Put building grid BEHIND other items

[NigelParsons4560]

Hello,

How do I set the building grid to be underneath columns and other structures instead of on top?

[CoreyDaun]

Grids are annotation elements, so they will always appear on top of model elements. I am curious as to why you would want the Grid lines to be underneath the model elements, though - are you aiming to mask the line?

[NigelParsons4560]

Hello CADastrophe,

Thanks for your prompt reply.

One thing I've discovered about Revit: the people who write the software don't have a background in the field of Architecture or drafting.

We draw building grids in a navy blue colour.  We draw section lines in sepia.  Much of the annotation linework is done this way.  It helps builders identify the linework.  Traditionally, these two colours were used for such linework because when ink on tracing paper went through the dyeline or amonia machine, the prints would print the sepia as a dark grey and the blue as a light grey.  This gave draftsmen three separate tones on the plan.  Also, correct drafting practice is to ensure that grid lines don't actually make contact with the colums placed on the grid.  This ensures that builders don't confuse the grid line with something that should be built.

Revit allows grid lines to run through columns.  It's not smart enough to ensure that grid intersections always have a line .. ie: + ... and it's not smart enough to put the grid line behind the column.

Out in the field, where drawings get turned into buildings, project managers and supervisors are calling us to ask for the specification of the "thing" inside the column.  Also, we often run down pipes through a column.  A 100mm or 150mm down pipe looks like a smudge when the grid lines go through it.

Cheers

N.

[rosskirby]

Hi Nigel.

There is no way to do what you want.  That's the short story.

That being said, here's the long story.  You're fighting a losing battle.  If your contractor's are confused by a column line, and think it should be built, then you've got a long road ahead, regardless of the software you're using to generate construction documents.  Having used Revit on projects for the last 6 years (around 250 projects), neither of the two firms I've worked for in that time have ever once had a GC, plans examiner, or owner make a remark about the way the column lines are represented.  Before I came to Revit, I never drew column lines the way you describe (another 6 years prior to my Revit experience), and similarly never had an issue.

Perhaps it's a regional thing, as I'm guessing you're not American (apologies if I'm mistaken).  In that case, perhaps the best thing to do is use the "gap" feature built into colum lines, and just have them stop at the exterior of the building.  The structural drawings will indicate where columns are to be built, since the GC should be looking at the structural drawings for that scope anyway, not at the architectural.  The structural grid on the architectural drawings should only be shown for coordination purposes (i.e. to locate the distance certain elements are from a given column line).  If you have a lot of information happening in one place (i.e. pipes, etc. in a column chase), then an enlarged detail should be created to clarify exactly what is happening there.  The same would be true of any condition where the information isn't clearly readable at a certain scale.

I hope you can find a solution, but for most of us, it would be to a problem that doesn't really exist.  Good luck!

[NigelParsons4560]

Hi Ross,

Thanks for your timely reply.

I appreciate your position on this matter but please consider mine: it is usual for me to recieve unsolicited compliments on the quality of my drawings.  On at least two occasions, consent authorities have used my plans to demonstrate the level of informatino and clarity they would like to see on submissions.  I may be fighting a losing battle, but Autodesk should take note and consider what makes a good drawing great.  Everything I ask for in this forum is achievable in AutoCAD and, dare I mention the opposition, ArchiCAD!

[rosskirby]

Hi Nigel,

I can understand your frustration with the inablity of Revit to replicate what you have developed as your standard, your graphic signature.  Unfortunately, Revit is geared to satisfy the most people possible, and to open Revit's customization up to the same level that you have in AutoCAD would be, in my own personal opinion, a mistake.  Just take a look at how tedious/confusing it is to simply create a new text or dimensioning style in AutoCAD.  Setting up a new dimension style alone involes adjusting the settings on up to 7 different tabs!  

Sure, you may be able to create some kind of graphic masterpiece that is completely different than what anyone else is doing, or has ever done, and I completely respect your desire to do so.  However, that kind of customization/graphic signature means nothing to me (or my company).  What matters to us is the ability to effectively communicate the design.  In that respect, does it matter if the grid lines are in front of or behind the geometry?  In my experience, the answer would be 'No'.

I don't want this conversation to devolve into a 'which software can do what' thing, so I'll just leave it at this.  You have to pick your battles.  Are there things I'd like to see done differently in Revit?  Absolutely.  Are there other programs that can do those things the way I want (and that aren't made by Autodesk)?  Yep.  But I've found that the more I adapt my workflow to the way Revit "wants" to work, the smoother my projects run, and the fewer headaches I have.  No software will ever be able to meet everyone's needs.

I do hope you continue to post your issues with Revit, and I hope that I can help work through some of them with you.  Getting a fresh perspective on how other people are trying to use Revit can lead to changes in the software, but those changes will likely have to be geared towards affecting the most people possible in order to get them implemented.

[NigelParsons4560]

Hi Ross,

Thanks for your prompt reply.

No, to tell you the truth, I spent an hour or so looking at ArchiCAD during my lunch break today.  I can pick up ArchiCAD staff as easily as Revit staff.  While I applaud Autodesk for the things that Revit does well (most things), they get an "F" for listening to internatinal customers.

I just can't agree with your last post.  If Autodesk was truly interested the general tone of this thread would be different ... and, by way of yet another example, leader arrows could be drawn with an angle greater than 90°!!!  No one has ever given me a reason why it is unaceptable to draw an arrow head at an angle of 120° ... oh wait! ... it's not in the American Architectural Graphics Standards ... right?

[VascoPereira]

Hi Ross,

I know this is quite an old post but I have many users frequently complaining about this issue and I think you completely missed the point by the way you responded to the issue. Comparing the way you work with Autocad and Revit is totally a different question. All we needed was a simple feature that would allow you to show grids behind model elements, thats it! 
And it would make a big difference to anyone that cares about the graphic apearance of his drawings. Autodesk is just not interested as Nigel said.

Vasco

[NigelParsons4560]

Hi Vasco,

They never listened to me about ANY of the features I wanted.

Autodesk no longer offers perpetual licenses, so I have to rent additional copies at around $4k per year each.

I still have my Revit, but now have 2 copies of ArchiCAD and two staff who use it.

Builders are now complimenting me on the quality of my drawings again.

Cheers

Nigel.

[chrisplyler]

I agree the "NEED" for this is low. But still, it WOULD be nice to:

1. Allow gridlines to display/print BEHIND model elements. I do change my gridlines to halftoned, and if I don't make my model lines heavy enough, the gridlines will HIDE the elements. Sure, I can work around that and deal with it, but wish I could just put the grids behind.

2. Provide for some "gap distance" similar to MEP hidden line settings. Sure, again, not really necessary, but nobody could ever argue that it wouldn't be nice.

I get that Revit's primary purpose is satisfying the most users, but that doesn't mean Autodesk should just never improve the little things. Sure, a good-enough drawing gets the job done. But a GREAT drawing - for plenty of us - sends us home at the end of the work day satisfied with our lives. When every gridline stops just the same distance away from a column or exterior wall, hides underneath, and then reappears that same distance on the other side of the elements... it just warms our hearts.

[Karol_Piroska]

I just want to add that this is not only about grids but levels too. It happened numerous times that line of wall, columns, floors, model lines etc were hidden behind grids or levels and caused mistakes and misinterpretation.

I truly think the development team should implement more ideas from the list people post (and there are many great ones) because frankly very little has been done to make the software more user friendly.

[Viveka_CD]

Hello @NigelParsons4560 and @Karol_Piroska

We are listening!

Your ideas are welcome!

I encourage you to contact the product team directly through the Product Feedback page.

The link below go into more detail about the best ways to make suggestions.

Raising enhancement requests for Autodesk products

This is an opportunity for our customers to give continuous feedback on ideas, designs, and early builds.

Regards,

[NigelParsons4560]

Hello Viveka,

I'll bet you're pretty new to Autodesk, at least, compared to me.  I began using AutoCAD in 1985 and migrated to Revit in 2005.

Since 2005 I have made many requests through official channels for three features:

1.  Better control over visibility of Grids, including transparency control, in front, behind or through control;

2.  Better control over families for dimension ticks, ie: ability to make our own ticks;

3.  Better control over families for leader arrows, ie: ability to have arrow heads wider than 90° and create our own arrow families.

I have requested these features numerous times through numerous channels, including official Autodesk channels such as that you mention in your post.

However, on grounds of abundant caution, I shall do so yet again, once more, for about the 15th time, using the link provided by you.

The predictable response, as in the past, will be that I should follow relevant Architectural Graphic Standards ... written some 15 years after I graduated as an Architect....

Thanks.

Nigel

[NigelParsons4560]

There ... done.

[Viveka_CD]

Hello @NigelParsons4560

Great to know that you are a veteran AutoCAD and Revit user! Good to connect with you in the Autodesk community! 

I saw that you have your practice in Australia and your message on 'past informing future' with regard to heritage conservation is just awesome.

I've hopped on from the AutoCAD -3dsMax - Photoshop route of products before venturing into Revit yr 2006

Since you mentioned - following Architectural Graphic Standards is rather cumbersome - is there a feature/ template you are looking for inside Revit, to match Australian building codes?

Thanks for posting your feedback again this time on the channels as suggested. Please don't lose hope, ideas do get implemented by the API/ dev teams - they are based on priority, votes and importance level.

I will register a feature request on your behalf as well, and keep you posted for updates.

Let me know if you have additional requests, Glad to help!

Regards,

[Viveka_CD]

Hello @NigelParsons4560

I have posted your idea to the idea station - link HERE

Let me know if you want additional details here. Please vote for the idea to gain momentum. We will follow up from there based on the scrum team's priority.

Best Regards,

[RobDraw]

---

@NigelParsons4560 wrote:

One thing I've discovered about Revit: the people who write the software don't have a background in the field of Architecture or drafting.

---

How did you discover this? Revit was originally built by architects for architects.

Revit has a lot of graphical issues. It always has and probably always will. Some of the seemingly simple things have not changed. I'm pretty sure if any of them were easy to fix, it would have been done by now. If you want your graphics perfect, pick a different platform.

[mwolford]

I'm not sure why some are saying it's not the norm when it most certainly is. (Placing grids in the "back" and halftoned. I go back to the pen/pencil age and grid lines were never prominent.  Placing the grids and levels in the front like Revit does, will mask a wall line if it happens to be in the same plane. Also levels will mask the floor line. Levels aren't too bad because I usually pull them back, but grid lines need to pull through the plan and do, most assuredly, mask wall lines that fall in the same line.

[NigelParsons4560]

Robdraw's post earlier is the BEST advice I've ever received.  I have looked at ArchiCAD and Bently's AEC0Sim products.  Both are great.  I now have two new copies of ArchiCAD and it works well.

Don't be afraid to try other software.  There's plenty of other good BIM software out there.

[payam.rad]

Nigel, 

I see your frustration here. I have a workaround that I do, not the best solution, but it will help you achieve the graphics and look you are after. I usually create a duplicate of the plans, bring them both on the sheet and overlap them on the sheet. (it's important which view you bring onto the sheet first, since it will always stay at the background). then I create two view template, one with grids only and apply it to the first plan I placed on the sheet. second view template is for everything else except for the grids. apply your two view templates to the two plans and you get what you are hoping to achieve...

Good luck! 

Give a kudos if this works for you!