Problem with toposurfaces and pads

[dpasa]

I have a initial toposurface and the architect decided how to place the building and how the final ground will look. The image attached is how the property will look. (3 boxes)
The problem is that the only way to make this in Revit is to make many different toposurfaces and still there is no way to make a more complex surface because there is no command that defines the boundary, just points. If I use many surfaces I have problems placing the pad (it doesn't affect many surfaces).
If I merge them, everything is lost and I get a completely wrong shape.
I know that the site tools in Revit don't work as we all want but is there any idea for this?
Attached is an image of how the final property will look (3 different heights). The building is in the center of the property and cuts all of these boxes.

[luigi]

I am sorry but I don't understand. Is the "property" that you show the building, or the topography? If it is the topography, is it going to be flat as shown? If it is flat as shown, can't you make that a solid extrusion (InPlace component) and make the category topography? and instead of using a pad, just add a void, that locks to the exterior walls, to allow the solid to be not visible when a section is cut through.... Instead of using subregions, use face regions, and then paint materials.

In the sample I gave, have a drive painted on the surface...and the bonus is that you can have surface filled regions, since it isn't a nurb topography.

I have other ideas if the property isn't as flat as you show it...I will wait for you to let me know....
Hope this helps....and let me know if I misunderstood the problem...

Luigi

I have a initial toposurface and the architect decided how to place the building and how the final ground will look. The image attached is how the property will look. (3 boxes)
The problem is that the only way to make this in Revit is to make many different toposurfaces and still there is no way to make a more complex surface because there is no command that defines the boundary, just points. If I use many surfaces I have problems placing the pad (it doesn't affect many surfaces).
If I merge them, everything is lost and I get a completely wrong shape.
I know that the site tools in Revit don't work as we all want but is there any idea for this?
Attached is an image of how the final property will look (3 different heights). The building is in the center of the property and cuts all of these boxes.

[dpasa]

You are a great help for someone that didn't understand what I said....
Thank you very much, I think it will work perfectly.
I must say that this is still a workaround and it proves how useless Revit site tools are.
Thanks again

[luigi]

Cool...glad I could help.

BTW, your opinion is your opinion,and your opinion can never be wrong...
but I have an opinion also, that I don't consider that a workaround. I consider it just the same as special walls, roofs, floors. The system families are tools to create topography, walls, roofs, floors, but nothing is stopping the user to use solid creation for each of them. So, to use In-place family to create a special floor isn't wrong (in my opinion of course =) it is just another way to create the architectural component....

Just my humble opinion....and I am just glad my suggestion helped...

Ciao!

You are a great help for someone that didn't understand what I said....
Thank you very much, I think it will work perfectly.
I must say that this is still a workaround and it proves how useless Revit site tools are.
Thanks again

[dpasa]

Cool...glad I could help.

BTW, your opinion is your opinion,and your opinion can never be wrong...
but I have an opinion also, that I don't consider that a workaround. I consider it just the same as special walls, roofs, floors. The system families are tools to create topography, walls, roofs, floors, but nothing is stopping the user to use solid creation for each of them. So, to use In-place family to create a special floor isn't wrong (in my opinion of course =) it is just another way to create the architectural component....

Just my humble opinion....and I am just glad my suggestion helped...

Ciao!

You are partially right... "The system families are tools to create topography..."
You didn't create topography, you created something that you named topography. If it was topography then Revit would understand that it is topography and pads and subregions would work. Instead you suggest to use voids and split face tools. This makes it a workaround.
I would be the first to use a general modeling tool and then to be able to "magically" change this object to toposurface, floor, wall etc... but this is not happening.
That's why I call this method a workaround.