Building pads don't seem to respect phases.

[Anonymous]

I have multiple building pads in a model because I have multiple phases to represent. The problem I'm having is that the pads are cutting the topo surface in all phases. When I check the properties for each pads they all appear to bel properly identified as being created in the appropriate phase and yet there doesn't seem to be any way to turn off the building pad for future work in the existing conditions. See attached image.

I suppose the other possibility is that the pads are not really in the views, but the topo, having been excavated in one view,stays excavated in all views and won't fill in???

Can anyone explain this and tell me how to disable the pads where and when they're not needed? I've tried hiding the pad elements in the views, but that doesn't seem to do anything. 

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Topography is copied to each phase and cut by the appropriate pad in that phase( ensure all pads are made on the correct phase therefore cutting the correct topography. Do one phase at a time. What is difficult is pads in the same location within different phases of a building life cycle i.e. original grade versus existing excavated grade versus proposed new works. You can get warnings that you cant create pads in the same location.

Cheers

G

[ToanDN]

Keep the topo and pads in a linked file for each phase.  Load them in the working file and map phasing properly.  One should not affect the others.

[dereksiemens]

2018 and building pads still don't work...  autodesk?

[Corsten.Au]

Hi

this may not be the solution you are looking for..

but to keep the model simple and easy to use...

1. Existing Building : Existing phase : within the Main File

2. Existing Topo : Exisiting phase : LINKED MODEL

3. Existing Topo pad : Existing phase: LINKED MODEL

3. New Topo : New Phase :  withing the main file...

This way you can even control the graphics in Main file.

Ex" Section of Building , you can show

1. Existing Topo : dashed line ( Natural Ground line )

2. New topo with proposed excavation, using new pad

Cheers!

[Anonymous]

The solution is to link in the site/topography from a 2nd Revit model.  Instead of using phases, use design options for your Existing and New Construction models.  This has worked perfectly for me. The naysayers will give you a hard time about linking/relinking updates to the topography and pads, but we don't care about them, right?  Right.

This is also a great solution that solves the absolute elevation issue where topography points do not match their elevation.  The building can be raised, dropped, or rotated and it's all good in this Revit hood.

[Anonymous]

I forgot to mention!  The other solution I have heard of but never tried is to manipulate the grade points to act like they are being cut by a pad.  In other words, if you have a pad 20' down, don't use a pad, use a floor, and then add additional topography points to force the elevation drop.  This way, you can keep everything in one model.  The reason I don't use this method is because I don't want to spend the extra time making all of those grade edits.  It's also a strange work around.  I highly suggest my previous post: Using a linked Revit model for the site (with design option phases) works flawlessly.

[SamuelAB]

@AnonymousI assume that through this method you are no longer able to determine the excavation amount between the topographies?

I mean workaround are great, but when you are paying 4000$ per year for a software, dignity and proper workflows should not be an extra. Autodesk needs to improve their topography tools, big time. Before they improve them, they need to reach minimal functionality levels, including proper phasing.

[Anonymous]

I agree! 

Not sure about the cut/fill.  That is another one of those "Wow, I can't believe this doesn't work better" tools. 

I need to take a break from typing this message to discuss the pros/cons of using a finish floor level vs a subfloor level.  Shoot me now.

[rhughes]

tkenn--amazing, that worked perfectly for me!  Why, I will never fully understand, but I can move on and get stuff done now.  Seems like this is buggy behavior, somehow the original topo is too sensitive to the phases before and after it, and just moving it away from home base per your example seems to shake off all the phasing issues, and now my pad looks correct.

THANKS!!!

[Anonymous]

You will need two copies of the topography. 

1. topography created in "existing" phase and demolished in "new construction"

2. the modified topography with building pad that was created in "new construction" phase

In 3D view or any other view you will see that under the building pad a separate topography element has been created to either rise or lower to match the elevation of the building pad. Because you have two topographies (1. created "existing", demolished "new construction" 2. created "new construction") that singular building pad created two copies of that underneath topo element. 

Delete this under-pad topo element that is associated with the existing topo and you will see the void from the pad goes away in existing, but appears in new construction. The under-pad topo that remains needs to be phased correctly to show it created in "new construction" only.

[Basam.Yousif]

Soooo nine and a half years after this post and we still have no fix for this issue.

However, today, I came up with a reasonable (if I can say so myself 🙂 ) workaround. By utilizing Design Options, you can "isolate" the topos so the pads can not cut into them. Other workarounds include using links, cheating by changing the category, using CAD links, but I think Design Options is the most reasonable workaround.

Here is a screencast video: https://autode.sk/2T2A8Fm

[Anonymous]

Been following this thread for the duration.  The Design Options approach seems appealing.  I tend to use DesOpt for various visualization needs, so it appears handy with this increased repertoire.  The file linking is workable too, but topography contributes to notoriously large files and craps out once in a while.  So more topo - > buy better machine, I guess...

[BMA-ADMIN]

Split the topo and demo at each phase rather than pads.  I don't use pads.

[Anonymous]

Hi! I tried to recreate the same file and setup as per your video (thank you!). In your video, it seems the Phase Filter was set to "Show New" and I got the same results as you. But when I changed the Phase Filter to "Show Previous + New" to show the Topography with no hole, the hole this appeared. Was this the case for you as well? Thanks!

[bill_gilliss]

STILL a problem in 2022!!!!  Aaugh.

[Anonymous]

I only raised it 12 years ago!! Good ol' AutoDesk!!

[ToanDN]

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-architecture-forum/topography-problem-with-phases/m-p/10905265#...

[hanksteinhardt]

A rent strike might motivate them.

[barthbradley]

---

@hanksteinhardt wrote:

A rent strike might motivate them.

---

A strike against Autodesk? What are we striking for?  What is on our list of demands?

FYI: Building Pads "respect" Phases for me.   I can't remember what it was like back in 2010 when this thread was originally started, but I've been able to Phase Building Pads for many years now. 

 

[Samuel.Arsenault-Brassard]

@barthbradleyThere are reproducible bugs in the latest Revit (2023)

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/fix-topography-not-responding-to-phases-properly/idi-p/68...

• Create a topography in Phase 1
• Add a Building Pad in Phase 2
• There is now a building pad-sized hole in your topography in Phase 1

Apparently there is an entirely new system for topography that is coming. Something that will allow us to have tunnels and fix some of the traditional problems that plague traditional topography.