Revit Architecture Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Revit Architecture Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Revit Architecture topics.
abbrechen
Suchergebnisse werden angezeigt für 
Anzeigen  nur  | Stattdessen suchen nach 
Meintest du: 

Floor Finish layers going through wall in 3D, but the geometry between the two is correct in section.

18 ANTWORTEN 18
GELÖST
Antworten
Nachricht 1 von 19
shamikshinde
797 Aufrufe, 18 Antworten

Floor Finish layers going through wall in 3D, but the geometry between the two is correct in section.

view below is made through a section box. As you can see the floor finish layers at the front of the cut shows currectly as desired (even in section), but taking a section through the walls shows the layes embedded inside the walls. If I switch join geometry then these layers disapper, but the wall finish then goes down till the floor core. I dont want that. I even ran a material takeoff to see if this was just a graphical issue but the finish quantity comes more than needed.

 

3d.png

18 ANTWORTEN 18
Nachricht 2 von 19
barthbradley
als Antwort auf: shamikshinde
Nachricht 3 von 19
shamikshinde
als Antwort auf: barthbradley

I tried playing around with the priorities, but I think everything seems fine with regards to that. Below is a section view. The problem is, if the section view is correct, why does the 3D view show the layers going through the wall? Also, note that in the 3D view, I made the section box intersect with the wall thickness. If I do not do that, then all is good. But the messing up of the quanitity takeoff bothers me. Check the revit file attached below.

 

Screenshot (17).png

Nachricht 4 von 19
barthbradley
als Antwort auf: shamikshinde

Have you used Join Geometry Tool between them? In the correct order? If not, use Switch Join Order.  

Nachricht 5 von 19
barthbradley
als Antwort auf: shamikshinde
Nachricht 6 von 19
barthbradley
als Antwort auf: shamikshinde

You are welcome to post your RVT File here.  I can take a look and see. 

Nachricht 7 von 19
shamikshinde
als Antwort auf: barthbradley

I did. As i said at the start, that does make the finish layers behave properly. Even the quanitites come out correct. But the wall finish then penetrates the floor finishes. I do not want that. I tired changing the priorities of the layers of both wall & floor to check if it behaves differently but nothing happens.

Wall finish penetrating Floor finishWall finish penetrating Floor finish

Nachricht 8 von 19
shamikshinde
als Antwort auf: barthbradley

here is the revit file

Nachricht 9 von 19
shamikshinde
als Antwort auf: barthbradley

Using layer extensions would, surely solve the problem, but doing this everywhere in the project would be a tedious process.
Nachricht 10 von 19
ToanDN
als Antwort auf: shamikshinde

Create parts from the floor and schedule parts for material takeoff.

Nachricht 11 von 19
barthbradley
als Antwort auf: shamikshinde

isn't this how it's supposed to join? 

 

Priorities.png

Nachricht 12 von 19
barthbradley
als Antwort auf: shamikshinde

Like this? 

 

Priorities1.png

Priorities2.png

 

If so, adjust the floor sketch boundary.  

Nachricht 13 von 19
barthbradley
als Antwort auf: shamikshinde

Seems to me that this is the way it should be.

 

Priorities3.png

....bottom line, correcting the floor sketch boundary and  priorities will get you to where you want to go. 

Nachricht 14 von 19
shamikshinde
als Antwort auf: barthbradley

This is correct. That how I want it to be. Please ignore how it will actually be constructed on site as I am using this example just for the issue I am facing. Now.... this result is achievable by me as show in the very first image when I created this post. The wall gypsum layer penerates just the oak flooring and not the sheathing. Thats what correct. But can you please try making the section box cut the thickness of the wall? i can see the image you shared has both the interior & exterior wall finishes visible. Because that is where revit is messing something up. I have attached image below where the quantites are incorrect. Floor simplied into a 1x1m Object to get 1sqm as area, but its incorrect in schedule.Floor simplied into a 1x1m Object to get 1sqm as area, but its incorrect in schedule.

 

In the second image below i tried breaking down the floor into parts as suggested by @ToanDN , this methods shows the correct results as an approximation, but this will be a super tedious process for larger projects.Here, the flooring quanitity comes out correct.Here, the flooring quanitity comes out correct.

Nachricht 15 von 19
shamikshinde
als Antwort auf: barthbradley

Check the video below

 

 

Nachricht 16 von 19
barthbradley
als Antwort auf: shamikshinde

I get it now. This is about MTOs- not graphics. That wasn't made clear to me in your first post. I see now that this isn't about "Floor Finish layers going through wall in 3D, but the geometry between the two is correct in section", which is the topic/title - and what all your screenshots are illustrating.   This is about material quantities not being reported accurately in a Material Takeoff Schedules.

 

This issue, limitationshortcoming, or however you want to characterize it, has been discussed, debated and cursed over - ad nauseum - on this forum since forever.  Use Parts (as @ToanDN suggested) -- or employ a "Parts" workflow. That is, model layers as separate and distinct Family Types (e.g. Hardwood Floor Type, Gypsum Board  Wall Type).  This is what we do alot.  But yeah, I agree; both approaches are more "tedious".  You have to decide whether or not it's necessary.   

Nachricht 17 von 19
barthbradley
als Antwort auf: shamikshinde

BTW: When I cut the Wall with a 3D Section Box, I get strange things are showing up here too. 

 

Section Box MM1.png

Section Box MM2.png

 

:zwinkerndes_Gesicht:

Nachricht 18 von 19
shamikshinde
als Antwort auf: barthbradley

:Gesicht_mit_Freudentränen::Gesicht_mit_Freudentränen::Gesicht_mit_Freudentränen::Gesicht_mit_Freudentränen:  The contractor is going be floored when a truck full of m&m shows up on site.

 

Anyways. Thanks for the help. I'll just keep the extra quantity, as I need a safe margin anyways. I thought that the problem was somehow linked to the graphics being shown incorrectly. Thank you once again.:daumen_hoch:

Nachricht 19 von 19
barthbradley
als Antwort auf: shamikshinde

:daumen_hoch:

Sie finden nicht, was Sie suchen? Fragen Sie die Community oder teilen Sie Ihr Wissen mit anderen.

In Foren veröffentlichen  

Autodesk Design & Make Report