According to my test (image below) overlapping toposurfaces are shown in the order they were created, from last to first (red, then green, then blue). Is there a way to change this order so that I can more easily represent geological strata? In this case would be bringing green in front of blue. Or I would always have to create them in the correct order?
Gelöst! Gehe zur Lösung
Gelöst von MostafaElashmawy. Gehe zur Lösung
No direct solution. However, instead of recreating them, You can select then cut the blue and paste in same place then the red and paste in same place.
The older one will always be in front.
Mostafa Elashmawy
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
I'd be interested in understanding why it matters. You can override the graphical representation of each layer to distinguish them. You can give each layer a unique identifier. You can even Phase the buildup. What would the "correct order" accomplish?
The only reason would be the final representation because each newer toposurface conceals the previous ones. For example, for what I understand, in order to achieve the example in the image below one would have to create four toposurfaces, each with the correct elevations, and then override the graphical representation of each layer. But each lower toposurface must be created after the upper ones, otherwise it will be concealed by them.
@MostafaElashmawy's solution is a workaround for changing the order, loosing only the graphical overrides.
Why overlay several? Why not use filled regions to identify each layer? Maybe even semi-transparent ones? Or "Masking" ones?
I would use two masses or generic models for the 2 bottom layers...otherwise I would go with the filled regions suggested by @barthbradley over stacking 3 layers of topography...
YOUTUBE | BIM | COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN | PARAMETRIC DESIGN | GENERATIVE DESIGN | VISUAL PROGRAMMING
If you find this reply helpful kindly hit the LIKE BUTTON and if applicable please ACCEPT AS SOLUTION
It may be an option. Thank you.
Filled regions have the disadvantage of being 2D, while with topography after defining the geometry we could make as many sections as we'd like. In-place families (and maybe masses, but I never used them) would have the advantage of avoiding the need of graphic overrides, since each could have a different material, but depending on the complexity maybe it would be more difficult to define the geometry. For the excavation I suppose there wouldn't be much difference between using pads in the case of topography or voids otherwise.
@miguelmachadoecosta wrote:It may be an option. Thank you.
Filled regions have the disadvantage of being 2D, while with topography after defining the geometry we could make as many sections as we'd like. In-place families (and maybe masses, but I never used them) would have the advantage of avoiding the need of graphic overrides, since each could have a different material, but depending on the complexity maybe it would be more difficult to define the geometry. For the excavation I suppose there wouldn't be much difference between using pads in the case of topography or voids otherwise.
Complexity of the geometry is not a problem since use dynamo to generate the 3D elements. We use those also for calculating excavation volume...the one which Revit offers isn't really accurate.
As I have mentioned on an earlier post, the Toposurface from Revit is just used as a top soil layer to host some soft/hardscape on.
YOUTUBE | BIM | COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN | PARAMETRIC DESIGN | GENERATIVE DESIGN | VISUAL PROGRAMMING
If you find this reply helpful kindly hit the LIKE BUTTON and if applicable please ACCEPT AS SOLUTION
Graded regions would be needed only for excavation. You said that volumes determined by Revit aren't really accurate, but according to the link bellow, and for my modest experience, the accuracy is +/- 1% to 2%, which generally is an acceptable error.
Here's an example where I successfully got volumes for two separate phases of excavation (one for platforming and one for foundations) and a third for infill:
About Dynamo, I still haven't used it. Those tools for generating the 3D elements and for calculating excavation volumes are publically available or were custom made by you?
@ToanDNdidn't say that it wasn't accurate
I said that. (Just for the avoidance of doubt … we don't want someone think he is talking bad about Autodesk's products lol)
The +/- 1% to 2% is debatable in practice (between documents issued from construction by the designer and the actual excavation on site always varied between 8-10%). In Dynamo one might end up with errors too when it comes to quantification, errors are always there regardless. No software or workflow guarantees 100% precision. The question is what are the pros and cons which one finds in different workflows. Hence, to work that out via dynamo and use solid masses/generic model is a personal opinion because it offer more to work with than using toposurface … it doesn't have to be a solution for you
With regard to your other question, the nodes are publicly available, the chart/diagram or what some call "script" is something done inhouse and not available publicly. However, I am sure you can find something on the DynamoBIM.org forum. It is quite a common workflow and I know more than a dosen of firms that use it.
YOUTUBE | BIM | COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN | PARAMETRIC DESIGN | GENERATIVE DESIGN | VISUAL PROGRAMMING
If you find this reply helpful kindly hit the LIKE BUTTON and if applicable please ACCEPT AS SOLUTION
Sie finden nicht, was Sie suchen? Fragen Sie die Community oder teilen Sie Ihr Wissen mit anderen.