New Massing Tool 2010

[amara]

Ive been playing with the new massing tool and I am having a headache.
I managed to create forms and sweeps, but I don't know how to edit them. Once the form is created, you can't go back to pick the original profile, or the path for sweeps, but you can only edit the faces of the new form. Is this so?? I hope not because this will be totally useless...
Please let me know if there is something I am missing.

[jeffh]

If you want to go back and edit the profiles not using direct manipulation you can draw the profile using reference lines instead of usings model lines. When the reference lines are used they are not "consumed" by the form making process. If you need to edit the profile after the form was created and you used reference lines the lines will remain. You will have to delete the form created make the adjustment to the profiles and re-make the form from the updated profiles.

[amara]

Thanks for the reply.
But how do you modify the path for sweeps?

[amara]

From the sound of it you can't edit sweeps or profiles after being made. rather you need to delete and redo them. This is really disappointing and we will surely not upgrade until such issue is - if ever - resolved. This not only related to massing studies, but affects the whole family and in-place-family creation matters related to wall sweeps, ceilings, etc. which until now made revit such a joy to work with. I don't need to tell you how many times we change and modify sweeps even in the final design development stages.
Different to other views expressed in this forum, we use massing heavily in the concept design phase. At first we were excited about the new massing tools, and thought it would be something like sketchup, if not even more developed. Now we end up with something which doesn't rise to the intuity of sketchup, and surely is a draw back to what we originally had.
I am not trying to sound so negative. The ability to work in 3d space and 3d snaping is surely welcome. But I don't see how certain basic matters have been overlooked. I surely hope these matters are looked at even as we speek.

[AP23]

Most software (sketchup, rhino) you'll have to redo the mass too. I find the old massing tools to be very restricting and time consuming. Especially when doing over a hundred buildings with hip roofs in 3d urban plans. Having to redo the shape is a small price I'm willing to pay if i can get the advantages of direct manipulation, the ability to loft multiple profiles, the option to use surfaces or solids, the ability to have lose parameters that can be manually flexed and offcourse no edit mode. That said, if Autodesk can restore the abilty to change the original profiles and paths without having to go into an edit mode, that would even better. Something more like a stack tree in 3ds max would do the trick

[jeffh]

Yes you are "redoing" the mass. This is really not all that different than what happens in 2009. In 2009 if you want to edit a mass you select the mass and click the "edit" button. What happens? Revit goes into the sketch mode and you see the profile. The mass is basically deleted. Then you modify the sketch and finish and Revit "re-creates" the mass.

If you use reference lines rather than model lines for your "sketches" as suggested the workflow is essentially the same. the difference being you don't have the "edit" and "finish" button. You have to manually delete the mass and manually reselect the sketch and re-create the mass.

[ws]

Some very good video tutorials on the new massing tools here:
http://designreform.net/category/tutorials/revit-tutorials/

[m20roxxers]

If you create the paths and profiles with references lines rather then standard lines they won't be consumed during form creation and offers some ability to manipulate the forms.

[Phil Read]

Yes you are "redoing" the mass. Is this really all that different than what happens in 2009? In 2009 if you want to edit a mass you select the mass and click the "edit" button. What happens? Revit goes into the sketch mode and you see the profile. Do you see the mass? No Revit DELETED it. Then you modify the sketch and finish and Revit "re-creates" the mass.

If you use reference lines rather than model lines for your "sketches" as suggested the workflow is essentially the same. the difference being you don't have the "edit" and "finish" button. You have to manually delete the mass and manually reselect the sketch and re-create the mass.

Yes - it was deleted. But it didn't delete the whole thing. For example, the user could keep 2/3rds of a blend with out having to start over. So while "Revit DELETED it" is technically correct - from a workflow standpoint - you're not. Making the user start completely over if they misstep during the massing process is really inelegant.

This is why the Massing tools in 2010 are a step backwards. Being able to reiterate a form by editing the sketch is incredibly powerful. The reason users might not have understood it is because they're use to the inefficiency of starting over. What I can't understand is why you've 'dumbed down' Revit to be like other Massing tools. And the whole distinction between Lines and Reference Lines is unnecessary for intuitive form making.

[amara]

Thanks for pointing me to those videos. They are really good. I see a huge potential with the new tools. I think it will take some time to get used to them and break with old practices. I agree the old technique took time to do certain shapes, but was easy to manipulate. Still I hope future releases will enable manipulation of masses in a more straight forward manner.

[cliff collins]

I think it is very obvious ( even to the "2010 haters club" ) that the new Conceptual Massing Tools are a major improvement--we can frankly now do things that we could not with previous releases. We are using the new tools very effectively after only 1 or 2 days
of playing with it on a real project.

That said, I would like to be able to choose the ability to "disconnect" the walls, roofs, curtainwalls, etc. that are converted from the Mass. Not that I would always necessarily use the disconnect, as I understand why the relationship is there--but I do find that keeping all the masses in the project can be problematic.

A typical workflow could be like this:

Create a conceptual mass.
Convert faces to revit objects
Turn off the mass--( do not delete it.)
Disconnect the revit objects from the mass.
Copy those objects, edit them, combine with other "normally created objects"
Then, if necessary later, "re-connect" the objects with the original mass.
If necessary, make edits to the mass and re-create forms, disconnect, etc.

Until the family editor "inherits" the same flexible modeling tools, we are trying to figure
out how and when to use the new massing tools for smaller scale families--such as casework, custom column covers, organic forms for ceilings/bulkheads, specialty lighting,
"theming elements" in casinos, etc. This is why I'd like to be able to "disconnect" the revit objects after using the mass as a form generator.

We understand the massing tools are designed for large scale forms such as skyscrapers--but we are not in the skyscraper business; however we do need the flexibility of the new modeling tools.

cheers..........

[Phil Read]

I think it is very obvious ( even to the "2010 haters club" ) that the new Conceptual Massing Tools are a major improvement--we can frankly now do things that we could not with previous releases.

Cliff - I agree. But you can not do things with this release that you could with previous releases. And you're still not able to do some form manipulation commonly available in many other applications (including AutoCAD).

[aaronrumple]

Until the family editor "inherits" the same flexible modeling tools, we are trying to figure
out how and when to use the new massing tools for smaller scale families--such as casework, custom column covers, organic forms for ceilings/bulkheads, specialty lighting,
"theming elements" in casinos, etc. This is why I'd like to be able to "disconnect" the revit objects after using the mass as a form generator.


All they needed were a couple of small things to do the items you’re talking about.

1. Better spline control. With trim options and good node handles like in 3DS (or Corel.)
2. A loft tool. With path steps and profiles. They kinda did this in the massing tool but it is really goofy. A loft tool has been on the list for a long time.

They could also - in a few minutes - improve things like ceilings (and floors). Why can't you create a ceiling using a extrusion as you can with a roof? That fixes a LOT of your issues. Why doesn't a ceiling slope in multiple directions - like a roof? Why doesn't a floor slope in multiple directions as well? Why can't I do a swept blend over several curves? Why can't I do a swept blend over a spline? These would be evolutionary additions - not the disruptive changes we see with the new massing.

And how about some simple parametric primitives like in 3DS. Revit would be way simple with these. Making a pyramid shape or cone or sphere is way more complex than it should be. I should just be abe to draw them. And with good cone and sphere shapes I can make about anything I need using conic sections.

I'm sure I'll get by just fine. I've done 3D in just about every program out there at one time or another. So the new massing is no big deal to learn. It just seems to be solution looking for a problem. Well - the unstated problem is SketchUp. Autodesk doesn't know how to compete with them. They have tried Arch. Studio, AutoCAD 3D, Alias, etc. And they still can't get it right. This is just their latest attempt to win over that group. And still no nice simple sketchy look with fuzzy extended lines - also on the wish list.

[AP23]

All they needed were a couple of small things to do the items you’re talking about.

1. Better spline control. With trim options and good node handles like in 3DS (or Corel.)
2. A loft tool. With path steps and profiles. They kinda did this in the massing tool but it is really goofy. A loft tool has been on the list for a long time.

It is for a reason why all other applications have tools to directy manipulate forms. It's the most natural and intuitive way to do form finding explorations.

[chris.216623]

SOLUTION
I think the new massing tool is hopeless. If you want to create masses in the old 2009 fashion SIMPLY.... create a simple mass in 2009 in a new project....upgrade this project....WALA you have a mass in 2010 that performs and acts in every way like a 2009 mass. now simply copy and paste this mass as many times as you need into which projects you need. stupid solution but 100% effective

[dpasa]

What we ask, they know already... All these years... they knew that we need a loft tool. And all the efforts for new modeling tools went to Acad and Max... I 've said it many times, check the new modeling in Acad and please explain me why we can't have it in Revit... We are talking about the company that has the best modeling tool ever... Max, with the modifier stack is the greatest I've seen so far... The ability to control the modification history of any object is the most powerful tool... The thing is that they had to re-write the modeling tools in Revit (Massing and family creation tools) maybe from Revit 6 or 7... and make it compatible to Acad so that they can improve both together... Now, we get some tools that work like no other app and they are less productive and efficient than any other modeler...
Please, for those who don't like looking around... spend some time to check even cheaper and smaller modelers and products from other companies to see what I mean... You will nowhere find this kind of modeling... Why a leader in 3d apps has to create a new method when they have the top products of the market showing exactly what they must do? I will never understand this...

[luke.s.johnson]

Nice work dpasa.

I think the real question is - why not allow us to choose which method we want to use?

Clearly both are supported - just make the process a bit more transparent...please!

[Wes Macaulay]

The new massing tools in 2010 create amazing geometry, but get a thumbs down from me until the forms can be edited in a more iterative means -- like you could do in 2009. I can't believe that 2010 was released without this issue being flagged. :?

[aaronrumple]

Max, with the modifier stack is the greatest I've seen so far...

Max's Stack rocks. Even Inventor uses a similar concept with it's features....

[brenehan]

And how about some simple parametric primitives like in 3DS. Revit would be way simple with these. Making a pyramid shape or cone or sphere is way more complex than it should be. I should just be abe to draw them. And with good cone and sphere shapes I can make about anything I need using conic sections.


Has anyone figured out a way to create a solid pyramid in massing without using a void?

[Scott D Davis]

Has anyone figured out a way to create a solid pyramid in massing without using a void?

will the pyramid actually come to a perfect point when constructed? The top can be a very small square, and about 1/8" or so. You can't blend between a shape and a point yet.

[dpasa]

will the pyramid actually come to a perfect point when constructed? The top can be a very small square, and about 1/8" or so. You can't blend between a shape and a point yet.

Is this another workaround for the famous new modeling tools in Revit? Maybe I must be happy not to read to make the pyramid in ACAD and insert it as a group...

The attached images show the menus in Moi3d, a software that costs 200 € !
Look how easy it is to find and choose the tools you need...

Even worst, check the ACAD 2010 menus... You will find what you want! You can't have this in Revit and it 's supposed to be the future...

[brenehan]

will the pyramid actually come to a perfect point when constructed? The top can be a very small square, and about 1/8" or so. You can't blend between a shape and a point yet.

Thanks Scott. That is a trick I use to do with blends in the past.
You just need to take care in ensuring the base and top blend profile lines are parallel. Otherwise the surface is twisted.
What I do like in R.2010 is that you can blend a closed loop to a single line. It is very helpful.
Has anyone come up with a way of changing the way blends vertex connect? I know there is no issue with adding an edge, but what if the blend joints in a way you don’t intend it to, i.e. you have to delete an edge and then add an edge in the other direction. In the traditional Revit blend you can edit the vertex connection.

Brian

[aaronrumple]

will the pyramid actually come to a perfect point when constructed? The top can be a very small square, and about 1/8" or so. You can't blend between a shape and a point yet.

Except later when you keep snaping to the top - there is no top. So the darn thing always ends up 1/16" off - and then throws everything else off and you keep wondering where that 1/16" came from everywhere....

[dominicsy]

Hey all, I just started working in a Revit office and have been working with it for about 4 months now.

I have this conceptual mass (an extrusion with a curved roof and canted walls) from which I use "wall by face" and "roof by face" to create my building shell. The problem I'm running into is that there doesn't seem to be a way to subdivide a conceptual mass face so that I can have two different wall types (solid wall an curtain wall) along the extrusion. I tried adding profiles and drawings lines to the conceptual mass, but it doesn't work.

Can someone please help?

[dhurtubise]

Hey all, I just started working in a Revit office and have been working with it for about 4 months now.

I have this conceptual mass (an extrusion with a curved roof and canted walls) from which I use "wall by face" and "roof by face" to create my building shell. The problem I'm running into is that there doesn't seem to be a way to subdivide a conceptual mass face so that I can have two different wall types (solid wall an curtain wall) along the extrusion. I tried adding profiles and drawings lines to the conceptual mass, but it doesn't work.

Can someone please help?

All you have to do is add an edge and Revit will see that as 2 surfaces. Then you can apply a different wall by face

[dominicsy]

All you have to do is add an edge and Revit will see that as 2 surfaces. Then you can apply a different wall by face

Thanks for the reply. I really appreciate it, your advice helps with half of the problem I guess. I've attached some screen caps of my problem. Add edges works when I want to add edges up and down my profile, but won't let me divide left and right... I tried to add profiles, but it doesn't subdivide the face?!?!?

I've been working around this by dividing the mass into smaller chunks; extruding several copies of the same profile separately. It's really annoying to have to keep re-doing the mass everytime the building design changes... =(

[dhurtubise]

Is that mass an upgrade from 2009? Are you trying to create just a new surface or an extrusion on that vertical face?

[Wes Macaulay]

The other way you can do massing -- use Generic Models. I create a subcategory called Massing and then I can turn off the "massing" when I need to. You still will have 2009 massing functionality.

[dominicsy]

Is that mass an upgrade from 2009? Are you trying to create just a new surface or an extrusion on that vertical face?

Nope, I created this in 2010. It's a conceptual mass family. I just want to divide the surface. Essentially it's kind of like a loaf of bread with sloping side walls, I want to put vertical divisions on the loaf so that I can make "slices" along the length of the loaf. When I bring it into the project, I want to be able to use Wall by Face to make them a curtain system or a basic wall where I need to.

Thanks for the replies...

[dominicsy]

The other way you can do massing -- use Generic Models. I create a subcategory called Massing and then I can turn off the "massing" when I need to. You still will have 2009 massing functionality.

Wes, are you saying that I use Generic Models instead of Coneptual Mass to recreate my entire "loaf of bread", or use Generic Models to create my canted wall / curving roof as separate elements? Sorry, I'm totally new to Revit.

[ree.espinoza]

Is there a dif in 2011?