Anuncios
Welcome to the Revit Ideas Board! Before posting, please read the helpful tips here. Thank you for your Ideas!

Show Levels In 3D views

 

Hi

 

show Level In 3d view or Setting up in VG.

 

 

3D level and Grid.jpg

[title and description edited to remove "and Grid"]

Comentarios
Anonymous

Show all gridlines and levels in a 3D view.

Autodesk
Autodesk
El estado se ha cambiado a: Under Review

Thanks for your submission and votes on this idea!  We are evaluating where this request falls into our roadmap and will provide an update when we have made a decision. 

 

The Factory

Anonymous

In addition to 3D visibility for grids:  Given the nature of buildings is departing from strictly rectangular in favor of angular and irregular designs, it would be extremely helpful to have 3D grids--   Grids that can slope in elevation.  Tirangulated frame structures would rejoice at this!

Advocate
Advocate

Yes, please add the ability to see grids and levels in 3D views. Allow the visibility to be controlled, probably in Visibility/Graphics (maybe Grids and Levels move to the Model tab from the Annotations tab?). Hopefully, this shouldn't be hard to figure out, since it is already implemented in the conceptual massing environment, and once upon a time in a thing called Vasari.

 

Speaking of Vasari, reminds me of how modeling in perspective worked there, and was just a toggle to turn perspective on or off (did't require placing cameras or anything). But that's a topic for a different idea.

Anonymous

Please make the levels like Vasari had!!!!

Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Allowing 3-dimensional Gridlines would be very powerful. Seems like inclusion of REFERENCE LINES at the Project Level would be a start. After that, allowing Reference Lines to be NAMED would be even better (as well as allowing access to a reference line's workplanes, both along its length and perpendicular planes at its ends, by Name). Then, add the rest of grid functionality (category assignment, grid bubble tagging options, breaks in grid per view, as well as structural member association).

In addition, after POLYLINES have been implemented in Revit, Multi-segmented grids could be made on the fly by joining grid segments-- this could work for 2D AND 3D grids. I know what you're thinking: how can we implement Reference Lines or 3D grids, which would likely be driven by end points that are sometimes shared among separate lines/grids and would want to be controlled by a shared POINT, if Reference POINTS aren't accessible at the Project Level? Answer: Reference POINTS should be accessible at Project Level, be namable, and be autonomous to move independent of Reference Planes. (This functionality is already somewhat possible using Adaptive point families).

Given the increase in parametric processes and structural integration, and that these workflows rely heavily on points, lines/arcs/curves, polylines/polycurves, and Nurbs curves, Revit should make a real and strategic effort to maintain and Improve these functionalities on its end, even if only to talk better with Dynamo, and hopefully in a way that is also useful without it.
Anonymous
I want to see Structural Column Tags carry 3D text labels. Reason is, when I tag all the structural columns, I want the column grid to get exported into Navisworks. This way I don't have to deal with looking at gridlines. I will only see the 3D grid intersection at each column.
Observer
Observer

Why we don't have the ability to see grids / levels in Revit Project model in 3D is a mystery to me...but certainly a MUST. Autodesk should have this at the top of the list. 

Community Manager
Community Manager
El estado se ha cambiado a: Accepted

Congrats! We love this idea as we are always looking for better ways to let you edit in 3D, so we are marking it as Accepted. Because implementing visualization for Grids in 3D requires separate development time, we have split this idea in two. We are accepting Levels in 3D only at this time.

 

If you would also like to see Grids in 3D please vote on that idea here:

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/3d-grids-for-3d-views/idi-p/6696195

Anonymous

Looks so familiar!!!!!

 

 

Screenshot5.png

Advisor
Advisor

FYI, there's a new 3d Grids for 3d views idea (the one @sasha.crotty linked to got archived).

Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Advocate
Advocate

Makarov_d, that work around you shared is unfortunately just that, a work around, and misses the point of this idea. We're looking for a dynamic 3D representation in Revit for levels (and grids - please go vote on that idea!). 

 

For my 2 cents, I think it should work like the 3D levels/grids/reference planes from old Vasari (and the Revit conceptual modeling environment) - see saltsmans post above. Also has the benefit that it should be easier to implement, since they've already done it at least once before...

Advisor
Advisor
Why only levels? Where are grids lost? Show 3D-grids is much more important! Please do not leave half the solution again!
Advisor
Advisor

@Extraneous The 3D Grids is a separate idea: 3d Grids for 3d views (& linked to above).

Advisor
Advisor

@lionel.kai The grids and levels are almost the same object, they had to be realized together! We voted for your idea only for "3d grids". When the idea gained a lot of votes and was "accepted" - it was renamed, "grids" was removed. Fine. Another idea looks completely wrong, and it is "not accepted." And Autodesk developers understood you literally - 3d levels are already implemented (and well done), 3d grids is not. So it goes.

Advisor
Advisor

@lionel.kai It looks like a betrayal.

Enthusiast
Enthusiast

@Extraneous  Perhaps they separated to allow more in depth examination of each?  Grids may not always be plane-like. :cara_guiñando_un_ojo:

Advisor
Advisor

@Extraneous There are a lot of communication issues between Autodesk and its customers, including (but not limited to) how much we're supposed to keep ideas separate. I've had to repost multiple ideas when a single (combined) idea was archived, but recently I've also seen ideas being combined that were related, but not quite the same...

 

That said, I understand why they're treating these as two separate ideas. Also, I get the impression that Grids in 3D Views is "accepted" (even if it doesn't officially have that status). While I could be wrong, I think they just need a separate idea voted on to justify their development time. I also understand them starting with Levels, as they're "simpler" (can only be one plane) and any issues they solve (with controls & visibility) can also be applied to Grids, when they implement them (though they'll also have to deal with multi-segment issues).

Advisor
Advisor
@lionel.kai yes, all this is understandable, but all the same "acceptance", "combining" of ideas raises big questions. One of my ideas, too, was combined with non-similar idea; "ideas" are accepted with few voices, and popular ones are ignored. There is a suspicion, this whole portal is a splurge. We all need to be more attentive to our ideas. Perhaps, 3d-grids will indeed be realized later due to "multisegmentation". I track progress on the beta portal and I hope for the best.
Advisor
Advisor

Apparently they also use other factors, such as how easy it would be to implement, and probably just the personal opinion of whoever's looking at them (unfortunately, that's almost guaranteed to not be someone with recent real-world experience using the software in production). I once had an idea accepted almost immediately with only a few votes, but other ones I think would be really valuable (and even relatively easy to implement) get archived and stagnate even after re-posting (such as Beam System: "Minimize Number" Layout Rule). It's also not always about popularity, since a lot of that will depend on how well you "market" your idea, and the people on this forum aren't necessarily representative of the industry as a whole. Something like access Line Weights (settings) from Dynamo and/or Revit API (which would benefit a lot of people through add-ins that would help maintain/enforce standards easily) also gets no votes from non-programmers. Something about the system needs to change. I like how AUGI has a 2nd round of "ranking" ideas (though their process needs some moderation - they had a lot of duplicates and old/implemented in 2011 ideas this year), but we need more than just that.

 

It's all definitely very frustrating. I also try to spend some time with the beta, since once the feature gets released, if it's poorly implemented it's nearly impossible to get it fixed (we have to go through the whole process again). But it's impossible to check everything, and stuff slips through (like the Line Pattern pull-down) that would have been easy to fix while it was being messed with, but I'd consider it to be a very low priority now.

Community Manager
Community Manager

As Lionel mentions, there are a lot of factors that go into accepting an idea. Our ability to implement an idea depends on team availability, priority of other projects, size, value to the Revit Idea community, value based on customer discussions or feedback. One example is the buy a feature excercise at BILT where, unlike Revit Ideas,the amount you can spend is constrained to $50. The feedback clearly shows that not all top-ranked ideas are created equal).I'll add that because there are numerous inputs into the decisions, I wouldn't worry too much about how many relative votes an API ideas have. We review API requests with a very different lens.

 

In the case of this idea, have you considered that this idea may require the skills from different teams? 

 

Regarding the line pattern pull down, I sent this on to the team. I agree with you that this would be nice to resolve. However, we specifically created the beta to catch these kinds of issues, so it's unfortunate that no one caught it in time (although it is also entirely possible that there is a technical limitation here that isn't easy/possible to overcome). I encourage everyone to test Revit before release so that we have an opportunity to fix issues early. The more people testing, the more likely we are to find problems.

 

 

Advisor
Advisor

@sasha.crotty Thanks for the response, but that Line Pattern pull-down issue is probably one of those ideas that (if were on your BILT board) I wouldn't even spend the $5 on. If I had seen it listed as a feature in the beta, I would have commented on it, but I suspect that it was just a drive-by improvement that happened under the radar. I've been wondering a lot about how you handle "smaller" ideas (that shouldn't require a whole "team" to accomplish)? Does every change really need 5+ programmers working on it for a week?

 

I like that budget idea, btw. It's something that's been asked for in one of the "improve Revit Ideas" threads - let us know how much effort each idea will take (because it doesn't always line up with our estimate) and then let us "spend" a budget. It works great on a fixed subset of ideas (as at BILT), but not sure how it could be implemented on the (huge) live list.

 

FYI, I would have bought "Annotation Tag Justification" (because it would have the broadest impact on how we 'do Revit': using Tags instead of Text in details), "Allow Text in Formulas", and maybe "dropdown lists for parameters".

 

Similar to the frustration with not being able to Schedule and/or Tag all built-in parameters, it's very frustrating not having API access to all settings (at least read-only). One of the first things I wanted to do with Revit was automate the maintenance and enforcement of standards (like I did with LISP in AutoCAD), but not being able to do a simple thing like get a list of all the V/G or Object Styles (or line weights, as previously mentioned) causes my add-in to die before it even gets out the gate...

Autodesk
Autodesk
El estado se ha cambiado a: Implemented

Hi Everyone,

 

We are pleased to announce that with the 2019 release of Revit, we have added the ability to display levels in 3d views!  We also enabled scope boxes in 3d and added functionality so that the levels match the scope box when a view is set to it.   We are marking this idea as implemented.  If you have other requests for levels in 3d views and additional functionality, please feel free to vote on ideas for those or submit new ones.  We want to hear from you. 

 

Thanks, 

The Factory  

Advisor
Advisor

@harlan_brumm **** job.
Initially, this "idea" was about the 3D axis, we all voted just for it. Then you renamed to "3D levels" and "successfully implemented". If your work is anti-advertising of the Autodesk, then you are doing great.

Advisor
Advisor

As requested by development, I've created a separate idea to complete their implementation of Levels in 3D Views: 3D/2D Extents of Levels (in 3D Views) should "lock" and "snap" to each other. Please vote for it!

 

On a related note, please also vote for my AU 2018 class proposal: “Ridiculous Revit Workarounds - things you SHOULDN'T need to know, but DO!” (search for "ridic").

Autodesk
Autodesk
El estado se ha cambiado a: Gathering Support
 
Autodesk
Autodesk
El estado se ha cambiado a: Implemented