Revit modeling tools - Attach wall to roof

[dpasa]

I created a mass and made some walls... Then I added a roof as extrusion of 2-3 arcs...
Then I was surprised to see that I can't attach the walls to the roof !!!
Please don't tell me this can't be done... The simplest thing...
If it is not possible, it is a big failure for the so much advertised modeling tools ...

[twiceroadsfool]

I created a mass and made some walls... Then I added a roof as extrusion of 2-3 arcs...
Then I was surprised to see that I can't attach the walls to the roof !!!
Please don't tell me this can't be done... The simplest thing...
If it is not possible, it is a big failure for the so much advertised modeling tools ...

Got a screenshot?

So you made a mass, but the mass doesnt go up to the roof? And you put walls on it (im guessing theyre canting walls? Or curved in a couple of directions? And now you want to use the attach to roof tool on the walls to hit a roof thats seperate from it?

Why not just make the mass go up to the roof, and use Wall by Face and Roof by face to put the walls and roof on, soits all tied to the Mass?

I wouldnt say its a failure of the tool, but using the wrong tool for the job.

[dpasa]

What I did was this....
1. Made the mass as I wanted
2. Added a roof as I wanted
3. Tried to extend the walls to the roof.... I don't care how...I can't extend the mass to the roof...
A difficult example but I would like to use it...
But I tried with some other shapes and it simply doesn't work...
It is not always possible or important to control how the walls will attach to roof...

[twiceroadsfool]

What I did was this....
1. Made the mass as I wanted
2. Added a roof as I wanted
3. Tried to extend the walls to the roof.... I don't care how...I can't extend the mass to the roof...
A difficult example but I would like to use it...
But I tried with some other shapes and it simply doesn't work...
It is not always possible or important to control how the walls will attach to roof...

That picture demonstrates exactly what im talking about. THere are a few different ways it could interpret *attach walls to roof* and you want it to guess which one, lol.

If you have the mass built, and the roof is simply a Roof be Extrusion, simply continue the mass shape up until its taller than the roof (In the shape youd like the walls to continue up), and then add a void with the exact sketch of the roof (and extending up), to the mass.

Thats not something id ever expect those walls to do, lol. If you have the mass built, just take the two seconds to extend it up to the roof.

Otherwise, good luck with that.

[Gadget Man]

Yes Aaron, but it is still just a workaround...

The walls are understood to be able to be extended to the roof - if the roof is above them (defining the top extends of the walls). If they don't, or the procedure requires a different "tools" (as you said it) it creates an exception to the generally understood rule, which creates more confusion. To me then this process is flawed...

[twiceroadsfool]

Yes Aaron, but it is still just a workaround...

The walls are understood to be able to be extended to the roof...

I guess this is what im not cear on... Where that understand comes from. Walls By Face have always acted one of two ways:

1. If WBF generated a completely vertical wall, they "became" walls with edited profiles. In that instance, you still cant attach them to a roof overhead unless you release the profile.

2. They became complex shaped walls that dont behave like regular walls at all, that depend on the mass (or hosted objects)for shape editing. These have never had attachment properties either.

So lets ASSume for a minute that we all agree it should be able to do it right off the bat. Would this become a tool like Wall Joins where it has to cycle through all the possible configurations? In the given example, there are a few variations on how to *attach* the walls to the roof. (Obviously, some make sense more than others). Should they extend perfectly vertical (at which point they dont relate to the mass at all)? Should they follow the complex solids "implied shape" all the way up until they hit the roof (at which point what happens when the shape becomes irrational beforehand, much like when sweeps turn in on themselves)?

Revit necessity aside, the reason it just *makes sense* to use the mass for the roof as well as the walls, is then you have to figure out how they go together. Something it seems like which hasnt been done here.

[dpasa]

1. The mass is not created in Revit, it is a SAT import... I don't use Revit for Modeling..
I used MoI3D which is a NURBS app...
2. The way Revit handles imported objects is useless in most cases... Take MAX for example... You can import an .obj file and after that,you can turn it to a mesh and have subobjects, modifiers etc... In Revit everything is "as is"... No transformation is accepted... There should be a way to import something and save it as RVT... with "live" and useful Revit objects... If I try to explode it, 99.99% of the times I get an error...So most of the times importing something is so "dead" that you can't use it...
3. Revit modeling tools are not what I want to use because these are not modeling tools... It was just a trick to declare something important for the 2010 release... Since the ribbon was such a failure (Actually I like it sometimes) they had to find something else...

[twiceroadsfool]

LOL, i see. I had a feeling there was more to the issue, since you were so vehemently against using the Mass to create the roof as well.. Good luck getting it sorted out!

[Scott D Davis]

1. The mass is not created in Revit, it is a SAT import... I don't use Revit for Modeling.

The shape you have in the images below is a simple shape to create with the Conceptual Modeling tools. Maybe you should give it a go.

[AP23]

1. The mass is not created in Revit, it is a SAT import... I don't use Revit for Modeling..
I used MoI3D which is a NURBS app...
2. The way Revit handles imported objects is useless in most cases... Take MAX for example... You can import an .obj file and after that,you can turn it to a mesh and have subobjects, modifiers etc... In Revit everything is "as is"... No transformation is accepted... There should be a way to import something and save it as RVT... with "live" and useful Revit objects... If I try to explode it, 99.99% of the times I get an error...So most of the times importing something is so "dead" that you can't use it...
3. Revit modeling tools are not what I want to use because these are not modeling tools... It was just a trick to declare something important for the 2010 release... Since the ribbon was such a failure (Actually I like it sometimes) they had to find something else...

There are a few options for these types of shapes.

1. the first one is the most common worlkflow. Create the 3d model in what ever 3d software. Slice the model and xref the outlines in Autocad. Do the full documentation in Autocad. Use Revit for space planning, but not for documentation.

2. Same as method one but import the outline curves in the massing family. Create reference planes and pick the curves with reference lines. Loft all the curves.

3. Import the whole 3d model in the massing family and use it as reference to recreate the model. (this doesn't work with all shapes).

Importing dead geometry is not a serious option. Keep in mind that Revit wasn't made for that kind of work.