Free Form Design in Revit (Wake me up I'm still Dreaming)

[Arnel Aguel]

I have been experimenting this for a long while how to really do free form design in revit. Most users have been craving for the advance modeling tool (i'm actually one of them) but unfortunately autodesk must have some other prioirities to attend to. We have a lot of other free form modelers out their rhino, 3ds max etc. so if we can just bring those model from those softwares into revit and make use of them would we all be happy? why not?

So there goes my research and exploration bringing 3ds max free form model into revit and I'm happy with what I got so far. It's a long process but It's worth the while doing it.
I will try other forms later and play with it in revit too.

[AP23]

so if we can just bring those model from those softwares into revit and make use of them would we all be happy? why not?.

We would be happy if the models can be edited within Revit. Or at least be linked so that you can do the changes in the other software and it gets update in Revit. Also the floor by face, roof by face, wall by face should be a little bit more flexible. At the moment you can only apply them, on very limited surfaces. If a surface is sloped or too curved, none of those tools would work. The Curtain system panels and mullions need to to be able to flex according to the geometry, so that you can get a perfect draped surface over the imported solid geometry. Revit also needs to maintain it's performance when you import these solids. But probably the most important is that revit needs to able to document the model accurately. Snapping, picking a line and dimensioning on a double curved surface is not possible. I've found a workaround for this problem but it is extremely inefficient. You can export the plans and sections as a 2d DWG then re import them into Revit. The imported lines can be overlayed and be used to snap and pick.

[Arnel Aguel]

We would be happy if the models can be edited within Revit. Or at least be linked so that you can do the changes in the other software and it gets update in Revit. Also the floor by face, roof by face, wall by face should be a little bit more flexible. At the moment you can only apply them, on very limited surfaces. If a surface is sloped or too curved, none of those tools would work. The Curtain system panels and mullions need to to be able to flex according to the geometry, so that you can get a perfect draped surface over the imported solid geometry. Revit also needs to maintain it's performance when you import these solids. But probably the most important is that revit needs to able to document the model accurately. Snapping, picking a line and dimensioning on a double curved surface is not possible. I've found a workaround for this problem but it is extremely inefficient. You can export the plans and sections as a 2d DWG then re import them into Revit. The imported lines can be overlayed and be used to snap and pick.

If you find it limited well and good because I'm happy with it right now with my method and it works with all the commands and you can remake the surfaces if you have changes in your imported mass. The key here is make your mass a solid which is the workflow I discovered. I will try some more free form geometry before I jump into final conclusion.

BTW you might probably think that the blue colored images are still massing, no they are already wall element in revit and if you have changes in the orignal mass you can automaticaly remake those wall elements. As what I have said I will make some more test before jumping into final conclusion that it really works.

[AP23]

While you're ad it, try making a floor area by face. I haven't tested that out in Revit 2008 yet. Maybe it's possible now.

[clog boy]

First of all: components used in Revit should have meaning. Revit should be able to interpret a wall, floor, roof, windows etc by it's function, not by how it looks.

Second: have you tried creating the tower with a (or multiple) blend mass? Much is possible using that widget.
Revit is to some extend a tool for creative people, but some of us have work to do.

[Andre Baros]

Some of us chose Revit because we have to be creative (which is work) and then produce drawings of that work (which can be less work because of Revit). There are many examples around here of people creating towers using blended masses (Phil Reads examples come to mind) but it's also good to see that people are able to work with design models coming from other people and take them to the next level (walls having meaning as you said) in Revit.

[clog boy]

Some of us chose Revit because we have to be creative (which is work) and then produce drawings of that work (which can be less work because of Revit). There are many examples around here of people creating towers using blended masses (Phil Reads examples come to mind) but it's also good to see that people are able to work with design models coming from other people and take them to the next level (walls having meaning as you said) in Revit.

I agree, and I might've been a bit strong with my opinion. But all I want to say is don't use a floor as a roof, or a filled region as a wall, etc. Not if you're big on schedules.

[AP23]

First of all: components used in Revit should have meaning. Revit should be able to interpret a wall, floor, roof, windows etc by it's function, not by how it looks..

Well, that may be a problem. Buildings nowadays (and in the future) have skin wraps where you can't distinguish the wall from the roof. Slabs turn into walls then back to stairs. You can split them up just for the sake of categorizing everything to work properly in Revit but where would you divide it?

It's like having a cell phones that's also a pda, a mp3 player, a camera, a camcorder, a navigator and so on.

[clog boy]

It's like having a cell phones that's also a pda, a mp3 player, a camera, a camcorder, a navigator and so on.

Yeah, but all functions within that PDA are split into distinguishable segments. The mp3 software isn't gonna show pictures as sure as the camera ain't playing music. But all functions are still within that same device, sharing mutual resources, like a building can have a multitude of functions.
I like to think about Revit in terms of BIM rather than as a traditional CAD program. Building information will inevitably be shared with other software, and you'd rather be ready to jump on the BIM boat.
But let's not hijack this thread.

[Andre Baros]

Last night we saw a presentation on IES and building analysis, and the number one problem described was that the analysis software depends on certain assumptions to be true in determining how a space is bounded. Yes, we now use walls as floors, etc, but Revit needs to give us a wall tool which is classified as a floor, and a floor tool which is classified as a sidewalk, etc. so that people aren't forced to draw parking lots as ceilings only to produce drawings which are worthless for anything but printed output. We have separate architectural and structural columns, we could use that same logic for many other elements.