BILT Speaker

BILT Speaker
RevitCat - Revit Consultant
Showing posts with label distance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label distance. Show all posts

Monday, 2 October 2017

Weird Railing Stuff - part 8 - Moving Handrail Supports

I have explained previously that Revit handrail support spacing is measured along the length of  sloping handrails, not horizontal (plan) distance.

What does this mean when it comes to moving individual supports on a handrail?  Well, the rules are equally weird, but differently weird.

In the following  example, you might want the spacing to be measured horizontally (in plan), so you need to move the supports on the sloping parts of the handrail.

The first thing to do is select just the support (Tab, select), and unpin it.  This will allow you to slide the support along handrail - but most likely you want to be very precise about how far it is moved.  You might try using the 'Align' tool, providing you have something like a reference plane to align to:

Law of Diminishing Returns





In this context, the Align tool does not do what you expect - it presents you with more Revit Weirdness.  Once you select the reference plane to align to, then click on the support centreline, it moves the support only about two-thirds of the way (this fraction probably varies depending on the slope of the railing). 


My first thought was that it was converting the horizontal distance to an actual distance up the slope of the handrail - but it is not that value (something slightly different).  It is using some other mysterious mathematical rule that I cannot fathom.

If you try Align again, it goes another two-thirds of the remaining distance.

 Try again and you get closer - but you will never quite get there.  There has to be a better way?

Move Weirdness

If you try using the 'Move' command, and select a horizontal distance, you get exactly the same result as the Align tool - it does not move it to where you tell it.  The same 'Law of diminishing returns' applies.

The Move (Workaround) Solution

The trick here is to use the move command, but make sure that you snap to the end point of the support, and then have a reference line that has an end (or intersection) point exactly where you want it to be placed - slightly above the underside of the handrail.

The Slide (Workaround) Solution

There is another trick - providing you have a (reference) line running vertically and stopping exactly where you want it to be placed (as with the previous workaround), you can just select it and slide it along the handrail, and it will snap to the right place.  However, I do not recommend this because if your reference line is too long or short, it may look like it went to the right spot but could be slightly off.  The move command is more precise.

Reset Warning

If you click on the 'Reset Rail' or 'Reset Railing' commands, you will lose all of those careful support relocations on the whole handrail - each moved support would be moved back and repinned, while deleted supports would be reinstated (including those silly ones exactly on the ends of handrails).



More on this subject:

Wednesday, 27 September 2017

Weird Railing Stuff - part 7a - Support Spacing Postscript

I mentioned in my previous post about handrail support spacing that the distance between supports is measured along the length of the handrail regardless of its angle, rather than a horizontal plan distance (which is used by other railing element spacing).  It turns out that it gets even weirder:

Revit Railings Get Weirder and Weirder

I thought I would check where it is measured on the handrail, and whether it takes into account a fillet radius if you have one.
  • On a horizontal railing, it measures support spacing on the underside of the handrail
  • On a sloping railing, the supports seem to be attached to the handrail a bit higher - you can snap to the top endpoint of the support.  In the example I tested, with a 75mm high support, the top is about 7mm vertically into the handrail.
  • This means that the spacing is measured slightly above the underside of a sloping handrail - this may vary depending on the angle and the type of support.  However, I have no desire to investigate any further - this is weird enough already.
  • If you have a curved transition from horizontal to sloping handrail (fillet radius), the support spacing measurement transitions (on a radius) from underside of handrail to somewhere above the underside.
  • This means that you cannot accurately predict where the supports will end up - unless you do a checking diagram like the one below.  I can tell you, this is the first and last one I will ever do!

 Extension to Floor

I know that you'd never put supports like this on a handrail with a vertical extension to the floor, but I just wanted to see what it does with the spacing:

The answer is that the supports get flipped to the outside of the handrail (what becomes the top when it turns the corner to be horizontal).  However, the spacing between the two supports as it goes from vertical to horizontal is not predictable.  In the example above, the typical spacing is 200mm (just to be certain it doesn't come away from the wall!), but the distance measured orthogonally between those two supports on the corner is only about 190mm - so we are adrift by 10mm.  As I said, it is not easy to predict exactly where the supports will end up.

If we had a start/end indent property, we could at least make a guess, then tweak the indent value until it is exactly where we want the first/last support - without having to unpin the supports (which has its own problems, to be discussed later).  Please go to the official Revit Ideas website and vote up my idea on this

Just to entertain you, here is what Revit does when you have a handrail extension to a wall - note that the support goes to the top of the handrail again (not that you actually want a support when the handrail fixes to a wall, of course!).

More on this subject:

Monday, 25 April 2016

Elevation Depth Cueing in Revit 2017

This is a new feature in Revit 2017, which has long been on many architectural user's wishlist.  OK, lets do some testing and see if we are ready to take it off the wishlist yet?. . . . .

  • First I set up a series of walls that are stepped in plan, with a few windows in the walls.
  • Then created an elevation view looking at the walls and windows
  • In order to examine what is going on with depth cueing, I needed to artificially bump up the line weights of the elevation - in Object Styles:

  • Oh, if you are one of those people that likes to read manuals before trying something out, there are some interesting notes in the Autodesk Help files:

Autodesk Help:  

Depth cueing...
  • applies to model elements, and graphic display effects, such as shadows and sketchy lines.
  • does not apply to annotation elements, line weight, linework, background image, or background color.

After applying depth cueing to a view, you can do the following:
  • Export the view to an image file.
  • Print the view (raster processing only).
  • Add the view to a sheet.

Alarm bells

Any alarm bells ringing yet?  Does not apply to Lineweight or linework;  Raster processing only.
So, if you are the sort of person who likes to use lineweights  to give your drawings depth and readability, perhaps you'd better stop reading now?  Or maybe go and have a little cry?
[Edit] Or maybe you need to rethink how you expect it to work?

Here's How it Works

First go to 'Graphic Display Options' and you'll see a new item called 'Depth Cueing'

Expand it and you'll see some sliders.  By default it will be off, so you need to tick the checkbox.
Unlike the Sketchy Lines feature, you will get an instant result after clicking Apply, without having to adjust the sliders.  Notice how the walls furthest away become lighter and lighter - which is the desired effect, you might think.  But look closer and you'll see that the lines are not getting thinner - just lighter.  This shows up quite well in the image below because I have bumped up the line weight.

The effect is more subtle if you have thin lines and no wall hatching (closer to a typical elevation)

If you adjust the 'Fade Limit %' (lower) slider, the degree of fade is reduced
50% Fade

If you put it up to 100%, you get no fade at all - effectively turning off Depth Cueing:
100% Dark (No Fade)

Not Fade Away

The top slider 'Fade Start/End Location' is actually well described in the Autodesk Help notes - to my astonishment, I found not only an image but a meaningful description that told me how it works, and what it does, rather than the usual one-liner telling me that the feature exists.  Gold Star to whoever wrote that help page.  So I will not go into any detail on how to use it here.
Autodesk Help - graphic explaining Depth Cueing Fade Start/End Location
One of things it states is:
"at Fade Limit 0%, elements that are farthest away could be invisible. In most cases, you want to set a percent greater than 0 to ensure that elements can be seen and printed, if desired."

If you have the Fade Limit at zero (default setting), and start adjusting the 'End Location' (right-hand side of top slider) - sure enough, things start disappearing.
End Location 75%, Fade Limit 0%

Add this to the list of reasons why things are not displayed in Revit!  The list is well over 30 possible reasons by now.  It begs the question, Why did they make the default Fade Limit 0% instead of something safer like 10%, say?

Graphic Display Effects

The help notes state that Depth Cueing works with graphics display effects like shadows.  Yes, it seems to work

I tried enabling the Silhouette setting, and this is where it started getting weird

As I had the wall lines set to a very heavy lineweight, I tried a thinner silhouette, which is the wrong way around from normal - but it showed a couple of glitches:
  • Strange dots at the corners of windows - I guess they might be wall edge lines seen end-on where the silhouette has not been applied?  A bug, I guess.
  • The actual wall edges are showing a thin line (the silhouette) in front of the greyed out depth cue line, which is still shown at full line width behind it.  The silhouette line is somewhat greyed out but not as much as the depth cue line.
  • But why does Revit consider wall opening edges to be silhouettes anyway?  They are not as significant as the actual wall outlines - I would normally want them to remain unaffected by the silhouette feature.
The first two issues would not show up if you reversed the line weights so that Silhouettes are thicker than normal elevation line weights.  However, the window opening lines are still treated as silhouettes.  To solve this you might try the next tool in your arsenal:

Linework Tool

As the help file states, Linework is not affected by Depth Cueing.  'Tis a pity!  And not pretty!

Sliding View Templates

The help files state that you can include Depth Cueing in view templates for similar elevations and sections.  I have not tested this but my gut feeling tells me that the use of the sliders is a very hands-on operation to be done while looking at each elevation and playing around with the settings until it looks right.  I'd be surprised if Depth Cueing and view templates will be good playmates.

One of the issues with standardising these sorts of settings is that outcome depends very much on the view depth and the distance of the cut line from the actual walls (or other elements) - both of which could vary tremendously between different elevations controlled by the same view template.  If you change the 'Far Clip Offset' value in a section of elevation, it can have a radical effect on the Depth Cueing - transforming the look of the view, which means it could be hard to maintain a consistent look and feel for elevations on a project.

[Edit]

Shaded Views

I just realised that I have been unfair in not showing how effective Depth Cueing is when used on shaded or realistic views in Revit.  Obviously line weights are less relevant in this kind of view.

And it works well when you include entourage or landscape families

 And also works with RPC content in realistic views

I should point out that Depth Cueing is not available for 3D or perspective views;  Nor is it available for plan views, which means that we still have to rely on View range 'View Depth' settings and 'Beyond' linestyles to control that.

[Edit again]

Angled & Curved Walls

Click here to read more about angled and curved surfaces in elevation.  It seems that there may be good reasons for Autodesk to choose this method of conveying distance in elevation rather than diminishing line thicknesses - namely how it handles curved and angled walls, which would be very tricky with varying line weights.
Angled wall with depth cueing - works well

Conclusion

You will have to draw your own conclusions as to whether this new feature is going to work for you - I couldn't possibly comment!  I think this may be yet another example of needing to wait until the various shortcomings are fixed in the next version or two before we can take it off the wishlist.

This new feature adds to the growing list of  situations where the control of line weights and printed outcome is hard-coded into Revit, and we cannot do much about it.  Refer to Weird Stuff with Line Weights  and Hatching Pattern Line Weights.

Link: Other New features in Revit 2017