Aligning level heads

[gccdesign]

I'm new to Revit and having some difficulty with aligning level heads. Using 2018.2.

I have north, south, east & west elevations & sections.

The building has many levels and I am setting up a lot of levels for sub-floors, finish floors, roof levels and ceilings.

I am trying to align them (left & right sides) uniformly.

What I am finding is that I can get the left and right sides all lined up and locked with each other in one direction, like north and south. They will appear lined up in both the north and south elevations (and north and south facing sections).

Then when I go to align them in the east-west directions I can also do so. But for some reason aligning them in the east west views will then move many of them in the north-south views. If I then re-align them in the north-south views then they will get shifted in the east-west views.

As far as I can see the views are all 90 degrees from each other, in other words they aren't at some odd angle.

I have all views set with crop off and all levels are being adjusted in 3D and all are set to 3D extents.

I don't understand why aligning level heads in the north-south views changes some of them in the east-west views, and vice-versa.

Thanks,

GChapp

Edit:

I did find that if I deleted an offending level line, then replaced it by copying one that was behaving, then it worked fine. Also if I replace the offending one with a brand new one it behaves.

I did rotate the plan views at some point. I wonder if level lines made before and after the rotation of the views are behaving differently.

But you don't make levels in plan view.

GChapp

[Sahay_R]

When you click on one level, you will see a padlock - click on it to lock the end of the level. You will need to do that to each level.

OR Try selecting all the levels in an elevation view - click Propagate extents

[ToanDN]

Can you share the file without any elements, just the levels and the views where they moved?

Without the file, I can only suggest that you draw a scope box covering the model (X, Y, and Z), then select all the levels (and grids too) and assign the scope box to them.  That will ensure the extent consistency for all of them, and should you need to adjust them in the future, simply stretch the scope box and all the levels and grid will follow.

[SteveKStafford]

Fewer levels is far better than the number you describe. Generally a Level should be reserved for major vertical datum like nominal floor elevations. The subtle offsets required by structural steel, floor finishes, equipment, opening sills and head heights are not what Levels are meant for. Not only will you have an ongoing battle with appearance and alignment issues you describe but you'll also find view's view range settings and underlay behavior hard to cope with.

Scope Boxes are a good suggestion to manage all of the Level datum (Grids too).

You need to get familiar with the 3D/2D toggle behavior that Levels and Grids share. This factors into the alignment issue you describe. Also the annotation for Levels may appear at the same side of a level in opposite views but where the Level endpoints are is opposite. Dragging the Level end to the right in the East elevation alters the left end of the Level in the West elevation.

Good luck!

[gccdesign]

I just got back to this and made a new Revit project to test my theory.

I started with the residential template which starts out with a few levels. They all behave predictably.

Then I made an angled section and created a new level in this view. It behaves like the ones I was having trouble with. So conceptually it appears that the levels are created with rectangular extents for the linework aligned with the view in which it was created.

So for me, the moral of this story is to create your levels in views aligned with how you want to align your level heads.

Propagating extents didn't change the behavior. I won't say it didn't "fix" it, because I categorize this under learning how to use Revit rather than a Revit problem.

I fixed my project I was having trouble with by replacing the offending levels with ones created in a correctly aligned view.

Next I will look into the scope box.

GChapp

[gccdesign · Accepted solution]

Good food for thought.

This house has about 4 lower level floor heights, 2 upper floor heights, about 8 ceiling heights. Not the easiest for a beginner project.

But possibly I can use labelled  RPs instead for all these minor levels I need. Or offsets from the major levels.

I see what you mean by too much complexity from lots of levels.

Getting all the levels created in views that are aligned the same way (directly opposing or perpendicular) handled the problem I was having. They are all predictable and aligning as I need them to now.

Thanks for the advice.

GChapp

[ToanDN]

---

@gccdesign

This house has about 4 lower level floor heights, 2 upper floor heights, about 8 ceiling heights. Not the easiest for a beginner project.

But possibly I can use labelled  RPs instead for all these minor levels I need. Or offsets from the major levels.

I see what you mean by too much complexity from lots of levels.

---

I am not a big fan of placing Levels whenever there is a horizontal plane.  For the example you provided I wouldn't need any Levels for the ceilings.  Ceilings themselves can host elements either as faces or as work-planes.   The height is readily accessible based on the Floor level they serve. 

The only time I may have considered doing it is, for example:  If I need a consistent ceiling height for all the corridor ceilings scattering around a big campus but and the desired height is not set in stone.  Using a Level here is a good way to change all the ceilings' height at once.

If you insist on using many Levels, you could organize them by:

- Different Level types to graphically distinguish them

- Check the box for Level for Building Story and Structural properly

- Keep them in different worksets such as Primary Levels and Secondary Levels

[SteveKStafford]

For a residential project I'd only use levels for each floor (top of substrate), top plate at roof, slab (if basement) and footing elevation(s). Finish floors and ceilings etc is overkill and won't report useful elevation values in a schedule. A ceiling assign to a ceiling level will show a height of zero.

Think of it this way, how many levels would you see in a drawing done by hand or in AutoCAD? People often overthink Revit's levels purpose. I relate it back to construction. What does this light fixture relate to? It's height above the floor if no ceiling and the ceiling surface if there is one. Furniture sits on a floor which is represented by a level. The finishes may vary in thickness and traditional drawings did not delve into that except in large scale details. When we model floors as finishes separately, which is a good idea, they merely need to offset above their level by their thickness so they mimic reality.

My 0.02 cents 🙂

[Viveka_CD]

Hi @gccdesign

I am checking back to see if posts helped you with your problem. 

Please hit the Accept as Solution button if a post or posts solves your issue or answers your question, so other Community members may benefit.

Regards,