Revit Architecture Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Revit Architecture Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Revit Architecture topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Top Constraint is invalid for the Level.

20 REPLIES 20
SOLVED
Reply
Message 1 of 21
DarkCrow
30944 Views, 20 Replies

Top Constraint is invalid for the Level.

Hi i'm having an issue.
I've been trying to construct a wal with the start leve being the ground floor and the finishing Level being First floor level. every time i try to do this tho i get this message occur

"Top Constraint is invalid for the Level."
What am i doing wrong?
20 REPLIES 20
Message 2 of 21
melarch
in reply to: DarkCrow

Are the Ground Floor Level and the First Floor Level the same datum elevation, even though their names are different. YOu cannot attach the base and top constraints to the same datum elevation, even though the names of the levels in the Project Browser are different.

Mel Persin, AIA
AEC Technology Consultant
Technology to Visualize and Realize Solutions
Modeling for the Future/Drafting in the Present/Building on the Past
Message 3 of 21
DarkCrow
in reply to: DarkCrow

No they aren't, and if i create a wall using the reference level as the base level it creates the wall. the i can modify it so that the base is ground floor level.
Message 4 of 21
fredrik
in reply to: DarkCrow

This is an old post, I know, but I need to revive it, since I have the exact same problem.

I even already have walls that use the exact same base and top constrains as the wall I'm trying to create. What am I doing wrong..?

All best
/Fredrik
Message 5 of 21
fredrik
in reply to: fredrik

Alright, I figured it out.
In the green "design bar" (on top) there is an option for "Height/Depth". If set to "Depth", Revit seems to expect a wall to be drawn from top to bottom, and setting a "top constraint" in this mode actually means the _bottom_ constraint of the wall, resulting in the an error where you on the one hand tell the program to draw from top to bottom, but on the other hand tell it to place the end point "below" the base. #Up-side-down-world

By changing this option to "Height", you are allowed to set any regular top constraint above your Base constraint.

Side note: The reason for even putting this option in, and on top of that making "Depth" the default, is beyond me.
It would have been so much easier for everybody if "top" actually meant top, regardless of what direction you usually draw your walls 😉

All best
/Fredrik
Message 6 of 21
damo3
in reply to: DarkCrow

I believe this is a function often used by structural engineers. I have seen a few discussions on this. They tend to work top down, hence the option. I noticed once, when i brought a column in from the revit library, its default function was depth instead of height. took me a while to work out why my columns werent showing in plan. 


________________________________________________________________________________
If you find posts have solved your problem, please don't forget to mark them as 'SOLVED' to help others with similar questions. - Thank you.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Message 7 of 21
SteveKStafford
in reply to: damo3

Historical anomaly...

 

Developers heard structural engineers describe their process as focused on designing structure at their feet while architect's tend to design thinking of structure supporting things above them. When placing a beam it is placed at the associated level of the current view (assuming working in a plan view) and unless the view is properly configured it won't be visible because the beam is actually below the level (top flange is flush with the level). As a result a typical structural floor plan view has a very different View Range configuration than a typical architectural floor plan.

 

When the developers created the column placement behavior originally (years ago) it only offered Depth. This confused us and we were told, "That's what you told us you wanted!" That's what was interpreted, incorrectly, from the input the developers received. We may place beams "at our feet" but we want columns to go from here up to the next level. They responded by adding the option/toggle for Depth/Height but the default behavior, at least in stock templates and deployments is Depth.

 

What's this got to do with walls? When you place a Structural Wall Revit has this same belief about Depth/Height, favoring Depth. In this case it is assumed that we don't usually design a basement first. More often we focus on habitable spaces first, usually the ground floor. Later we can sketch foundation walls by tracing the walls on the ground floor (looking at them in their plan view) using the Depth option. This means we can create walls that are aligned quite easily while working from a comfortable view. Alternatively we can use the Underlay setting in the basement plan to see the walls above too.

 

The settings we choose are remembered, for the most part, and quite often we see the error this thread started with when we forget that we used Depth and now we don't want that setting anymore. It also happens by default when we work with structural wall types and columns. We have to remember to check the Options Bar.

My other older self here: http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/46056
Message 8 of 21
fredrik
in reply to: damo3

I'm a structural engineer 🙂 We actually tend to look up, not down. The reason being [tradition] it makes sense to see what you need to carry on any particular level.
Maybe you are thinking of architects?
All best
/Fredrik
Message 9 of 21
SteveKStafford
in reply to: DarkCrow

I'm just relating what was told to me years ago by someone who worked on Revit. Many of the engineers I've worked with nod in agreement but it doesn't suprise me to meet someone who thinks differently. 🙂

My other older self here: http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/46056
Message 10 of 21
fredrik
in reply to: SteveKStafford

Same here, not surprising at all.
Side-note: I asked around, apparently it's more common west and south of here to draw that way as well. Since I'm where would be considered pretty much north, maybe it's not such a fringe thing, and the option makes sense all of a sudden :).
All best
/Fredrik
Message 11 of 21
fredrik
in reply to: SteveKStafford

Oh, and my last response was in reply to damo3 btw.
I totally believe your story. 🙂
All best
/Fredrik
Message 12 of 21
MRS.AFSA
in reply to: fredrik

So my option is set to "depth" in the green bar but it is grayed out so I can't switch it to height. What do I do?

 

 

Message 13 of 21
SteveKStafford
in reply to: MRS.AFSA

Assuming you are placing a Foundation wall type, you can only change it's base and top constraints to get it to extend between the correct levels. The option for Depth/Height is disabled for foundation walls.

My other older self here: http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/46056
Message 14 of 21
raulvillarreal01
in reply to: fredrik

Thanks bro.
Message 15 of 21
u3167707
in reply to: fredrik

You sir,

Hat off to you!
Message 16 of 21
rtholia
in reply to: SteveKStafford

It's disabled for Architectural walls as well. 

Message 17 of 21
chrisplyler
in reply to: rtholia

Well, you can't change it AFTER a wall is placed into the model. That Depth/Height option is available only when the Wall tool is active for placing new walls.

Message 18 of 21
max.blake
in reply to: DarkCrow

Just to add my own discovery...

 

One runs into this problem big-time when the "Function" of the wall is set to "Foundation" as the "Height/Depth" functionality is greyed out.

 

Capture.PNG

 

Something to keep an eye on.

 

M

Message 19 of 21
kcmc_bim
in reply to: fredrik

memo

Message 20 of 21
sschneiderXHH8R
in reply to: max.blake

Boom. 3 years later, nailed it. Thanks.

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Rail Community


Autodesk Design & Make Report