Autodesk Revit Architecture

[#1]

I don't care about that.. that's not what I'm talking about - I've been down
that road countless times.

importing into revit is trivial *provided* you do some work beforehand....


and autocad is more accuarte and precise than any revit model - and therein
lies the trap....

I have ways around it as I can program autocad to do almost anything I
want....schedules, multi .dwg databases, 3d., whatever.

what i'm talking about is another thing entirely


but I *do* want to learn about setting up families properly - what should be
a shared instance parameter and what should be a type parameter ... this is
of interest to avoid pitfalls.....


-
TDP

First things first, but not necessarily in that order.

The Doctor
wrote in message news:6345953@discussion.autodesk.com...
TDP-

let me put this into slightly different words for you
because this is one of the master keys to making
the transistion from AutoCAD to revit..



1. the way you start a revit project is to start by
building the walls.. the idea is to put the walls
in their approximate location and then place grid
lines somewhere near those walls and then align
and lock those grid lines to the walls- and then
dimension those grid lines with the walls locked
to those grids..

this means you can start a project from a pencil
sketch or any CAD sketch of a floorplan..

importing that sketch into revit as an image and tracing
over it just makes it a little more convenient than having
the printed sketch next to your monitor- but not all
that much.. because again- all you want to do is
place your walls in their approximate location to start
the project..

there is no point in trying to place accurate lines into
revit for starting walls- because the accuracy of those
lines means nothing to revit..

2. don't EVER import DWG's into your revit project..
yes revit can import DWG files- but it is seriously bad practice..
it brings with them a myriad of layers/objects that get converted to
linetypes- and your materials- text styles- filled regions- etc. etc.-
gets ALL screwed up.. basically your revit file turns into a major
case of FUBAR..

you CAN- if you want to save a few minutes building a site
plan- LINK a DWG into a separate session of revit and use
it for a temporary underlay to create a toposurface and
"revitize" it- and then LINK that revit site file to your building file..

[#2]

TDP-

i'm not sure why you mention AutoCAD- but it's
very clear to me that AutoCAD will soon be phased
completely out of architecture.. no doubt in my mind
about that at all..

HOWEVER- AutoCAD Civil and it's little baby
brother AutoCAD LT for site plans will be involved
on that end of it for as far as anyone can see into
the future..

revit users have long talked about site tools in
revit- but the real site tools are AutoCAD LT
and AutoCAD Civil..

we need to master the use of DWG site plans
for creating revit site plans that we will export
to AutoCAD Civil..

these guys DEMANDING that DWG floorplans
and details be brought into revit are blowing
smoke and they don't know it..

but i would like to exchange ideas with you and
i don't care what names you call me as long as
we can continue the flow of ideas..

you mentioned revit families- and i understand
the basics of creating families and i can answer
most questions on that.. and i'm interested in your
experience in architecture..

[#3]

On 3/1/2010 3:10 AM, vector2 wrote:

> ... AutoCAD will soon be phased completely out of architecture..

Even I know better than that.

Terry

[#4]

Terry- i don't mean AutoCAD will completely
disappear from architecture.. it could be very
handy in the schematic phase drawing floorplans
for people who like to use it.. just as long as
they don't expect to cram those floorplans into
my revit project file- because that won't happen..

[#5]

Not true. AutoCAD is not any more accurate than Revit. In some cases Revit
is more accurate due to the way AutoCAD handles rounding of decimal places
in long decimal numbers.

"The Dark Princess" wrote in message
news:6345972@discussion.autodesk.com...

and autocad is more accuarte and precise than any revit model - and therein
lies the trap....

[#6]

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 16:30:20 -0800, Scott D Davis \(Autodesk\)
wrote:

>Not true. AutoCAD is not any more accurate than Revit. In some cases Revit
>is more accurate due to the way AutoCAD handles rounding of decimal places
>in long decimal numbers.

Okay, but you have to admit the fact that Revit can't draw little line segments
under 3/64" is kind of weird. Not that it matters much in day to day life, but
when importing high-quality CAD detail linework, it is a pain.

Matt
matt@stachoni.com

[#7]

I agree with you there. One of the founders posted a while ago on AUGI (i
think?) why the limitation was there for very small line segments. I'll see
if I can find it as it made some sense.

"Matt Stachoni" <...> wrote in message
news:6346817@discussion.autodesk.com...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 16:30:20 -0800, Scott D Davis \(Autodesk\)
wrote:

>Not true. AutoCAD is not any more accurate than Revit. In some cases
>Revit
>is more accurate due to the way AutoCAD handles rounding of decimal places
>in long decimal numbers.

Okay, but you have to admit the fact that Revit can't draw little line
segments
under 3/64" is kind of weird. Not that it matters much in day to day life,
but
when importing high-quality CAD detail linework, it is a pain.

Matt
matt@stachoni.com

[#8]

I seem to remember a solar-system-scale AutoCAD dwg with a little plaque on
the moon landing site.
Cheesy though it may have been, I think it was created in order to rub
uStn's nose in it.

Now, next week, I've got to start design work on a Dyson Sphere. Will I be
able to use Revit or will I need to stick with AutoCAD?



"Scott D Davis (Autodesk)" wrote in message
news:6347199@discussion.autodesk.com...
I agree with you there. One of the founders posted a while ago on AUGI (i
think?) why the limitation was there for very small line segments. I'll see
if I can find it as it made some sense.

"Matt Stachoni" <...> wrote in message
news:6346817@discussion.autodesk.com...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 16:30:20 -0800, Scott D Davis \(Autodesk\)
wrote:

>Not true. AutoCAD is not any more accurate than Revit. In some cases
>Revit
>is more accurate due to the way AutoCAD handles rounding of decimal places
>in long decimal numbers.

Okay, but you have to admit the fact that Revit can't draw little line
segments
under 3/64" is kind of weird. Not that it matters much in day to day life,
but
when importing high-quality CAD detail linework, it is a pain.

Matt
matt@stachoni.com

[#9]

On 3/2/2010 11:25 AM, David Kozina wrote:
> I seem to remember a solar-system-scale AutoCAD dwg with a little plaque on
> the moon landing site.
> Cheesy though it may have been, I think it was created in order to rub
> uStn's nose in it.
>
> Now, next week, I've got to start design work on a Dyson Sphere. Will I be
> able to use Revit or will I need to stick with AutoCAD?
>

I'd use Jupiter as originally planned

If you need some help let me know...
--
Dave - DDP
Acad and Revit 2010 64 bit
Win 7 Pro
Intel I7-860 @2.8GHz
8GB DDR3 RAM
GeForce GTX260

[#10]

BTW ... Adobe Illustrator will convert a PDF (created by autocad) back into a DWG file.  It's not the greatest DWG file but it remains dimensionally accurate to the original DWG file.  This newly created DWG file can then be LINKED into your model for tracing ...

Ian