Roof Plan Template Best Practice. Establishing baseline levels & Offsets.

[payingtoomuch]

Working on a new roof plan template.

Have been able to get a roof plan based on a template to work reasonably well but there is a whole lot of guessing going on as to what levels I'm assigning, offsets from the levels etc to get the views I'm looking for.

So, I'm trying to make sense of this.

Basically, I need to be able to see the roof in plan (obviously) but I also need to see most everything below- some dashed items (hidden below) and some elements that are just below (lower roofs)

So, I want to show what is under the eaves too. This project has architectural exposed rafter tails and I want to show the downspouts relationships to these etc.

On top of that there are clerestory windows around the entire building and I want my cut plane through that area so I/ the contractor can see these relationships as well. Not even sure I need assign an actual cut plane here, because technically it's all just going to be dashed anyway because it's below/ hidden.

This is the section and levels that I'm working with. Note that there is also another low slope roof below that I need to work into this equation so thinking that can be included with settings for the bottom and view depth.... Once I get the roof to show up.

The way I have been able to get this to work is:

Show hidden lines all disciplines

Note associated level above is "Eave Height".... which in this case is for all practical purposes the bottom extent of the sloped soffit

This works but everything is getting a little too busy. Note that I turned off all the structural beams and such that were showing up below and faked in the standing seam metal roof (hatch pattern). Also note that the downspouts  are showing up dashed but this is because I actually drew them in as detail line groups.... because couldn't figure out how to get them to show hidden/ dashed.

And This is where I am now in cleanup mode. It's even worse, primarily because it does not include the roof plan part. I have not turned off the beams (and can do that with either V/G's or just hide them if there is not a more elegant solution). Footings that are showing up dashed (2 stories below) similarly can turn off. I know I can also play with the levels and get the footings to go away, but trying to come up with a clean solution so I can make this template work (for the most part) for the majority of my projects.

These are the view range settings. I'm not following why the roof is not showing up here when I have the top level set to unlimited. I mean that's higher than 30'-0" above the Associated level in the 1st example AND it's the same associated level. I have also created and experimented with another level called "roof high elevation" which is the highest point of the roof. The negative 4'-0" is showing the cut through the clerestory.... but the original version is also the cut through the clerestory and the offset is 30'-0" so I'm guessing the cut plane doesn't really matter because it is all dashed below..... so bottom level and view depth level are really probably determining this.

In an effort to simplify all this the Original idea was to use an associated level that I created called "Roof High Elevation" which is the overall "technical" height of the roof.... not the averaged height for code purposes. Then set that as the cut plane level with zero offset  & top of range to unlimited and just look down from that elevation as far as I need to (ideally unlimited.... for consistency across projects). But it's not working....

Again, I have been able to basically get this all to work on some level but would be nice if I actually knew what I was doing to get there. AND be able to use one template for the majority of the projects without needing to futz around with all this next time too much.

Recommendations?

[payingtoomuch]

Another tidbit-

Was originally thinking/ hoping I could have one template that served for both the roof plan and the floor plans. Thought I could work out a way to use the refererenced levels in a manner such that as long as I based the roof on the correct level (above the roof as example.... I established that level and mentioned above) that I could work it so everything else would show up below that correctly, since I don't need to see anything above further than that associated level. So, similar to the normal floor plans and there associated template. Apply the template and simply turn off what I don't need to see....

[SteveKStafford · Accepted solution]

A "roof plan" is a just view looking at the building from "above"...as you know 🙂

A roof plan view in Revit could be associated with "any" level in the building. For example, a two story house might have a level for basement, first and second floor and one more for the top plate of the second floor. All of those levels would be useful to create a model but also to associate views with for documentation.

A roof plan that is created from the first floor level would need to have its view range adjusted so the Top and Cut Plane values in View Range are high enough that neither intersect with any building elements. The Top Plate level could also suffice to create a roof plan view IF its view range settings are also adjusted in the same way. That means "any" level could be used to create a view that is called "Roof Plan" as long as its view range is adjusted accordingly.

Once a view is configured to show the model from above then it is a matter of adjusting visibility/Graphics in the view so that you can present the drawing the way you prefer. For example, some transparency applied to the roof category will allow you to show the supporting walls underneath the roof, if desired.

Naturally, a roof plan is distinctly different from a framing plan so it is important to realize that in some cases you shouldn't expect to do multiple things in "one plan". Also, a floor plan can only look down and a ceiling plan can only look up. Do create a situation where the reader sees both conditions, to create a hybrid plan you need to consider overlaying a plan and a ceiling plan on top of each other on a sheet. Think of pin-bar mylar drafting techniques from the "old days". One view would get a view title and the other "no title" so it looks like a single view presenting the story.

I limit creating levels to just major vertical datum...floor/story. If I need to document other key elevation points in a view I'll add Spot Elevation annotation. This way the number of levels being used in a project is reduced to just those actually hosting building elements and used to create views. It is tempting to draft a Level for each vertical feature (like in your screen capture) of a building but I find people that do so struggle with documentation.

[payingtoomuch]

---

@SteveKStafford wrote:

A "roof plan" is a just view looking at the building from "above"...as you know 🙂

A roof plan view in Revit could be associated with "any" level in the building. For example, a two story house might have a level for basement, first and second floor and one more for the top plate of the second floor. All of those levels would be useful to create a model but also to associate views with for documentation. This would be my understanding... at least on some level.

A roof plan that is created from the first floor level would need to have its view range adjusted so the Top and Cut Plane values in View Range are high enough that neither intersect with any building elements. Humh. Both the top AND the cut plane (or the cut plane offset I presume) need to be above the highest roof elevation to get the roof to show up in plan? Taking your word for it but doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me.... at least intuitively. I mean if the TOP is above the roof (as in, say, infinity.... which were my thoughts on how I would set this all up originally) then why does the cut plane need to be above the roof too? I was thinking I could set the top plane to infinity and have the cut plane be the reference level (in this case below the top of the roof) and either not offset from this reference level for the cut plane OR offset as required to cut through the area below the roof I wanted to show up as dashed below. Can you elaborate a little please? The Top Plate level could also suffice to create a roof plan view IF its view range settings are also adjusted in the same way. That means "any" level could be used to create a view that is called "Roof Plan" as long as its view range is adjusted accordingly. I understand this.... just don't understand why both the cut plane elevation and the top plane elevation both need to be set above the top of the roof

Once a view is configured to show the model from above then it is a matter of adjusting visibility/Graphics in the view so that you can present the drawing the way you prefer. OK. Makes sense. Was hoping to figure out a way to "elegantly" turn some things on/ off without involving V/G's by carefully picking where the cut plane is located AND the "Bottom" and "view depth" levels For example, some transparency applied to the roof category will allow you to show the supporting walls underneath the roof, if desired. This is interesting! Need to look into this more. I have not to date adjusted transparency for elements in V/Gs. But what I think I hear you saying is I can manipulate the roof category transparency (The only category that transparency has the option to manipulate in the roof category looks like) AND then the roof becomes transparent and everything below the roof will show through? Does the location of the cut plane or the "Bottom" And "View Depth" Levels impact what shows up? I would assume so but not sure about how this would all work together. Again will experiment more with this....

Naturally, a roof plan is distinctly different from a framing plan so it is important to realize that in some cases you shouldn't expect to do multiple things in "one plan". Agree. Also, a floor plan can only look down and a ceiling plan can only look up. This has me a little confused..... In part because I don't fully understand how view range and underlays work together. I was kind of the understanding that I could have my view range set to look down (and show dashed below) but also have my underlay looking up. To be clear, I absolutely do not have a good handle on this yet. Just intuitively seems like 2 different sets of settings that can be manipulated to work together to selectively show certain things above and below. Do create a situation where the reader sees both conditions, to create a hybrid plan you need to consider overlaying a plan and a ceiling plan on top of each other on a sheet. This is interesting as well!..... Think of pin-bar mylar drafting techniques from the "old days". One view would get a view title and the other "no title" so it looks like a single view presenting the story. Makes sense. Will need to experiment with this some regardless, but seems like a reasonable work around in the event that I can't get other view settings to do what I'm hoping for.

I limit creating levels to just major vertical datum...floor/story. If I need to document other key elevation points in a view I'll add Spot Elevation annotation. This way the number of levels being used in a project is reduced to just those actually hosting building elements Believe it or not, this is what I'm trying to accomplish here.... and used to create views. It is tempting to draft a Level for each vertical feature (like in your screen capture) of a building but I find people that do so struggle with documentation. I knew I was going to get hammered on my levels (: Still sorting my "conventions" out. For whatever reason I just don't "like"  to see spot elevations in elevations & sections. Guess it has to do with my way of documenting wall sections. Not saying I can't be flexible with this mindset but am saying it's a challenge for me. 

Here's my reasoning/ thinking on the different levels I've created here. Would be interested in others thoughts as to what I probably should consider eliminating.

• The "roof high elevation" is relatively new mark I created. Did this thinking I could base my roof plans off of this level and just look down. Thinking I'll probably base the roof on some other level at this point. Maybe just the 2nd floor level and..... thinking being that that would also encapsulate any roofs covering the ground floor..... I think. Could offset from there for wherever the cut plane needs to be (above the roof is my new understanding).
• "Eave Height" can probably go away. Not sure (at the moment) why I created that level. Not something I would normally call out in section.
• "Heel Height" is hidden behind the other notes. Thinking I want to keep this but maybe not. Normally I would just dimension this in my wall sections. Guessing I originally had a good reason for including it in my revit sections.... but who knows. Bottom line. I can probably eliminate that too.
• "Top of Truss Mechanical Screen" is to establish the elevation of the top chord beyond of a flat roof system that is below the normal roof that serves as a mechanical screen. Meaning this is for all practical purposes the elevation of the flat roof beyond. Probably won't need a separate plan for this (regular roof plan will suffice). This is kind of about having a visual in section that is very clear about it's relationship to the rest of the sloped truss profile. My thinking leads me to believing this is probably worth keeping.
• "Top of Masonry High" is an important structural dimension/ coursing dimension and it makes sense to me to keep this. I have the walls associated with this level (no offsets). I do not have top of parapet dims.... this handles that dimension for me and allows for flexibility of finish materials. For this project I'm also going to have a clerestory plan, so probably will base that plan off of this level so it makes sense
• Window head and sill rough openings. I typically will show these in my wall sections as elevation marks to help establish relationships and coursing. To help me visualize and calculate. I currently have my storefront associated to these levels as well. No offsets. I suppose I could consider dimensioning the windows on the building elevations but then you need to dimension all the windows..... just to be clear. Just seems to me to make sense to have one line with one dim that pretty much spells out that all these things align in elevation/ section.
• "Top of Steel/ Bottom of Slab"- A structural consideration and needs to be reasonably flexible for structural purposes because relates to top of slab. Ultimately determines thickness of substrates/ slabs/ rigid insulation etc. Need to make sure this is coordinated with structural to get finish floor to work out properly. So, I'm thinking just make sure the steel is attached to this level and move the level as required to adjust for any changes in thickness of substrates later to get finish floor/ top of deck to work out. For wood frame construction might not need this..... depending.
• "Top of slab or subfloor". Generally will be required.
• "Top of Footing". Something to attach the bottom of walls to and to demonstrate consensus across the project for these levels etc.
• That's pretty much it. Enough for now.

All for someone or someone's to get me thinking about this in alternative ways. All for simplifying just don't generally like offsetting from levels for the various entities. Feel like they need/ want/ should be attached to an elevation that makes sense.

---

[SteveKStafford · Accepted solution]

One reply to address view range Cut Plane settings - have a look at this series of images changing the cut plane value for L2 relative to the roof.

The reason we need to move Cut Plane "up" is to make sure it does not slice through any part of the building to create the view. Cut Plane can be equal to Top but it cannot be higher than Top. Each View Range boundary can move up/down but they can't pass one another.

Revit uses projection and cut object style settings for elements that exist within the Primary Range (Bottom-Cut-Top). It use the line style <Beyond> for any elements found within the View Depth (View Upth for Ceiling Plans). Imagine a two story building with a balcony for the second floor that overlooks the first floor. In a second floor view with the default View Range settings you won't see the first floor elements that would be visible to us if we were standing on the balcony. The View Range View Depth would need to be changed to the Level Below or offset by a value large enough (negative number) so that View Depth is far enough "down" that elements on the first floor would be included in View Range and visible in the view.

Same is true in reverse for a ceiling plan looking up at the roof/atrium space in a tall building. 

[SteveKStafford]

View Underlay is a view override to show information present on other levels, to make it easier to model something that is related to something else above or below. It is not to be confused with "background" where that word is used to describe another drawing that is used as an underlay (background drawing).

When I draws walls on the 2nd floor it might be useful to see where walls below are for stair or mechanical chase alignment, to name just a couple reasons. I could also use an underlay of the basement level, working on the first floor, to sketch foundation walls under my first floor layout. This instead of using a basement plan view with and underlay of the first floor to see those walls above. More than one way to tackle problems.

Levels that are not for building story usage, like your masonry datum are reasonable if the expectation is that you will want to see the level annotation in many views. The level does not require a view created and levels that don't have views don't get the blue color that levels with views associated with them do. You can also create different level types for story vs vertical datum. Levels have parameters called "Building Story" and "Structural" to help further identify their purpose (they are intended for building analysis features). The View Underlay settings won't offer levels that don't have views also associated with them. That can make it easier to adjust the view underlay settings since you don't get "viewless" levels in the list.

[HVAC-Novice]

It is considered good practice to use levels for actual ... levels in a building. Like wherever there is a real floor to walk on. Like actual storeys, or mezzanines etc. I often use a level for the roof at the wall/roof interface. in your example the "top of truss" would be the only level I would create and place the roof on that. All other heights will be derived from that (eave height is a function of the slope and width). This isn't a hard rule or law, and YMMV. 

I've seen projects where the mechanician engineer created levels for louvers or duct. If every trade creates levels for every conduit, or wall molding... then you end up with a hundred levels per floor.