A Stair Tool that actually works.

[leonard]

The Stair Tool in Revit, simply doesn't work. Revit programmers have perpetuated the error that stairs start at the first nosing and terminate in any flight under the top nosing. This inevitably means that handrails are completely wonky and the stair section is then an embarrassment to show to the craftsman who must build it. In 2D Autocad work, i always design stairs in section and project the plan from the section.

Stairs are ultimately a mathematical problem that use trig formulas in order to calculate. Stairs need to be designed to include the full length of the stair run so that Handrails and guards resolve cleanly at landings. Stairs should use "spring-lines" to start and stop, rather than nosings. The attached fairly complex stair section drawn in Autocad, illustrates how the stair ought to be laid out. if the correct start and terminations were used, Revit might almost be able to model stairs faster than I can draw them in Autocad.

[GA-LT]

Stairs and railings are the most shameful examples of Revit development or rather lack of development.

[leonard]

Actually surprised Autodesk hasn't been dragged into a lawsuit because its stair tool is so bad.

[TimGrissom]

@GA-LT, I actually think that text and annotation in general, are the most shameful examples or Revit's lack of development.  But some improvements to stairs would also be very welcome.  And legends, hatch patterns, keynotes...

[ipselute]

@leonard @TimGrissom :What Autodesk really lacks is experienced architects and experienced engineers, with many years of practice behind them. 90% of Customer ("Tech") Support at Autodesk is made from juniors or people with little practical experience. They know how to handle specific problems and tasks, but they lack "the big picture", they don't know how to handle a big project as a whole. They are ignoring specific customer requests because they just miss "the big plan", "the entire picture" of the entire project, instead they are insisting with obsessive insignificant optimizations creating little-close-to-zero customer advantage for the every-day practice.

P.S. There are so many shortcomings in Revit, we could create an entire forum just for that. (Not even the menu icons are positioned in a very logical way. Thank God now i can finally customize my menus like i always did in my old Autocad).

[leonard]

Agreed. There are many architects who don't fully comprehend the geometry of a stair. Building a stair properly used to be an indicator that a craftsman had become a master at his/her craft. Today we have Revit perpetuating juvenile attempts at implementing stair design.

[rbarbosa8DQGJ]

A ferramenta de escadas seria melhor se aproveitasse a dinâmica aplicada pelo Advance Steel. Inclusive com escadas de mais tipos.

[AzWoodWarrior]

They don't need architects, they need carpenters. By the time I was 22 I knew how to calculate not only the rise and run for stair stringers but how to make seat cuts in rafters. Interns need real life smash your thumb with a 24oz framing hammer experience. I have now have a few houses under my belt, and from what I have heard from the framers, is they are some of the best plans they have ever worked off of. Do you know why? I'm a 43 year old carpenter who has been there, done that. Steven Shell told me to "model it like I built it." That's not how you build it! Go learn how to build, worry about sytax errors later. There are examples like this all over Revit. The disconnect is, in my opinion, everyone in construction wants it to sound more complex and difficult than it really is. Maybe it's to stoke their ego's, but if it's so difficult to do, how come you can hire people who don't speak the native language to do it? It's just a bunch of stuff with it's our materials and specifications, it's steel, it's wood, it's pipes, and it's wires. That's it! It's not a space ship! There is a half inch tolerance in rough carpentry! That means if it's a half inch to short "be alright". Not to me, but to hacks out there it is. Truth is, there is a lot of good about Revit, but entirely to many "work arounds" for a product that costs so much. For this reason I have abandoned my desires to start a design build firm and have moved on to the real need I see. Ending the production side logjam on information. Be on the lookout for Tyche BIM Solutions. Opening the floodgates of information on the design world.

Daniel J Reaney Jr 

President 

Tyche BIM Solutions 

[leonard]

Not going to deny that real construction experience is essential to understanding the process, although I'm not sure thumb bashing experience is either helpful or useful. The point is that there is a geometric relationship between stair design and proper handrail design. If there is a geometric relationship, than there is a way to design the program to reflect what ought to happen, as opposed to what current messes stairs up.

[rbarbosa8DQGJ]

nowadays, I am creating my stairs in Advance Steel and synchronizing them to my revit

[leonard]

And that's just one more workaround that excuses Autodesk from designing the program to do stairs accurately, efficiently and correctly. I have other workarounds involving AutoCad Sections, but they don't work seamlessly with Revit. Doing it right involves using the right formulas and the right start and finish points. the rest is simple math.

[rbarbosa8DQGJ]

I could not wait 5 years untill Autodesk improve stairs command! This is the amount of time that some ideas posted on Ideas board are wating to get implemented...

Seems to me that Autodesk does not want to apply what is working in one software to another. They are keeping softwares in market segments in order to sell all those programs. That is why Autodesk itself likes to apply workarounds...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cEgM29N_K4

[l.wichert]

Greetings from germany -

we also would like to see a NEW stair tool that actually works!

🙄

[krzystoff]

If only Revit had a decent stair tool -- it's so rubbish that our office has made our own stair families to make usable stairs.  Straight stairs are bad, but don't even get started on spiral / winding/multilevel stairs, and the awful numbering/pathing tools.  

Of course, you could use Sketchup/Archicad/DataCad? to make stairs more quickly and easily, but then documenting them in Revit is still a pain. 

A few people have suggested Advance Steel for doing this, but I don't relish learning another program to do what I should expect to be part of a very basic OOTB design program, let alone paying thousands more for the privilege.

[l.wichert]

OK - what about building a STAIR-TOOL-TASK-FORCE to sum all of the things architects would love need in a new stair tool? @krzystoff @autodesk

[krzystoff]

That's a complex question, but will worth investigating.

A few key things are stairs that are :

* generated with full code compliance world wide, not a halfway compliant
stair in USA that isn't in UK / EU / Australia for example, and didn't just
restrict the design to meet all criteria, but adapts to local ordinances;
* checks clear headroom;
* model stringer structure, treads, landings and risers as compound floor
types, balustrade framing and lining as a compound wall type, and soffit as
a compound ceiling type with smooth transition between the landing soffit
and adjacent room ceiling, with joins between all of these and intersecting
finishes ;
* oath and numbering tags that show only on the visible treads not the
whole flight above and below ;
* spiral / winding stairs that don't add a full 360deg of treads when you
just try to add one more tread;
* multi level stairtool that optimises the landing position or gives you
options without having to remodel the stair over and over to test it.
* handrails and termination that are simple to model and place like
curtain walls.

Please add your ideas below.

[leonard]

You have hit on a lot of the issues that need to be addressed, however, my real concern is understanding the geometry of a stair that actually works. The geometry only works when the stair run is calculated with "x" risers and "x" treads, where "x" is a whole number. The caveat is that at the bottom and the top of the stair there are two partial treads, but the depth of these two partial treads added together are always equal to "x". Once Autodesk Programmers realize how that works, all of the other questions fall into place. Handrails resolve properly, and handrail and or guard heights can be determined by applicable codes. Stringers can be assigned their proper location. Hand rail cues for the visually impaired can work beautifully, etc.
I do agree, that Autodesk needs to be talking to mature architects who actually understand stair layout, in order to develop a tool like this. One of the first orders of business in my firm, when a new intern is hired, is the stair design and construction tutorial. It is always painful watching a young architect blunder through a stair design, but then delightful to see eyes light up when they realize how simple perfect stairs are to create. The deflater comes when they realize the complexity of working around Autodesk's stair tool.

[krzystoff]

@leonard on reviewing you stair example, I'm not sure why the stringer overrun length (and two partial treads) is important -- is that a code requirement in your state ? 

We always use 'cut' timber stringers, so the top length of stringers is of no consequence as it is just cut back below the floor\tread level to suit; However, in our national code, on multi-flight stairs the nosing-facing wall distance is prescribed for some building types, based on the handrail clearances around the landings, which is similar.

[leonard]

Classic oversight. There are a lot of ways to manipulate the geometry so the stair looks the way you want it to, but the "overrun" you refer to is not accessory, it is vital to getting the stair right. As mentioned in a previous post, every run of stairs where there are "x" risers, must also have an equivalent number of treads in the calculation. Most stair designers assume there are "x" minus 1 treads and this is why you see so many contorted handrail applications. Most codes provide a range for handrail ht above the the line through the nosing. but well designed stair with handrails always maintains the handrail parallel to the inclined line that runs through the nosing. In the example provided the range required by the code is 34" to 38". The handrails in the example meet that requirement at stairs and landings. Again its all about the geometry. You can cut back the top of your stringers if you want, but the spring-line is still in the same place and informs the point where handrails meet and meet code.

[GA-LT]

The best invention is that 2d stairs in plan looks differently than in sections and 3d. And how sweet is to explain every time to my clients that everything is correct - specially precast style stairs (better not to use because is not usable by structure guys)! So clunky so many years - you have to love it otherwise it can kill you! I'm just tired of setting 2 staircases for over 3h.

[Anonymous]

My honest opinion based on years of carpentry and design experience. Stairs are almost always a 1 off. Even simple stairs have something unique about them. Not to defend the horrendous stair tool that's in Revit... but I imagine creating / programming a stair tool that can create highly realistic and "correct" stairs in a few clicks is near impossible. There are just so many variables to program in. Even it could be done. The tool would have so many inputs it would be frustrating to get it to function as we need it to. Stairs are complex, end of story. If something will take a while to build in reality, it can and probably should take a while to draw and figure out. Too many of us young guns (and old farts) are complaining that the software can't solve our problems and auto-draw our sections or what-have-you. Really we have some learning and figuring to do ourselves 🙂 That's our job. That never changed, ever. Ok - now personally I will use Revit's stair tools for schematic design, programming or renderings. Usually keep it there in my floor plans / RCP's. But once it comes time to permit and construct and draw sections.... I either hide that **** fake looking thing Revit calls a stair and draft in it's place. Or I model in place what it should be. Only time effective solution I've found. On certain occasions I've used the Revit stair for permitting purposes, but for sure not in section. With that said, Autodesk, Please, Please, Please hire some experienced architects, or go sit in with firms and start to understand buildings. I'm sure Marrying software engineering and building code / construction is not easy, but seriously this software is expensive and most anyone who uses Revit has complaints.