Elevation View Depth Work Around?

[rjcrowther]

Sorry to bring this one back......

I am wondering if anyone apart from truevis is using the filters approach to solve this or is the consensus approach to use panes of glass (semi transparent masses)

I am sick of the line work tool approach and am looking to implement something else and are hoping for some feedback before I start mucking around.

Thanks,
Rob

[Justin Marchiel]

i really think that this is a great tip and i want to thank everyone who contributed.

The way that i have been doing it (as i usually only want 1 plane lighter) is to duplicate the view and use the graphics overrides to match everything 1/2 tone. I then make the "front" view on specific to the front half of the building. I insert them both on a sheet (overlayed) and this gives me the light background appearance.

I have not played around with the headline topic, but i find that my method works great for us. one reason that i use my method is that we shade our glazing. with my method i can override the surface patterns to be white in the background view and the shade goes away. Like i said i would like to try to above method to see what happens but the shaded glazing would be one limitation that i can see with it.

Justin

[BMcCallum]

Another solution is to make a copy of the elevation tag, move the cut depth to the desired location and change it's view properties to Underlay. I name this view with the -BG suffix to remind everyone that it is the background.

Then, change the view depth of the original elevation to overlap the cut depth of the background elevation. Don't want to miss any objects, right?

Place the background on the sheet first and then drag the foreground to the sheet. The alignment lines will help you line things up.

The attached image shows on of these composite elevations.

[twiceroadsfool]

Im curious for those of you going with the elevation duplication...

How are you managing all of those elevation tags in your drawing sets?

I saw that at AU too, and the first thing that came to my mind was the nightmare that must ensue trying to manage a group of 5 users, all making elevations where each elevation is actually 2 or three drawings.

I suppose you can assign all the extraneous elevation markers to a scope box that is forever "invisible,"... But i wonder about the feasibility once drawings start getting tweaked this way and that...

[Justin Marchiel]

it come down to browser organization, hiding tags at scale, and good user education.

One thing that we do is create working views, where we place constrains, extra section lines, background elevation tags etc, that are always visible. This way you can easily go to the working view and modfying constrains, and move elevation tags around without damaging your "presentation" views.

I am also i big believer in once you created it, you own it. in this way a user that starts on elevations, or details, or sections, etc is the only one that continues to work with it. in this way (eventhought there shoud be some consistancy) the user that made it modifys it and is always aware of how it was created. it all comes down to firm organization and communication within the team.

Justin

[twiceroadsfool]

Interesting... But, in terms of "hiding tags at a scale..." For instance, the project im in now has 1/16th inch plans, and it only has 1/8's where they are blown up. So all the elevation tags are on the 16th. Sooo, if i take an elevation of the side of the building, and want to use multiple views with graphical overrides to achieve these elevations (which look great, btw... really great work guys), im going to have 2 or 3 elev. markers on my plans, yes? Unless i hide them somewhere? In a scope box or something?

Still a worthy solution, im just wondering if i could handle that with 5 people running around in a model...

[Justin Marchiel]

what i do is make my working plans at 1" = 1'0" scale or lower. then when i add section and elevation i can hide at coarser then 1"=0".

This allows me much freedom in adding notes, constraints, sections, tags, etc all over the working plan without overlapping information. i can even add "clouds" of problem areas or places that need to be fixed, so that eveyone knows they are a problem.

Again looking at multiple users, i like to assign certain task to certain people based on there skill and capabilities. Once you get this hierachy established and everyone "knows there role" things can work pretty smoothly. another great asset is the view templates. once you have a good one establsihed you can apply it to the other views and graphically at least they will be the same.

Justin

[Alex Page]

Another solution is to make a copy of the elevation tag, move the cut depth to the desired location and change it's view properties to Underlay. I name this view with the -BG suffix to remind everyone that it is the background.

Then, change the view depth of the original elevation to overlap the cut depth of the background elevation. Don't want to miss any objects, right?

Place the background on the sheet first and then drag the foreground to the sheet. The alignment lines will help you line things up.

The attached image shows on of these composite elevations.

This sounds perfect for me - unfortunately though, even though it looks fine on the screen, when I print it both are printed - resulting in a funny looking semi-see through elevation - am I missing a trick?

[jtl]

I played around with both techniques (glass panes & layered elevations) and did not feel completely comfortable with either.

Now (200 it seems that you can just select the elements that are beyond and use the right-click/override graphics in view/element option. (you can pick the halftone checkbox or override with a specific pen/color combo)

I have used it on only one project so far but it seems to do exactly what we are looking for. Anybody else experiment with this?

[veronica.lamb]

This sounds perfect for me - unfortunately though, even though it looks fine on the screen, when I print it both are printed - resulting in a funny looking semi-see through elevation - am I missing a trick?

We're having the same problem in this office. In 9.1 it worked fine, but suddenly both elevations / sections started printing. Is this a 2008 problem?
--Veronica