't be used for simple modeling... But, nothing is simple in Revit...
I really find it difficult to believe that Adesk made 100 new tools for Max2010 and only one cripled modeling method for Revit2010.... On the other hand, they invite us all to the new BIM world...
I really like Revit very much but I start to think that this is because there is no competition... Probably because a BIM software is expensive because it needs much development and a new company would need a lot of advertisement to stand next to AutoDesk...
Check for example some newcomers... not to be compared to Revit of course... at least not now...

http://www2.ashampoo.com/webcache/html/1/product_2_0160___EUR.htm
http://www.archlinexp.com/

[designviz]

Back to the initial question, which is simply, what are the best practices, lessons learned that folks in this group have found for working as much as possible in a purly 3D view?

See below for additional background and responses to other matters.

Bentley's AccuDraw is a phenominal tool to do specifically what Joef mentions and giving a graphical way to orient and locate yourself in 3D space. And furthermore to do so dynamically without a lot of UCS or other manipulations. So yes this does influence how I want Revit to behave. It does so, because such a tool/capability simply makes sense, regardless of the app, when working true 3D space. So even if Revit does not have it today, I think it should be investigated on how to provide such a dynamic and interactive tool, or something akin to it. I contend that working in 3D should not be a tortuous effort, and though currently our industry is very much geared toward 2D Contract Documents, we should be pushing the industry past this. Consider NavisWorks for instance and the power it has demonstrated in a full 3D world to resolve conflicts before they happen in the field. Now wouldn't it be nice to have that same power directly during the design modeling stage to even resolve the conflicts before they are seen in NavisWorks. I do, and have been working towards such a goal since 1983!!!

You, also asked for some examples. Let's say I have a column and I want to move it from the level 1 to level 2 (no not acad levels, floor levels) and I want to this graphically if possible in my 3D view. It simply can not be done. Sometimes, I can force it by selecting Disjoin, but that could be potentially dangerous. Now before you all say well yeah, that's exactly why you can't. I never said I was some schmuck (to bad I can't spell that), I know a column should be tied to a floor or something. But let me ask, you can you place a column with no other geometry, right? Sure provided you at least have a level. I know I can go in and change the element paarameters and say this column is now on level 2 rather than level 1. But I want to do this graphically. I want to select it, click move, choose the current location and then key-in a z-offset to another valid plane. Really simple process when you think about it. Furthermore, some of it is already almost there. For instance if Activate Dimensions where expanded on slightly and when in a 3D view gave you offsets in all three axis and allowed you to manipulate any one of them, that could work.

The other is where I want to develop some one-off geometry but losely in reference to some of my main model, essentially an in-place family. mthurnauer's, tip about the TAB to cycle between planes of a Ref line has been useful. Though again ref lines and planes only seem to be available within families.

Essentially what I am finding is there are controls in the Family mode that I find lacking in the regular Project mode, and sometimes I am just totally missing why there is the disconnect. Why shouldn't I be able to draw ref lines/planes in Project mode for exactly the same reasons they are provided in Family mode, namely to have a mechanism to establish and coordinate offsets and where things are in relationship to each other and in particular when then manipulating these in 3D space, and to do so in a more dynamic and fluid manner.

Anyway, all this has been most informative and I will continue to work through this a bit more.

=====================================
WARNING - Continue reading only if you wish to know a bit more about me and where I am coming from...

All, an apology for any previous frustration and condescensiontion (sp). I will try and forgo this in the future and ask the same in kind. The original post and then my retort after was spoken with some because I was honestly trying to actually produce something against a deadline. Since then, I have gotten past all that.

However, since it was asked and I agree it may help in any further dialogue I will give a bit of background. I have been using Bentley MicroStation for 20+ years and Bentley Architecture for the past 8-10 years or whenever TriForma was first released. Prior to Bentley I used GDS. When we switched from GDS to Bentley in 1989, I cursed Bentley out for at least 6 months. The reason we switched was "GDS was not user friendly." Not a sentiment I personally shared but as the CAD Manager at the time I had to enact the change. Now some 20+ years later I find myself in a similar predicament though the individaul circumstances are slightly different. Generally though it is now Bentley that is not seen as user friendly, and which again I don't necessarily share. I guess this is my curse being so old and having to constantly respond to the tides of change. Most likely believe it or not folks, but as my history atests, though it may not seem possible now, Revit may one day be seen as non-user friendly and there will be another player, perhaps Autodesk will be smart and aquire the technology, but chances are it won't have been developed initially internally at Autodesk.

Jerry, the only way I could go back to Bentley would be to quit where I am at, which would not be wise in these economic times, and considering I may have already been laid off at another company partially because I was such a Bentley "proponent" (a dubious title I learned to dispise). A BIM proponent yes, have been for 20+ years, long before the term was so popular. I am not married to my software, though I may have strong biases towards it. I may be sharing more than is wise on such a forum as this, but I plan to be around for a while so you might as well get used to me and know a little bit about me.

I really just want some clarity and real honest dialogue on these subjects and not just "revit is the best thing since sliced bread, and in fact you should throw away your old bread slicer, because it may taint your view of revit." For one I don't buy that, and Adesk pays sales people good mony to do that. I want to talk "face-to-face" with real users discussing real issues with the app and how best to either workaround them or work together to get them changed. This is the way I approached the Bentley forums and I see no way to change that here.

To that end, I have greatly appreciated Joef's feedback and honesty which has been informative to the question at hand, and shows an ability to keep a level head :) I also appreciate though that it has also caused comments from others that do start echoing some of my own concerns. BTW, another nice thing with the Bentley Forums was that the developers themeselves often monitored the forums and it was not unheard of to get a response directly from Ray Bentley. I hope Adesk does the same, or if not this connectivity between the users and those writing the app will be sorely missed. Because, sometimes, like in this case we may come to an enpasse that the application simply is not currently designed to handle a certain condition, but I for one, would really like to know what is going on in the infinite mind of Adesk and have they even considered this situation, do they already have a solution in mind or even in place for the next WU or perhaps would be interested in discussing further the need and possible options. A user Forum without any visible presence by the developers of the app seems to have a void in inacting change and improvements to the app. I think dpasa's comments hint at this.

[Gadget Man]

... Jerry, the only way I could go back to Bentley would be to quit where I am at, which would not be wise in these economic times, and considering I may have already been laid off at another company partially because I was such a Bentley "proponent" (a dubious title I learned to dispise)...

I don't do this often but when it's due I am more than happy to bend my had and do it. So, here it goes: I am sorry, I misread you.

Too often I have students who, from the beginning, insist on working in 3-D for all the wrong reasons, without fully understanding the program and without understanding the implications. Usually, just because it looks pretty.

By the small number of posts and the date you joined the Revit forum, combined with rather frustrated tone of your question I simply (wrongly) assumed that you are one of such people, hence my comment addressed like to a newbie. I apologize again.

I share your view. In fact, only recently, in one of the other threads I said it myself that to change the program and use something else is not an option. It was in a slightly different context, nevertheless the message is the same.

Except that... I almost lost my faith in Auto Desk in terms of them listening to (hell, even noticing) our pleas... And I think I'm not alone... But that's a different story.

[eldad]

this is a hot issue :)
personally, I don't like working in 3D, It might be accurate but it does not feel like that to me. I much rather work in plan and check the 3D view, of course sometime working in 3D is easy when you have a given point to draw from or to.
There is no grid in Revit to get you oriented in 3D, but that does not mean you can't create one!
if this is the way you want to work, you can create a grid family with simple model lines, you can control the spacing of the grid quite easily and you will snap to grid junctions.
again, not my way of working, but it might help :)
see attached image

[Andre Baros]

Having used Microstation back in the 90's and Revit for the last 5 or 6 years I find Revit to be an amazing modeling program... but agree with the original idea here, why can't Revit (or any Autodesk product) come close to the AccuDraw tool which Bentley had since 1995. Eldad, I also "don't like working in 3D" in Revit or AutoCad or Max, but that was the ONLY way I worked in Microstation. Addmittedly I was mostly modeling for rendering and presentation drawings, rarely for CD's, but in Microstation 95 (the last version of Microstation I used), I ONLY worked in 3D. That was over 10 years ago and I still miss that tool.

[Scott D Davis]

this is a hot issue :)
There is no grid in Revit to get you oriented in 3D, but that does not mean you can't create one!


Why not just turn on the built-in workplane grid, that is adjustable and snappable?

[Andre Baros]

Scott, if you're referring to the little blue grid icon (in 2009) then this is great for drawing on a single plane in a 3D view, but not the same as drawing in 3D in Microstation. There you get the same thing, but whith a keystroke it flips around your cursor/last snap point to the other cardinal axis. This is great if you need to draw something which turns a corner. If you're not referring to the little blue icon with a black grid, do tell more.

[Joef]

Why not just turn on the built-in workplane grid, that is adjustable and snappable?

This is quite handy, but it is only a 2D plane and requires a pre-existing reference plane or level. The plane perpendicular to this plane is not readily available. It requires going back to a 2d view to draw a reference plane, naming it, then switching back to 3d. This is a bit awkward when compared to some other software applications. I admit I do not often want to work in 3D all the time, but I can see that coming from another application that offers this ease of navigation would quickly expose Revit's shortcomings in this area.

[mthurnauer]

The following is not a defense of Revit, but I believe an explanation of its limitations: The current 3D tools in revit are all based on 2D geometry and this is likely for the purpose of keeping objects parametric in a simple way. Prior to 2010, the only modeling tools are extrusions, sweeps and blends. All three of these are essentially a combination of 2d data (a shape defined on a plane and then given a start and end Z coordinate, a path drawn on a plane and then swept with a 2d profile, a 2d shape on one plane connected to another 2d shape on another plane). All of these 2d elements can be driven by parameters and these parameters can be kept mathematically simple since they reside in a plane and do not need to account for the added 3rd dimension in all of the formulas. If you are to add the Z coordinate to a a parametric object, then the easiest way to overcome this challenge is to have the object contain it's own reference point in space (the Gizmo). This makes it much more of a challenge to make parameters that relate to other geometry. It also makes it harder to create locks between an object and other geometry.

In short, Revit's 3D capabilities are fairly limited and simplistic compared to many other robust 3D applications, but it seems that this simplicity provides Revit's great strength in defining relationships between geometries in a way that other programs struggle.

[designviz]

Jerry, apology graciously accepted, thank you. I hope to continue to learn from you and others how to get the most from this app, and when needed put concerted pressure on Adesk to change it.

[designviz]

Scott, as Andre & Joef echo what I am driving at is more dynamic and interactive control while working in 3D. Since my posting and reading the comments, I am getting more comfortable with setting out ref planes and then using these to control work planes in 3D. And, I certainly can work with this, however I still find it a bit too restrictive in certain cases. It requires more pre-planning (not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but it is not always necessary), and just not as fluid as I have seen in other apps, and yet feel it could be with perhaps a little more effort.

Therefore, I am not sure what role an Autodesk Revit Technical Specialist plays, if any, in getting user concerns put in front of the product development team, but would appreciate you perhaps taking what has been said here in this thread as food-for-thought on how to improve the product. I do appreciate your input and hope you appreciate that of other users as well.

Thank you all for your commnets both in support of my points as well as challenging them.

[Scott D Davis]

Scott, if you're referring to the little blue grid icon (in 2009) then this is great for drawing on a single plane in a 3D view, but not the same as drawing in 3D in Microstation.

Andre, Joef, and others that responded: I understand what you are asking for and appreciate it. What I was directly responding to was Eldad's post where he proposed creating a "grid family" that could be placed and adjusted. This is really the same thing as the Workplane Grid option that is already available, as a family would need to be loaded and placed, and would have to be workplane based as well.

The Workplane Grid can be along a reference plane, as you all have said, and it helps if these ref planes are named. Maybe if when the Workplane grid was selected, the Options Bar would have a drop-down of named Ref Planes that one could easily switch to. That would seem to help. I like the idea of a space bar toggle to flip it 90 degrees. Would be cool if a space bar toggle would flip it from X,Y, to X,Z, to Y,Z, then return to X,Y in a normal cartesian system. If it were on a Ref Plane that was UVW mapped to an object rather than a cartesian plane, then it would cycle around UV, UW, VW, and then back to UV relative to the object.

We are getting closer to this behavior in 2010 in the conceptual modeling tools. Automatic workplane selection is one of the advantages of the new tools. Now we need the grid, when on, to follow the plane selection. Lets hope we see those new modeling tools make their way to the "full" family editor in the future.

You can also use the Pick a Plane option to pick another plane or Surface to re-orient the Workplane grid to.

[cadman6735]

This sounds to me, a typical transition from Bentley to AutoDesk and from my point of view AutoDesk to Bentley.

I am a 15 year user of AutoDesk and just started to learn Bentley. I find Bentley to be the most un-user friendly software out there and very hard to use. (I am not the only one) Go to BE comunity and you will see all the negative users that use Bentley.

Anyway, I have no troubles modeling in Revit or ACAD and I don't need use ref lines to do so. This is just a case of new user using a different software that works backwards to what you are used to. You just need to train your mind to draft differently, it is the only way.

[Andre Baros]

FWIW, I feel like I can model anything I want in Revit and generally like the workflow, however when working in 3D space, there was a specific tool (the 3D pointer) which was a great tool with no equal in Revit. I wouldn't go back to Microstation for this, I'm just saying that they had this a long time ago.

[vgonzales]

I wish there was a 3D view measuring tool that would display deltas of X, Y & Z and the 3D length.

[designviz]

Ditto to that.