So, my question to you stands: why is all that work necessary? I get that you want to give the Client different options for building orientation on the site - possibly do some sun and shadow studies (and maybe even Energy Analysis) for each orientation - but why include Pads and the Cut/Fill and what not for each orientation? Serious question.
No worries, I can elaborate. I see two questions: what is there to gain (?) and is "all that" work necessary (?)
Sure, sun and shadow studies are useful tools in understanding the ramifications of building position on a site, but certainly not the only considerations. In my case, the several building position options have cost and design ramifications, mostly due to how much cut/fill there is, the increased depth in foundation walls and footings, and the increased exterior wall area. How can you understand if the added cost of extra site work is worth it without showing the design benefits in a way the client understands? Maybe not something a value engineer would be interested in studying, but it is a question worth asking as a designer.
Whether the work is necessary or worth it is really dependent on how much work it takes, and that's a question of Revit's limitations. I was hoping there was a "quick" way to do what I needed in Revit since all of the precise elevation data is already there, but what i'm hearing is it's not really designed for that type study (which I think is probably the more charitable response to my original question).
