Changed Behavior: Basic Ceiling

[ron.sanpedro]

So historically I have been a proponent of using a Basic Ceiling coplanar with the bottom of a Roof or Floor to host lights and such. But the last time I actually had a need for this was probably 2008, and I don't think there was a material visible on the bottom of the roof. In this condition in 2011, I am finding that the Basic Ceiling is opaque, and is masking out the decking shown on the bottom of the roof. And of course making a material for this ceiling that is transparent doesn't help, because you don't get transparent materials in RCP. So, my questions are:

1: Am I nuts, or was a Basic Ceiling both transparent and without material once upon a time?

2: Are people still using the kludge, or has everyone just moved to light fixtures that are Face Based and there is no longer a need for Basic Ceilings at all?

3: If you are still using Basic Ceilings this way, do you just manually (or via Filter) set the ceiling to Transparent in all appropriate views?

Thanks!
Gordon

[twiceroadsfool]

So historically I have been a proponent of using a Basic Ceiling coplanar with the bottom of a Roof or Floor to host lights and such. But the last time I actually had a need for this was probably 2008, and I don't think there was a material visible on the bottom of the roof. In this condition in 2011, I am finding that the Basic Ceiling is opaque, and is masking out the decking shown on the bottom of the roof. And of course making a material for this ceiling that is transparent doesn't help, because you don't get transparent materials in RCP. So, my questions are:

1: Am I nuts, or was a Basic Ceiling both transparent and without material once upon a time?

2: Are people still using the kludge, or has everyone just moved to light fixtures that are Face Based and there is no longer a need for Basic Ceilings at all?

3: If you are still using Basic Ceilings this way, do you just manually (or via Filter) set the ceiling to Transparent in all appropriate views?

Thanks!
Gordon

I definetely dont model the ceilign and then make it invisible or transparent. If the ceiling isnt there, i dont put it there. I use a Face Based, Work plane Based, or unhosted fixture.

[ron.sanpedro]

I definetely dont model the ceilign and then make it invisible or transparent. If the ceiling isnt there, i dont put it there. I use a Face Based, Work plane Based, or unhosted fixture.

So am I just not remembering correctly, that Basic ceilings where once automatically transparent, so you could just place the thing and host and be done?
Admittedly a kludge, but no more a kludge than the "official" kludge of face based families, where the face is a floor in the Family Editor. It drives me nuts having to explain to people that when making a light switch, for example, Plan means front, and Front means bottom, and Back means top. Just plain half glutiused, you know?

Gordon

[twiceroadsfool]

Im not here to talk about Factory bashing, sorry.

I cant recall if youre remembering correctly, since ive never tried to model a ceiling, unless i had a ceiling there. I remember the day i felt kicked in the nuts, when i had to place a CH light fixture in an opened warehouse, and it was the first day i started making fixtures unhosted, and nesting them in to hosted families, or Face Based.

Yes, modeling them upside down is annoying. Having fake ceilings is moreso, imho.

[ron.sanpedro]

Im not here to talk about Factory bashing, sorry.

I cant recall if youre remembering correctly, since ive never tried to model a ceiling, unless i had a ceiling there. I remember the day i felt kicked in the nuts, when i had to place a CH light fixture in an opened warehouse, and it was the first day i started making fixtures unhosted, and nesting them in to hosted families, or Face Based.

Yes, modeling them upside down is annoying. Having fake ceilings is moreso, imho.

Not Factory Bashing, Factory ribbing. Way more important things, even if I do wish this would get some attention.
And the attention I would want to see is the ability to have multi-host templates. So I open a template that has a slab o' somethin' there, and I can go into the Family Parameters and check any/all of Ceiling, Roof, Floor and Wall for the hosting type. A single light fixture could now host in anything. Indeed, I might even go so far as to define what surface (bottom of Floor only, for example), as well as maybe being able to host in the Riser of a Stair, ideally taking a bite out of said stair. Now I can host an embedded tread light in a concrete stair, for example.
All of which solves another of the negatives of the face based light fixture kludge. Getting the wrong face. I try to get users to work in 3D to get around this, but it is still frustrating because often you still need top go back to an orthogonal view to get the item located right. One view for placement, one for location just doesn't seem "right".

In the end, I guess it doesn't matter if once upon a time there was another answer that was, for some offices, a better answer. It doesn't exist now so on we go.

Gordon

[Steve_Stafford]

I don't recall them being transparent other than having no material assigned to them so they didn't "show up". The Basic Ceiling has an ill effect on face-based families when using linked files, face-based families end up on the wrong face. As a general rule I'd avoid using them if planning to work with anyone using RME.

Face-Based orientation while creating them is (can be) confusing but since the face could be a floor, wall, ceiling, table top, ramp... hard to define "cover-all" orientation view names.

[ron.sanpedro]

I don't recall them being transparent other than having no material assigned to them so they didn't "show up". The Basic Ceiling has an ill effect on face-based families when using linked files, face-based families end up on the wrong face. As a general rule I'd avoid using them if planning to work with anyone using RME.

Face-Based orientation while creating them is (can be) confusing but since the face could be a floor, wall, ceiling, table top, ramp... hard to define "cover-all" orientation view names.

Yeah, I think it is the materiality that was eventually added that made Basic Ceilings go from "sometimes useful kludge" to "why is this even an option?"

As for the face based families, sure it is hard, but it would be nice if I could at least rotate my face around and name things as I see fit. I could in no time make a
As it is, everything is drawn on the floor, and faces up, and in my experience floor faces are actually used for face based family hosting MAYBE 1% of the time. The other 99% the template is just wrong. Not sure if there is one orientation that would actually make sense most of the time, but the orientation chosen makes no sense the vast majority of the time.

Of course in a perfect world we wouldn't even need to be concerned as we would use MEP's lights. But since they don't look right, aren't placed until months after our presentations, and aren't right until 90% CDs anyway...
Kidding! The traditional fee structure for consultants makes doing this stuff early, and iterating as needed, SO much harder than it is for Architects. And we still struggle with it. More than anything we need to see clients understand and pay for a more BIMmie process. Of course in plenty of places the old approach is actually law, right up there with not allowing people to live near their work. So much to change beyond the software.

Gordon