Greetings all! My apologies for the delay in getting more stuff up here. Life does occasionally get in the way.
First, I have been remiss in a certain aspect of posting things here. I'm going to correct that today by saying thank you to Core-Design Group for hosting our last Revit User Group meeting!
That last meeting did have some really good stuff in it! Lots of good questions and lots of great answers from some very savvy folks. I'd say spread the word and let's get more stuff like that going.
I'm going to post up some of the questions and answers that we had based on notes and things others have sent. I'll do my best to represent what went on at the meeting, but please feel free to jump in and comment or add to what gets posted here. These first three answers are provided from Gretchen's notes (Providence Engineering Corporation).
Question #2. I would like to discuss surface patterns. I need to know how to get them to plot lighter than the wall itself. I realize that all “hatch” plots with pen 1, but it seems to me that a surface pattern plots with whatever the item it is associated with is using. This is making some areas of our drawings look terrible.
Answer: All suggestions given at the meeting work for vertical surface patterns. (materiel color, plotter density setting, etc.)
After discussing this matter with Lyle from LSC; we have concluded that there is yet another flaw in the system. None of the above mentioned effect the plotting of a horizontal surface pattern. We here at PEC have been using a filter to get around this problem, but you could also use a plan region or a filled region.
Question # 12. For the trusses we just haven’t figured out the best way to create them because we haven’t had much luck using the truss system in Revit.
Answer: We have not had any luck using the OOTB trusses for wood or light gauge trusses, especially hipped trusses. As of now I am currently modeling the trusses in place and creating a group. One day I hope to have enough time to figure out how to make this a family type that functions as needed for both wood and light gauge. The provided trusses work well for your typical pitched roof, but if you have anything that strays from the ordinary they don’t work well. Jackie might have more input on this one.
Question #14. Typically, who owns what element? For example, who owns structural walls? If architect does, then how does the structural engineer add footings, rebar and such. If the structural engineer owns them, then how does the architect label walls, add doors to them, etc? If copy/monitored, won't there be duplicate elements?
Answer: In an ideal world all would own whatever it is that they are responsible for providing. However this rarely occurs without duplication. We normally decide who has ownership of what when the job starts. Using worksets and copy/monitor I have found a way to get our drawings looking the way we want them to without causing others too much pain.
I'd like to add to the end of this particular answer - a number of the questions that were raised were less technical and more philosophical in nature. This software has opened (or re-opened for the folks that switched from boards to CAD) a series of discussions about what it is the folks creating should and shouldn't be doing. There may not be a set answer to some of these topics just because the nature of a particular firm's view might not match with the view your firm takes. Whatever direction the answer takes, it's always interesting to hear how other people handle it - particularly if you've found a way to further leverage this tool.
That's all for this post, but there should be more here soon! Keep looking and as always, feel free to contribute!
29.2.12
8.2.12
What do you get?
Do you really get anything out of that?
I've heard that question more than once relating to the User Group. It's a question that has both a complex and a simple answer. I'm going to attempt both answers here.
The simple answer is yes, yes I do.
The more complex answer applies to me, but I believe it also applies to anyone that wants to attend a meeting. If you want to get something out of a meeting, particularly a user group meeting, what you get depends completely on what you put in. If you're not a contributor, if you're not actively engaged in the process of whatever you're doing, then you're not going to get much out of any meeting. The more you put in, the more you'll get back. It might not be immediate, but the effort will end with payoff.
On the 7th of February (yesterday as I write this) we had the regular user group meeting and I believe it was very successful. We ran long, about a half an hour past our intended stop time, but we answered all the questions that were put forth. Structural, architectural, program specific and philosophical all brought forth lots of ideas from the folks attending the meeting. The questions had been submitted prior to the meeting and anyone that was on the mailing list had the opportunity to check things out beforehand. If that e-mail got missed, the questions were printed out and were on hand for anyone that wanted a hard copy. That's the core of the participatory aspect - the questions. These questions covered lots of topics and ranged from details to rendering. There were quite a few folks there that were really dialed in on this program. I certainly learned a lot.
Do I work on structural models? No, I don't. Was it helpful to hear what the structure folks were struggling with? Absolutely. Project teams have a lot to learn and a lot of new working procedures to figure out. Communication is the key to this program as it is with any successful project - and that requires participation.
I'm looking forward to participating in the next meeting, how about you?
I've heard that question more than once relating to the User Group. It's a question that has both a complex and a simple answer. I'm going to attempt both answers here.
The simple answer is yes, yes I do.
The more complex answer applies to me, but I believe it also applies to anyone that wants to attend a meeting. If you want to get something out of a meeting, particularly a user group meeting, what you get depends completely on what you put in. If you're not a contributor, if you're not actively engaged in the process of whatever you're doing, then you're not going to get much out of any meeting. The more you put in, the more you'll get back. It might not be immediate, but the effort will end with payoff.
On the 7th of February (yesterday as I write this) we had the regular user group meeting and I believe it was very successful. We ran long, about a half an hour past our intended stop time, but we answered all the questions that were put forth. Structural, architectural, program specific and philosophical all brought forth lots of ideas from the folks attending the meeting. The questions had been submitted prior to the meeting and anyone that was on the mailing list had the opportunity to check things out beforehand. If that e-mail got missed, the questions were printed out and were on hand for anyone that wanted a hard copy. That's the core of the participatory aspect - the questions. These questions covered lots of topics and ranged from details to rendering. There were quite a few folks there that were really dialed in on this program. I certainly learned a lot.
Do I work on structural models? No, I don't. Was it helpful to hear what the structure folks were struggling with? Absolutely. Project teams have a lot to learn and a lot of new working procedures to figure out. Communication is the key to this program as it is with any successful project - and that requires participation.
I'm looking forward to participating in the next meeting, how about you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)