Object Style

[Ilic.Andrej]

Hello everyone,

I hope you're all doing well. Long time no see....

I'm working as a BIM manager at a company for two months now. The company has around 6 years of experience working using AutoCAD. They have desire to produce documentation that is graphically similar to what they were doing before starting using Revit.

It was a common practice to set liveweights by material. So, for example, the structural part of a wall would be thicker than the finishes. I don't blame them, because it was a common practice in the whole country for decades. They have asked me to set that up in Revit, and I told them that it is impossible. Liveweights "feed" Object Styles, not materials, while Categories "feed" Object Styles. Anyway, a college has told me that she has saw the solution in the past but forgot how it's done. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is a solution, and you could help us.

We want to use the parameter "Structural Material" in wall Type properties. We would prefer that the contour lines of the structural layer appear thicker other layers.

Any ideas?

[arq_42 · Accepted solution]

Maybe are you searching for this?

[Ilic.Andrej]

Thank you. This is it!

[HVAC-Novice]

---

@Ilic.Andrej wrote:

I'm working as a BIM manager at a company for two months now. The company has around 6 years of experience working using AutoCAD. They have desire to produce documentation that is graphically similar to what they were doing before starting using Revit.

It was a common practice to set liveweights by material. So, for example, the structural part of a wall would be thicker than the finishes. I don't blame them, because it was a common practice in the whole country for decades. They have asked me to set that up in Revit, and I told them that it is impossible. Liveweights "feed" Object Styles, not materials, while Categories "feed" Object Styles. Anyway, a college has told me that she has saw the solution in the past but forgot how it's done. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is a solution, and you could help us.

---

Trying to emulate an old AutoCAD process is a sure way to fail and not take advantages of Revit. 

I would set it up the way it works best in Revit, and not "how things used to be done". A plan set needs to be correct and clear to the contractor - it doesn't need to look like it was done in 1980. 

If that colleague knows how to do it, let her do it. If she doesn't, assume she doesn't know what she is talking about. Whatever she thinks she knows may be a different software, out of context, or for a different situation. And again, doing it the Revit way usually is better. Just because you can emulate the AutoCAD or pencil and paper process doesn't mean you should. 

[RSomppi]

Gotta disagree.

Many companies have worked hard on their CAD graphics standards pre-Revit and like to keep them intact regardless of platform. Most of the time, it can be done without making too many concessions because a good set of standards is not platform specific. I've done it several times at different companies and did things the way Revit wants without jumping through hoops. Yeah, there were platform specific things that had to be tossed but the look and feel of their drawings was very close to what they were used to and sometimes almost indistinguishable even to a trained eye. It is very important to many companies because the look and feel of drawings is a part of their branding. Changing platforms doesn't necessitate changing CAD standards for presentation of drawings.

[Ilic.Andrej]

I agree with @HVAC-Novice , but I am not the one who makes those decisions. The investors request that traditional look, and this company doesn't negotiate. Instead, they request me to give them the solution. I don't like it, but that's what I got to do.