Face Painting Tool and Paint material in families

[barthbradley]

According to Autodesk Knowledge Network, “The Paint tool applies a material to the selected face of the element or family; it does not change the structure of the element.”

Yes, in the Family Editor, I can use the Paint tool to apply a material parameter to selected faces of an element and it does not change the structure of the element (e.g. it does not change the element’s “core” material in Family cut views). However, when I load these painted Families into a Project, some of them will show their core material as the Paint Material; effectively showing paint over paint, with no visual delineation between the two materials in Project cut views. All of these Families’ materials itemize properly in Project schedules – but they just don’t all display the same in cut views.  

What am I doing wrong – and right? I’m at a loss to figure out why the inconsistency; why some are represented correctly and others are not.

Any suggestions?

Revit 2017.2

[ToanDN]

Welcome back!

My experience is that if the section cuts through the painted face then it will show the cut with the Paint material.

No it is getting complicated when you paint the surfaces with different materials.  My test shows that the section will shows the cut with the Paint material based on the order they are listed in the Material table.

[Viveka_CD]

Hi @barthbradley

Can you share your file to troubleshoot further?

Regards,

[barthbradley]

Thanks Toan! Missed you. I've been busier than a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest! Ha!

Yes, I kind of figured this was a Revit thing, but I thought I'd field the question anyways. These limitations seem to rear their ugly heads right at the end of a project when we're dotting all our "i's" and crossing all our "t's". It's not a show stopper - just an irritation. It's perplexing that it works with some but not all components in view. Maybe the "right" ones are the broken ones, not the other way around. Ha!

Thanks again for your input. Catch you later. 

[barthbradley]

Hi Viveka. There's nothing to share that you can't replicate yourself by painting faces of family elements yourself, be it elements created from extrusions, sweeps or joined geometry. Seems to be a point in painting process at which the core material gets "overridden". You don't see it in the family - all looks good there. It's when you load the painted family into the project that you see that the core has been changed to the paint material (in a section view of course.)

Try it yourself with a cube. Start painting one face at a time and loading each iteration into a project section view of the cube. A some point, one of those iterations will show the paint material all the way through the cube.  

What's interesting, is the affect the applying a glass material to the surface has on the solid's core material in a 3D view. It definitely "LOOKS" like it changes the structure of the element. This shouldn't happen according to Autodesk. 

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/revit-products/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2016/EN...

[Viveka_CD]

Hi @barthbradley

I was able to try the paint tool in a project especially with glass and two other materials.

Yes, the core material does get "overridden" when the family with different painted faces is loaded in a project and true there seems to be no visual separation.

Since you mentioned this happens in section cut views, can you tell us more about your project - in terms of where you are using this family and which category does this family belong to, etc?  How would you want the rendering to appear in terms of structure and appearance?  I will be glad to reach out to someone on the API team with details of your workflow and why this happens. Also let us know what version of Revit you are using?

@ToanDN the illustration is just cool and is interesting to note that the section represents the cut with the Paint material based on the order they are listed.

Regards,

[barthbradley]

Thank you Viveka.

I’m not really sure what additional information you’re seeking from me. It seems you’ve been able to replicate and can readily see “issue” I’m describing.  However, just to be clear, please note that I’m not talking about applying multiple different paint material types to different surfaces of the same element. This issue happens when the family geometry has just one material type paint parameter applied to a few of its surfaces.

As for your question about which category the families belong to, I’m not sure why you ask or why it matters, unless you know of family categories that this issue doesn’t happen with. If so, let me know and I’ll re-categorize my Generic Models to correct the issue – if need be. But from my troubleshooting, I haven’t discovered it to be category-related.

Nor, is it “Workflow” related. This is a visibility and graphics issue, as you have confirmed with your own testing. How we would like it to appear is exactly how it is we would like anything to appear; accurate and legible. We would like to see materials delineated appropriately in all views – including section views, be they 2D or 3D.  

Lastly, you mention “rendering”. If you’re meaning a photorealistic image of the 3D model, then painting faces of family elements also affects the appearance of their structure in project renderings as well – contributing to an inaccurate and sometimes confusing representation of the construction.

Regards.

P.S. BTW, we don’t paint surfaces with a Glass material. I only provided this as an example of how painting faces does change the structure of the element visually – contrary to what Autodesk says about the tool.  

Revit 2017.2

[Viveka_CD]

Hello @barthbradley

Sorry that its been a while since I got back to you! Hope you had a good break from your busy schedule.

Thanks for pointing out the fact in the article that suggests that the paint tool does not change the structure of the element, but it actually does.

We are trying to recreate this issue for a resolution or workaround.

you wrote:

__________________________________________________________________________

when I load these painted Families into a Project, some of them will show their core material as the Paint Material; effectively showing paint over paint, with no visual delineation between the two materials in Project cut views. All of these Families’ materials itemize properly in Project schedules – but they just don’t all display the same in cut views.

___________________________________________________________________________

After discussion with the API team, we would like to know what is this family category that you are trying to place in your project and how would you want it to appear (transparent, opaque).

When we tested a surface using a split face and then use a paint tool, it seems to maintain the structure in certain views. However that does not resolve the issue.

We understand that you would want the same appearance in 2D and 3D views and positive this is a visibility and graphics issue. We would like to test the family's appearance in rendering and the existing functionality of the paint tool and see if there is a scope for an improved functionality. If you have suggestions on improving functionality in the tool (like an add-on feature) do let us know. For eg.,Paint tool in Max/Maya have additional functionality.

There are a couple of 3rd party plugins like the Find and Replace Materials for Revit plugin and RTV paint plugin worth a try.

Regards,

[barthbradley]

Hello Viveka:

My take-away from reading your latest reply here – specifically from your mention that “we are trying to recreate this issue for a resolution or workaround” – has me a bit confused.

It was my understanding that you were able to recreate the issue yourself, as you indicated in your above reply dated 6/27/2017.  In that reply you stated: “Yes, the core material does get "overridden" when the family with different painted faces is loaded in a project and true there seems to be no visual separation.”

Are you now saying that you cannot recreate this issue? If so, this would be valuable feedback for us. Obviously, if you cannot recreate the issue, there is NO ISSUE with the software. Can you confirm whether or not you were able to recreate this issue please?

To answer your question about what family category this issue happens with; as I stated above, it happens with all categories we’ve tested: Generic Models, Doors, Windows, Specialty Equipment, etc.

Lastly, I am completely baffled by your question about how we want it to appear; transparent or opaque. Of course we want it to appear opaque! What would be the point of having transparent paint?

Regards.

P.S. I appreciate the links to the 3^rd party plugins you provided, but these have nothing to do with the issue here. These are plugins for the creation and application of paint materials. We have no problems doing either.

P.P.S. Since you ask, I’d like offer a suggestion here on how Autodesk can improve: WITH EACH NEW RELEASE, TEST AND VERIFY THAT A TOOL FUNCTIONS (OR STILL FUNCTIONS) THE WAY IT IS DESCRIBED IN THE HELP DOCUMENTATION.

As I am sure you will agree, the first step in trouble-shooting is confirming that a problem actually exists. Many of us rely on Autodesk’s on-line help documentation to determine whether or not a problem actually exists.

If Autodesk’s documentation states that a tool works a specific way and it does not, then we can reasonably conclude that the problem is real, and likely attributed to end-user error, or is hardware-related.  But what I’ve found over the years is that Autodesk’s documentation has often led us down a trouble-shooting rabbit-hole by indicating a tool function that is not accurate or tangible. This is extremely frustrating and time-consuming.

In this specific case, you seem to agree with me that the on-line help documentation published by Autodesk is misleading or plain wrong. Therefore, I would promptly correct that published information so that others aren’t led astray – spending time and resources chasing a rabbit that does not exist. 

[Viveka_CD]

Hello @barthbradley

Thank you for your response.

Focusing on the next steps, a problem report/bug has been generated for this issue.

Coming back to your question - this issue has been recreated, yet being investigated for further resolution by the team and improved functionality for the tool is under analysis. Additional detail will always help the team to understand what the end-user is looking for.

As asked in the previous post, we would like to know what is this particular painted family category that you were trying to place in your project specifically? We would like to see a screenshot of your project with this painted family.  (We perfectly understand the issue and the visual delineation part, but trying to understand your project specifications.) So I'm hoping this clarifies why we need these details

I was hoping that you'd share an idea regarding an add-on to the paint tool functionality like what other 3D products inherit. We welcome your suggestion on improving documentation, and yes, there is a requirement to correlate the problem with the feature functionality., a lot of effort is going into this based on priority and new ideas. 

However, I have to kindly disagree with your statements regarding documentation. Every tool is tested and the knowledge network articles are definitely beneficial till date. There have been cases where alternative solutions are provided. In this specific paint tool case; changes will be made once the tool has been investigated with all categories, and this is based on priority.

To help make this feature work the way that you expect, please place a product enhancement request directly through the Product Feedback page.

Regards,

[barthbradley]

@Viveka_CD :

I thought it was evident to you what we were “looking for”.  You told me that you were able replicate a problem and thanked me for bringing it to your attention.  That’s why I was wondering what more you needed from me.

Perhaps, the attached exhibit I’ve prepared for you will give you a firmer understanding. I ran this exhibit by a co-worker’s third-grade son, and the kid grasp the issue immediately. Hope it’s helpful to the boys in the lab.

Frankly, this may not be so much an issue with the tool itself, but with the documentation about the tool. I understand your good soldiering defense of knowledge network articles, but it may be an over-statement to say the paint tool does not change the structure of the element.

Not to burst your “kindly” bubble, but we’ve tested this tool in Revit 2016 as well.  Unfortunately, we get the exact same results – results that Autodesk clearly states shouldn’t happen.  According to their knowledge network article dated February 7, 2017 and applying to Revit 2016: “the Paint tool does not change the structure of the element”.  

So, is our testing flawed, or is yours? Or – do our definitions of “structure” differ? Those questions are the reasons I posted to this user forum in the first place; instead of opening a support case through Autodesk. As I pointed out at the onset of this thread: this is just a visibility and graphic issue for us. It does not affect the accuracy of our material take-offs. So, naturally, I’m wondering if this is typical behavior, or caused by “loose nuts behind our keyboards” (ha, ha). Unfortunately, this thread has become so bloated now; that I doubt it will encourage others’ feedback.

Regards