Overlapping views and view order in revit

[Tom_Bionda]

Hi All,

I am overlapping two viewports on sheet in Revit, one viewport is set up to look up (you know that thing when you want columns to be greyed out under slab), and the other one is set up to look down (like normal one).

I placed views in order which is: view No. 1 just columns (looking up), view No. 2 everything visible except columns, looking down. So, view No. 2 I prime view, it is on top of view No.1. 

Now, when i place reinforcement (2D detail) on prime view which is view No. 2 the reinforcement line gets "broken" over column (see image attached). But when I select secondary view (view No. 1.  and activate it and place reinforcement (2D detail) the reinforcement line "stays in one piece".

Next, I did use PyRevit option called "Reorder selected viewport", but that instance turns viewport completely opaque, means I can't see columns of other view entirely. That tool seems to me "place" one viewport over another making it not being transparent.

Self-conclusion: should I just keep placing 2D details on secondary view instead of primary or I am missing something in process and someone there can help me with this issue?

Image: A- reinforcement (2D detail) placed on second view View No. 1 (view that is place first on sheet) but secondary view because it is under another view.

            B- reinforcement (2D detail) placed on first view - prime, view No. 2 (view that is placed second on sheet) but called prime view because it is on top of another view.

To less confuse reader: views are place in order 1 then 2 , but view placed last (2) is called prime view because it is in front, or placed on top of another (1). 1 THEN 2, 2 ON TOP OF ANOTHER (1), 2 is called prime view.

First view that i place is essentially primary view cos it is dictating/governing visibility in a whole, so from printing point of view if i would place first view second in order on sheet i would have issue with printing those columns to be grey.

Thank you

[vitorbortoncello]

Place 2D details in the primary view (View No. 1) to avoid visibility issues with overlapping viewports.

[barthbradley]

Not clear why you would need to overlap views for this - nor am I understanding how a view that is looking UP at something would even underlay a view that is looking DOWN on that something.  They wouldn't match.  

...this is what I'm envisioning: 

[Tom_Bionda]

Hi Bradley,

I used two views (Looking up and looking down) in order to achieve wanted column visibility, just like for the wall when you pick bearing or non-bearing it becomes greyed out, same outcome with column. If you know how to achieve that without overlying two views I would appreciate your advice. looking at your images I noticed you are presenting walls, correct? If you look my attachment, you will notice both elements being greyed out.

Cheers

[Tom_Bionda]

Hi Vitor,

That is what I did ultimately, the view that is "primary" I noticed that 2d detail has not being "cut" or "hidden".

Thanks for advice

Cheers

[barthbradley]

My screenshots are showing the same beams; one view looking up at them from the bottom-up and the other view looking down on them from the top-down. The take-away should have been the fact that they are mirrored from one another. Overlaying the views on a sheet would make no sense.  From your description, this is what it sounds like you are doing.  

[Tom_Bionda]

...so to be clear, what you are showing in picture are beams, not walls, try to do that by placing concrete column and attach it to the slab and check does it appear grey?

Cheers

[barthbradley]

---

@Tom_Bionda wrote:

...so to be clear, what you are showing in picture are beams, not walls, try to do that by placing concrete column and attach it to the slab and check does it appear grey?

Cheers

---

Sorry, but you're missing my point - I think. Maybe I missing yours. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't do what your are describing; which is a overlaying a "looking-up" View and a "looking-down" View on a Sheet. It makes no sense.  Even RCPs aren't "looking up".  

[Tom_Bionda]

...sure, lets stick to our own thoughts rather than disappear in common disagreement, ok, if you say no point in overlaying views, I respect that, but I am still going to do that because there is no other option so that I can have greyed columns in plan view under slab.

Thanks for your time

[barthbradley]

---

@Tom_Bionda wrote:

...sure, lets stick to our own thoughts rather than disappear in common disagreement, ok, if you say no point in overlaying views, I respect that, but I am still going to do that because there is no other option so that I can have greyed columns in plan view under slab.

Thanks for your time

---

Well, that response certainly shuts me down. Sorry I provoked it.  I guess the architectural drafting standards/conventions that guide us, aren't for you - or your plans' readers.  Good luck with this novel "looking up/down" thing.           

[Tom_Bionda]

...nothing and no one found anything provocative in your response, just because I sound different in my expression it doesn't mean I am provoked, but ok, we all process other people'S words on our own way. Following standards when Revit has limits, hm, really? 

While I had no intention to be rude and disrespectful, here you are being that toward me:

"I guess the architectural drafting standards/conventions that guide us, aren't for you - or your plans' readers.  Good luck with this novel "looking up/down" thing. "

thank you for good wishes and helping in solving problems - even though.

Cheers

[SteveKStafford]

If I understand the purpose of the 2 views, you want to show columns that are under the floor slab, as if you were standing on the floor and could see them?

If you want to stick with the stacked views, make the column only view wireframe AND the structural column category Transparent >50% probably... then the detail elements should show through them.

If you're open to exploring a single view approach, this is one floor plan which drops the view depth and bottom of the primary range to be a little beneath the bottom of the slab. This is using V/G overrides on the floor category 50% transparent and the Structural Column category overridden to have a fill and dashed lines. If the fill isn't as important then just using Structural discipline and Hidden Lines by Discipline would show the columns dashed too.

This image is using Structural Discipline and Hidden Lines By Discipline. The floor category is not transparent.

[Tom_Bionda]

Hi Steve,

Exactly, thank you for understanding my issue. This is solution in one way, lets say I have a basement, and ground floor. The columns in basement level are load bearing columns and they are greyed like you did in your prsc.. but what if I want to show on the same plan columns in basement as bearing columns and columns on ground floor, your suggestion will then make columns on ground floor greyed out as well.

Both filled and dashed lines are important, because they indicate structural usage of member, and dashed/solid lines indicate how they are projected.

So, to summarize, is it possible to adjust column visibility to have greyed columns and non greyed columns on same view?, using only one view. 

Whether the cut plane is slightly below or above slab plane.

Thank you for response

[SteveKStafford]

Filters could focus overrides on specific columns if you used only "basement" column types for the basement (easy criteria) or focus on base level and top level constraints to have the filter determine if they are "basement" or not.

Wouldn't the columns above mask (coincide with) the columns below regardless of which view they are in...regardless of stacking views or using one view? In my consulting work with structural engineers they typically show the structure under (supporting) the floor in framing plans while architects show structural elements (columns) visible on that floor's story. They might try to show framing above too.

These different approaches have always been a bit paradoxical when trying to show both conditions. Only structural elements that don't coincide with elements above show up or those partially covered "peek" out in the view where they extend beyond the framing above or are larger dimensions. Thus the use of framing sections and column schedules etc.

Edit: You must be turning off columns on the stacked floor view so they don't compete with the columns below? If so Filters could again isolate and turn off the columns "above" leaving only the columns below.

[SteveKStafford]

Here's a Revit 2025 mock up of what I've been describing. Hopefully you have that version available to you?

[Tom_Bionda]

You are absolutely correct by saying showing both columns is not common sense. Also I want to be clear on my understanding of what column is as structural element. In my opinion there is no something like bearing and non bearing column. Columns are always bearing elements, unless they are some kind statue:). That is why I assume in Revit there's no option to change column from bearin to non bearing or both?(I am typing this from train). 

On the other hand walls can be one or another.

Regarding continuity of columns throughout the whole height of building, they don't have to be necessary aligned, nowadays Engineers do miraculous things. 

But my point was to have columns greyed same as walls (graphical continuity, since I am presenting walls as greyed out as bearing why not columns too).

It is about showing both columns, but ones are greyed and they are level below and the other ones are not and they are sitting on top of the slab, that's it.

Sure showing basement plan at the level of basement slab (1 m cut plane above like they teach us since pen is invented) and having columns shown is the way we always do, and for level above same again.

Ok, filters you say are one way to do, I'll do some testings.

Thank you for consultation.

Regards 

[Tom_Bionda]

...I do have, but on another machine....I'll have a look, much appreciated.

[SteveKStafford · Accepted solution]

---

@Tom_Bionda wrote:

In my opinion there is no something like bearing and non bearing column. Columns are always bearing elements, unless they are some kind statue:). That is why I assume in Revit there's no option to change column from bearin to non bearing or both?

---

In Revit's world there are architectural columns and structural columns, separate categories too. The architecture column category (just Columns in Object Styles and V/G) is intended to represent a pilaster or masking element(s) that will hide a structural column from view, from a person inside the building. We can also draw walls to do the task but the developers imagined we could use a column in early design to avoid having to model more intently. The architecture column will (the default content) join with a wall and give the impression of the wall being able to absorb/surround a structural column. They also absorb the layers of the wall they join with to give the appearance the wall's assembly carrying on around where the structural column might be.

The structural column category elements are intended to be load bearing and there isn't a parameter to remove that assumption. The structural framing category allows us to define Girder, Joist, Purlin and "other" as way to define a hierarchy of supporting structure. A girder supports Joists, joists support purlins and "other" is for anything else.  They can look different from each other too (in stock templates they do). If you were using the structural categories to create an architectural feature then the framing might be assigned to other but a structural column would "imagine" itself to be supporting a load...if only the load of the other decorative elements attached to it.

---

@Tom_Bionda wrote:

Regarding continuity of columns throughout the whole height of building, they don't have to be necessary aligned, nowadays Engineers do miraculous things. 

---

Indeed they do.

If the second floor plan has offset columns (or those below are offset) then those could also be caught by a filter if you provide something a filter "can find" to make them different. For example, you could add a project parameter assigned to the structural column category called "Show in Framing Plan". Then a filter could check the Base Level parameter AND the Show in Framing Plan parameter to decide if it should allow you to turn it off or not.

85% of the time there is a way to do something we want to do because the development team has encountered the situation before. The remaining 15% is divided into "well there is a clumsy work-around" or NO, can't do it. Generally the "no you can't"... is 1-5%, depending on the specific issue at hand. An example of a NO is using SHX fonts, Revit doesn't support them at all. Then again, sometimes the Rube Goldberg work-around is so objectionable that it might as well be a no...that's where our mileage will vary. 🙂 Good luck!