Comments for Paradigm Shift

Comment on Contact by Sean

Sean — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:59:09 +0000

Not exactly my focus… you should check out Dynamo (https://github.com/ikeough/dynamo) the open source tool for driving Revit geometry or check out my colleague’s ongoing development on the Slingshot plugin: http://slingshot-dev.wikidot.com/

Comment on Contact by Santiago

Santiago — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 03:33:54 +0000

Hi Sean, was wondering if you are working on connecting Revit and Grasshopper for front-end / conceptual design.

Comment on Let’s Talk Vasari by Sean

Sean — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 02:45:03 +0000

Well , that isn’t so bad! Cheers. Looking forward to more sessions.

Comment on Let’s Talk Vasari by Tom Vollaro

Tom Vollaro — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 00:20:39 +0000

Thanks for the post! A couple of things: it every other Wednesday and you have only missed two

Comment on Best Practices with Revit Groups: Rule #1 by Sean

Sean — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 00:46:45 +0000

1) Regarding the multiple links, using a container file to bring them into the site makes sense, however, unless you are using shared coordinates, that behavior is difficult to investigate.

I would expect that you may need to recreate one of the central files, or at least open them up individually with Audit enabled.

2) It’s possible that the view was corrupt, and that was why it was displaying differently in 3D versus plan.

One situation I have come across frequently is elements such as furniture become hosted to a floor, versus associated with the level datum. This can happen even when families that are not designed to be hosted are placed – very unpredictable.

When the floor face is hosting members of a group, it becomes very difficult to place the group on a different level, as those elements belonging within the new group instance become “sticky” to the original floor. The only way around this is to ensure the floor category is not visible while placing the original elements you intend to group, or place them off to the side, outside the building and then move into position.

Comment on Best Practices with Revit Groups: Rule #1 by Shawn

Shawn — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:07:02 +0000

Ok – I’m sitting here and had this crazy idea to recreate that particular floor.
Suddenly, the groups act likes groups. Blue box, highlight all elements at once, etc.
Revit!? – can’t explain that one.

Comment on Best Practices with Revit Groups: Rule #1 by Shawn

Shawn — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:05:03 +0000

Since you guys are talking groups and links (or were a while back). We are having a couple of issues. Maybe you can provide insight.

1. Links: We link units into a building and then the building into the site. The site file has become impossibly difficult to deal with. We have about 20 unit types and around 450 instances of those 20 types. Is it normal to have this much difficulty with a double linked file? Our site file crashes often and is very slow. There is definiltey something wrong and I am troubleshooting as best I can.
2. Groups: We have one floor of the building that seems to “ungroup” the groups that are placed on that floor. The groups are still identified as groups when you try to change a wall or element but each individual element looks detached from the group. You don’t get the normal group box when hovering over the group. You still get the box in a 3D view but not in plan. Any thoughts?

Thanks.

Comment on Best Practices with Revit Groups: Rule #1 by Garry

Garry — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:53:48 +0000

Thanks for the reply. The second townhouse project has units linked into buildings which are linked into the site. It seems to be behaving very well except that my site plan is littered with refrigerators, closet shelves, and vanity counters from all the floors. It seems these don’t like to behave with the change in height (up 83 ft.). I will take your advice and place these into their own workset at the unit level so I can turn them off on the site plan. Otherwise, this is definitely the way to do these townhouse projects.
I started AutoCAD when they just added the DIM command for dimensions and they still had only the 7 named colors. I was on AutoDesk Architecture when it was still Softdesk version 7. The last place I worked at, they used an AutoCAD / Sketchup combination for all their drawings and it worked fine. Now this place I am at is a Revit only shop and I have to get used to the amount of control Revit has over the database. I am still finding my way!

Comment on “Thoughts on a Train”, or “Mind the BIM Gap” by Digital Vision Automation Blog | Paradigm Shift

Digital Vision Automation Blog | Paradigm Shift — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:02:23 +0000

[...] “BIM rant”, on adoption and setting expectations “Thoughts on a Train”, or “Mind the BIM Gap” was picked up by the blog All Roads Lead to BIM. I feel honored to be alongside such a cast of [...]

Comment on “Thoughts on a Train”, or “Mind the BIM Gap” by Sean

Sean — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:44:39 +0000

It all comes down to understanding constraints. When we give the software conflicting instructions, it’s going to either complain or guess what you want. Sometimes, it guesses wrong. I feel your pain. Hopefully, my previous reply helps ease your situation:

http://www.seandburke.com/blog/2010/02/28/best-practices-with-revit-groups-rule-1/comment-page-1/#comment-524