SURVEY - Hatching Pattern Option for Load Bearing Elements

[swmarais]

Could everyone interested in having the following option added to REVIT respond....
(Autodesk is currently investigating to add this feature and your feedback will aid in having it implemented)

Option:
Display a hatch pattern for load bearing elements under slabs or slab & beam systems denoting that the elements are in fact carrying the load - please refer to the attached DWF for more detail

Required:
Please reply to this thread stating:
- That you would like the option added to future REVIT releases
- Any additional requirements in this regard
- Your country - this principal of showing load bearing elements seems to be country/state specific

Your feedback will be greatly appreciated
Schalk

[benmay]

Thanks for being so vigilant in chasing Autodesk on this topic. I have originally had discussions with Autodesk on this back in early 2007. And I directly bought it up in a meeting with Nicolas Mangon

I would say adding this feature would be number one on my list of items for Revit, I would say almost all consulting firms in Australia document suspended concrete structures this way. And currently it requires lengthy workarounds that are not feasible on large projects

I believe what we require is the ability to turn on surface hatch when elements are hidden. Having this functionality would also allow us to use it in elevation views where we want to highlight the interface of a slab to a precast panel or core wall

I look forward to hearing more on this discussion, and if anyone requires any further information or additional examples, please contact me

Regards,

Ben

[m20roxxers]

To be honest, for me this would be a feature that would be nice to have. But even a hatch option for hidden lines would not solve the way we present our documentation, I would find us still using the existing system as it allows us to get our Documentation looking great. Plus how would you solve the issue where you have load bearing above and below both hatched??

I think there are alot more features that we actually need because the program can't really do it.
Reinforcement column schedules for instance, Cable family systems, and Pre-Cast detailing and development I think are number 1 features.

[Craig_L]

- This feature would be very useful.
- Please note that the way the DWF from the original post is showing the elements and their intent clearly however it would be great to make these hatch patterns customizable as our firm uses a different hatch for the load bearing element under
- Australia - Brisbane.
This is the way it is done in most of Australia, and has been for a very long time.
Currently the work around is lengthy and often causes follow on problems in a different area and is often not even viable in larger scale projects. This is a small and easy fix for an often encountered problem and I hope Autodesk see fit to incorporate this option quickly.

[benmay]

To be honest, for me this would be a feature that would be nice to have. But even a hatch option for hidden lines would not solve the way we present our documentation, I would find us still using the existing system as it allows us to get our Documentation looking great. Plus how would you solve the issue where you have load bearing above and below both hatched??

I think there are alot more features that we actually need because the program can't really do it.
Reinforcement column schedules for instance, Cable family systems, and Pre-Cast detailing and development I think are number 1 features.

If we could access a hatch pattern for hidden faces, we should be able to overide those faces with a hatch pattern with a filter. Typically I would show walls over with a relevant pattern to the wall i.e. concrete hatch for RC, diagonal hatch for blockwork etc.

Then load bearing walls under are all shown as a solid shade at greyscale

Not sure on your documenation system, but the ability to create a hatch for hiden faces would mean all I need to do is apply a view template to each view which would apply the hidden face surface patterns. Rather than my current system which is a long winded workaround, that requires ongoing management and fine tuning.

[m20roxxers]

Ben

All we do is apply view templates to our dependant views and place them onto sheets.

We have a bearing below with a slab layout ceiling based. and LB/NLB above with various filters for walls and so forth.

Create a plan, create a level below apply filters and place both on our sheet, in certain cases we have had to use 3 or even 4 overlaid views but the normal is 2.

Working with Architects using Revit is even easier as we create a set of drawings in their project apply our templates and link them across to our floor plans for LB under, ask them to save it in their file. In a couple of larger scenarios we have stripped a model saved out the model applied view templates and linked it back in to the views they apply to. In most cases we clean up the Archiects file when we get it anyway so this is just part of that procedure.

Hopefully this we can streamline with an API or Autokeys or a journal file but I am yet to try, I've only setup filtering tasks in API a couple of standard view creation tools, haven't used hot keys yet and the journal file would require some manipulation to each project so I am not counting this one as useful.

[benmay]

My main problem with the dependant views workaround, is that when you have GA,PT, BTM Reo, Top Reo. You now have 4 views required to be placed on the print sheet as load-bearing under. So you now have 8 views for each level, and thats not even considering when you have multi sheet projects (I have gone 12 A0 sheets before on projects, so thats 8x12 per level)

The other problem is that on complex projects you will have different slab and beam depths, your view range and particularly your cut plane has to take this into account, otherwise you might not see all your load bearing elements


So even if we can automate this method, it is still a workaround with problems. An inbuilt solution is the best way forward. But if Autodesk can automate it for now, and put a better solution into 2012 then I am all for that as well.

[jabamax]

Definite yes.
I spoke to (and emailed) Nicholas Magnon and Wai Chu from Autodesk on this exact matter at AU in 2007. But alas, we are just a small country. This has to be fixed.
Brisbane - Australia.

[lambolica]

This is an Issue from our Companies point of view, as the basic OOTB functionality cannot meet hatching load bearing elements without workarounds, the group decision is keep with AutoCAD until such time as Revit can hatch under without workarounds.

This is pretty much an adopted Australian Standard and 95% of the companies I have worked for in Sydney all hatch load bearing under.

I can appreciate that some things standards stuff needs to be altered to Suit Revit, rather that trying to alter Revit to suit our Standards, however, the powers that be here are not going to bend on this item, and it is effectively holding up further training and implementation of Revit in the offices.

[m20roxxers]

I wouldn't consider this a workaround.

AutoCAD can't automatically recognize walls under as load bearing hatch them and x-ref them out. you do this manually. Yet people open up revit see a few automatic features and assume it's the same across all tools.

I don't consider this a workaround we are showing two different levels therefore we require 2 views to depict this.
We need functionality we don't have, there are API's, journal files and a number of ways to compile the views automatically now.
The same with AutoCAD back in the day, when it didn't do something automatically people wrote LISP routines, these days people just complain that the software can't do something it is clearly capable of if a little effort is put into the system.

Autodesk make a product for the mainstream then open up the system to allow us all to customize it.
That's the way it is.