Project base point clip removed in revit 2020.2

[Anonymous]

HI Team,

In Previous versions 2020.1, Project Base point clipping is enable and can be disabled. But in Revit 2020.2, the clip of the Project base point is not available.

The over all project can be moved to location with help of Project base point. But now it doesn't appear and there is no connection between the grids and Project base point.

Please answer if any purpose this is done. And Please explain.

Attached image for reference.

Thanks,

Pandiraj.AV

[ToanDN]

You asked for a workaround and there it is, another way built-in the program to get to the exact same result.  Sure the execution is different I can give you that and a cookie. Sorry.

FWIW, prior to the PBP clip removal, I lost count how many times I needed to ask users on this forum to verify if they moved the PBP clipped or unclipped, often they didn't remember.  Using Specify Coordinates at Point always ensure there is no confusion.  

[SteveKStafford]

Can you describe the end result you want? I think using Relocate Project in an elevation view is meant to accomplish the task, if I understand your reply. I'm not certain what your desired end state is though.

Edit: I followed the link from an email notification and didn't see your subsequent replies. It seems you understand it works differently now and hope they'll restore a part of the past behavior.

FWIW, everything that was possible is still possible. It's my opinion that making it possible to "touch" the PBP and SP and "move" them has contributed to the confusion that many people experience. Before they existed we could do everything we can do now with Shared Coordinates. All the tools (features that are possible) are found on the Project Location panel; either via Coordinates or Position. "Moving" the icons provided an alternative means to use the tools on the ribbon. I'd have preferred they never allowed that interaction. As I mentioned earlier, I think it has been a source of much confusion for years now.

[cwinchester.hmc]

I'm not sure why there is the degree of defensiveness regarding concerns brought up with this topic @ToanDN . @SteveKStafford I certainly can attest to the confusion that the clipped versus unclipped states of the PBP caused. However, when used properly in the method I attempted to describe, it was extremely efficient at making adjustments to project coordinates, all linked models, as well maintaining cohesion to the internal origin (which was the primary source of confusion in my experience). Together, this is why specifying the coordinates at a point does not accomplish the same result on its own: many other steps are required to complete the overall workflow that was otherwise achieved through one point of data entry. In that respect, that is why I think the changes to PBP in versions post 2020 missed the mark (especially since they were inadequately communicated to users). Yes, technically the additional steps you mentioned achieve the same result. But, from UI/UX standpoint, couldn't it be a lot better considering mine and others points made here? I'm hoping that the feedback generated in this thread and other parts of this forum can be constructive for Autodesk to make more optimal adjustments to the PBP workflow in future releases. It just doesn't work as well it should (nor did).

[RobDraw]

There's a forum for expressing and/or voting for IDEAS. I'd be willing to bet this is already there.

[pfarias]

Completely agree

After some experience using the new workaroung, and been able to compare to what was before, is definitely less eficient than in the past.

A- Before, the same thing was possible with at least two methods. Keeping the PBP with the "pin activated" to change the relative coordinates of the project (the coordinates reported when "survey" is defined in the Spot Elevations or Spot Coordinates)

1-Introducing the N/E/H values directly in the PBP (a very useful tool, very precise and easy to manage)

2-Moving the PBP graphically (that is very similar to what is possible now)

To change the reference to the Project Coordinates (the coordinates reported when "project" is defined in the Spot Elevations or Spot Coordinates) the only diference was to "deactivate the pin" and introduce the N/E/H values in the PBP or to move it graphically.

B-Now, the only way to achive the task of changing the reference of the Relative coordinates of the project is by the "Relocate Project". So, just for this, is a lost in efficiency and precision to the same task. The posibility of typing the values was a very very useful tool that is gone.

And to change the reference of the Project coordinates, the workaround just "increase in eficiency" by avoiding to "deactivate the pin".

So, in conclusion, it was taken away eficiency from one aspect (the change of the reference to relative coordinates) in a hard way to just increase a little the change of the other aspect (the change of the reference to project coordinates)

From my perspective, the confusing about this tool and concepts are still there, it just was modified from one state of confusness to another. For any one who is starting to undertand this thing of the coordinates and references, the confusing will be, just in another way. And for the ones that knew about this, and actually worked with this, it is now real drawback.

There are statistics about how satisfied are the users of Revit about this modification?

Are the "great majority" satisfied with this?

[ToanDN]

---

@cwinchester.hmc wrote:

I'm not sure why there is the degree of defensiveness ...

---

Dude...

" - I don't like this change... any workaround?

- Here it is... enjoy!

- I don't like this workaround.

- Sorry... have a cookie.

- You are defensive..."

[cwinchester.hmc]

@ToanDN, again there's no need to get defensive. There are valid points being made here challenging the workarounds required since the change to PBP workflow was made. The discussion is not a gauche as you are making out to be. 

[RobDraw]

LMAO!

That deserves some sort of comic.

[cwinchester.hmc]

How about this:

[marko.Zeljkovic]

Looks like some of you guys just have too much spare time to write few pages of nonsense here, including pastng a comic, and you re complaining about few more clicks every month or so. Oh, the irony!

[SteveKStafford]

If you're reading emotion into my response...that's not my intention. My reply is mere explanation of the situation and as much for anyone else that wanders into this thread eventually.

At first I thought you were looking for a solution and then realized you understand how it works now but don't like it.

I can't do anything about that. However I am one of the people that, for many years, begged Autodesk's developers to make it less fragile. I prefer it being "harder" and "less efficient" so the people I work with and support make fewer mistakes with it. That they listened and changed it; in that sense you can blame me.

[ewing]

I agree Steve. Fragile is the perfect analogy. It's the tool we have to work with though. I've been right there with ya wondering what the hell is the prescribed workflow. I have mine (I think), but... we're messengers with a lot of gunshot wounds 🙂

The issue for me with this, (and why I started this post a year ago) is, Autodesk making no real attempt to actually make Civil 3D and Revit work together. (being able to put a topo surface in BIM 360 isn't a solution for anything) I have entire airport projects one with over a hundred people working in these models, and having it work out is all based on me moving some odd point around and rotating models and sites. HUGE models. It's literally made me want to not do this anymore. People are in the field pulling northing and eastings so they can bore 10' diameter by 90' deep caissons...hundreds of them. It's insane to me that being the guy who knows Revit gets me on the hook for a disaster if I picked some **** point wrong. Granted it hasn't happened, but there's been some scary times for sure. I know it's happened to others.

[dthirlwell]

This is exactly my concern with these features as well!  Why is there NO serious attempt to bring the tools of the "horizontal" industry together with the "vertical" industry.  I've had to dive way deeper into coordinate systems and geoids things way out of my wheelhouse just to figure out a way to make State Plane, GPS, and Revit work at all. I finally got State Plane assigned to the Survey Point/True North, Localized Construction Layout (aka 5,000, 3,000) working with the Project Base Point/Project North, and the unmovable origin as NAVD or NGVD (aka CAD origin and Invert elevation reference) 

But, I've basically near given up trying to accurately bring in a topo surface (or anything else) from Infraworks or C3D into Revit in any kind of repeatable and reliable way.  Not to mention that there's no support for real coordinate systems in Revit, so I can't even hope to use GeoTIFF or shape files.... You know: something useful.

[RobDraw]

Why aren't you using one of those platforms and bringing in the Revit model?

I saw that work seamlessly quite a few times and dabled in it a bit for outside work. Revit is definitely about the building aspect and not so much outside of it.

[Martijn.Pater]

Thought I'd post this in this thread... So I thought I had this down, but now i'm having a bit of a brain**** because I have my project origin rotating while using Rotate Project North, Align selected line or plane. My PBP is not on the project origin in that scenario and this messed up my shared coordinates in my current model actually (I think), or something is off in any case but just sharing my findings / frustration atm...

So actually I think, the Rotate Project North setting ought to be disabled if the PBP is not located on the project origin as is. Or project north rotation ought to be related to the project origin not the PBP actually... (?)

[RDAOU]

Hey Martjin,

Isn't that a normal behavior even Pre-2020 (naja...it would have been less confusing if they have coded it similar to the Rotate True North) ...

Please do not get me wrong but I am somehow not not seeing how is this related to the Clip unclip? 

[Martijn.Pater]

@RDAOU Well yeah, i'm not sure if it's related to that actually. But in a way you could say the project origin remains in a clipped state while rotating this way, unrelated to the pbp clipped state though... I think, not sure what's happening actually since I was still trying to make sense of it... ^^

[RDAOU]

@Martijn.Pater Start a thread and let everyone discuss 🙂 maybe something good comes out of it instead of being lost in an unrelated topic ... I am not sure if the issue you described is in the option itself (RPN) which has its shortcomings or with how the model is set up (from the description you provided it is not clear how the shared coordinates got messed up in the process) 

As far as I know (for the past 12 years) the project north is relevant to the PBP XYZ...ie: when you rotate it is revolves around the Normal of the PBP => it is perfectly normal that the coordinates of the IO will change if both are not aligned

[VictoriaBelvedere]

Dear BIM & VDC colleagues,

After investing so much time watching Video tutorials and reading Revit Blogs from so many other sources outside of the Autodesk Forum. I finally found the Holy Grail solution to this "PBP clip removed" nightmare! 
As you are aware there are not tutorial about how to fixed the "PBP clip  issue and relocate your model without affecting the survey point and internal origin but after so many attempts  I finally found the solution to this NIGHTMARE! A very practical solution you'll have been waiting for. This solution applies to RVT versions 2020 and up! So you no longer have to worry about not having the clip because you'll be able to relocate your model super quick.
I'm preparing a step by step guide and I'll uploaded in the next few days on this Forum, You tube and some of my other colleague's Blogs as well.
If you need a solution at this moment, just reply with your contact info and we can schedule a one on one meeting.

[ryann_muscaDGMCY]

Thanks Victoria. Sorry, I have been in radio silence on this. I have worked out that you can only do this 3D view but this is not the best solution. Anyway, lets exchange ideas and notes if there is a workaround here.