Put building grid BEHIND other items

[NigelParsons4560]

Hello,

How do I set the building grid to be underneath columns and other structures instead of on top?

[RobDraw]

So, only one example?

This is what I get. I don't do anything special. It's just the way Revit does it for me. While not ideal, it does not prevent me from producing quality documents by any stretch of the imagination.

[ToanDN]

Another workaround this issue is using a PDF printer that provides Line Merge option.  Attached are the examples using Bluebeam, one is with Line Merge turned off, one is with it turned on.  There maybe undesired graphics consequences with the Line Merge turned on but at least masking regions and opaque filled regions behave correctly.

[RobDraw]

Are you saying that this is not a Revit issue but rather a printer processing issue?

[ToanDN]

No I am not saying that.  It is still a core Revit issue or limitation.  The workaround by using a printer line merge is only to mitigate the core issue.  It does not send the grid behind other elements, it only "merges" the black color with the grey color and the stronger color (black) wins.

[loboarch · Accepted solution]

Here is a brand new idea started just yesterday that is basically the exact same issue. This one is level lines, but grid lines and level lines are essentially the same element, so a change to one would probably affect the other.  Maybe go and add your support to this idea if this is important to you.

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/level-line-draw-order/idi-p/7901576

[CHRISMIRTO8669]

Ran into the same issue today and was able to solve it by changing the grid line type to "gap." This makes it possible to stop the grid line where it interferes with architecture, and continue the same grid line once it passes the interfering area.

with gap

[RobDraw]

What if there are multiple inferences and the gaps interfere with the actual linetype of the grid line that you not want to want to be on top of the elements it crosses?

[Anonymous]

Thanks for your idea. Great work.

You will find few more ideas when you check these questions: Scrum master interview questions

[Anonymous]

Thanks for idea. Great work.

You will find few more ideas when you check these questions: Scrum master interview questions

[paul.t.macknight]

Not to dig up an old thread again, but...

Yes, you said it best, Revit was built by architects for architects. But it was built for smaller projects, where the client wouldn't necessarily have exacting standards, and before it could be completely fleshed out and its fledgling issues resolved, Autodesk bought it. As a result, the programmers working on it now, I dare say, at best only consult with architects in addition to listening to the community that uses it. At worst, they read a dissemination of a feature a community manager wrote up. But I'd be shocked if they had one or more programmers who were also architects or are in direct contact with architects like when it was originally coded. Sure, more and more designers & architects are picking up scripting and coding languages in an effort to make better or more standout designs, but the people like me who specifically sought an education that would enable us to do both? We are still very low in number and are not necessarily looking to join a company whose programmers don't get a say in what features get pushed, and especially not in the name of redeeming a wayward company. As someone who works in a large AEC firm, I understand how hard it is to turn a large corporate boat, and the people like me are more interested in furthering the field through other avenues.

Don't get me wrong, the only reason I haven't become certified is that I'd have to retake the test and pay each time, which I have no interest in. But I know Revit inside and out, and I write macros and plugins in support of my work. So I know all too well all of Revit's shortcomings and have the IT background to know many ways Autodesk could improve its functionality in a non-confusing way. But just because it's doable doesn't mean that the people in charge of giving those features/improvements the OK understand or care enough about us designers to push them over the "shiny new toys".