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.
Gelöst! Gehe zur Lösung
Gelöst von barthbradley. Gehe zur Lösung
Gelöst von ToanDN. Gehe zur Lösung
Check the priorities of the layers.
https://help.autodesk.com/view/RVT/2023/ENU/?guid=GUID-1CCD1005-CBDA-4338-8D60-489095D4BB25
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.
Have you used Join Geometry Tool between them? In the correct order? If not, use Switch Join Order.
If you don't want to use Join Geometry, then use Layer Extension.
https://help.autodesk.com/view/RVT/2025/ENU/?guid=GUID-93F44C38-8158-4F7D-94E3-C076E1367786
https://help.autodesk.com/view/RVT/2025/ENU/?guid=GUID-E11C1335-5CC2-4001-8563-021E01CCF829
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 finish
Seems to me that this is the way it should be.
....bottom line, correcting the floor sketch boundary and priorities will get you to where you want to go.
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.
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.
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, limitation, shortcoming, 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.
BTW: When I cut the Wall with a 3D Section Box, I get strange things are showing up here too.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
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.![]()
Sie finden nicht, was Sie suchen? Fragen Sie die Community oder teilen Sie Ihr Wissen mit anderen.