Allow new topography sub-divisions to recess into topography

[mhiserZFHXS]

The new topography system looks like it is probably 10 steps forward and 2 steps backward. Overall, it looks like it improves on a lot of issues and is a better foundation for improvements moving forward, but it does have some problems.

One issue is that the new sub-divisions cannot recess into the topography. They can expand upward, which is wonderful, but we also need them to go down so we can better model things like roads and parking lots. We are still going to have to rely on splitting the topography to do this, which can cause tons of headaches, as we know from the previous system.

[wr.marshall]

Objects such as walls & floors can be defined to create voids in topography. Can be used if I was creating a swimming pool for example. Then it would remove the topography from this area where the pool would be.

[wr.marshall]

Voids in Topography

[LB_revit]

The problem is not to remove topography, but to create voids underground and keeping topography surface intact.

But thanks for the advice

[AMillarSOA]

I very much hope to see subdivisions receive a proper structure, similar to floors and such, as well as the adjustable offset into the topography.  This seems like it would make it a very powerful tool for site modelling.

[libengan]

Toposolid Subdivions Should Allow Negative Values for Height

There is no other way to create paths/roads that are recessed into the site and stay updated with the site topography.

The workaround right now is to split the toposolid, and lower the elevation of the newly split element, but if you change the site toposolid, the split road toposolid does not get updated.  There is also no way to rejoin a split toposolid back to the original toposolid.  How is this smart??

[kimberly.fuhrman]

Congrats! We think this is a great idea, so we've decided to add it to our roadmap. Thanks for the suggestion!

To follow the progress of features in development, please see the Revit Public Roadmap and join the Revit Preview Release to participate in feature testing. (Note that Accepted Ideas may not be immediately available.)

The Factory

[lauren_poonRM962]

Hi @mhiserZFHXS Thanks for your idea! We are working on the ability to excavate a toposolid with a floor, roof, or another toposolid so we marked this as accepted. Here is the feature card on our roadmap. For clarity, this does not include the ability to recess a subdivision. 

[mhiserZFHXS]

@lauren_poonRM962With all due respect, the intent of the idea is to be able to utilize sub-divisions for things like parking lots and roads. While my other idea to cut toposolids with model elements may help with this, it will still result in a duplication of work whenever topography is changed. We'll have to modify the toposolid, and then modify the floor or adjacent toposolid, whichever method turns out to be better for this use.

Ideally, sub-divisions will be improved so that they have both a height parameter AND a base level parameter, which in my mind would be relative to the height of the overall toposolid, rather than the base level always being the surface of the toposolid.

I'm not saying the other idea isn't needed. That will greatly improve and streamline the modeling of structures. But the intent of this idea is for completely different model elements. So if Autodesk doesn't currently intend on adding this functionality to sub-divisions, I'd respectfully ask that this idea not be marked as accepted.

[AMillarSOA]

@lauren_poonRM962I have to say that I completely agree with @mhiserZFHXS that this is not the same feature.

The benefit of subdivisions is their ability to follow the toposurface grading.  Separate floors and topo surfaces have to be individually graded rather than updating with the topo.

The point of the suggestion to recess subdivisions is NOT to have to manually grade a separate object which is what the current tedious workflow already is and has been for years to model sidewalks, roads, and other site surfaces.

It should be clearly understood that the subdivision tool in its current form is severely limited in utility by the lack of recess or cut into the topo.

Unless tools to make those floors and objects mentioned drape onto or follow topography are also coming, there will still be a duplication of work regrading every object every time a change is made on site.

[lauren_poonRM962]

Hi @mhiserZFHXS and @AMillarSOA thank you very much for the feedback and describing more details. We will revert the status back and reconsider the request. 

[mhiserZFHXS]

@lauren_poonRM962  Thank you, though I certainly hope it is accepted again soon 😁

[AMillarSOA]

Thanks for the quick response @lauren_poonRM962 !

[Chris_D_UK]

Just upgraded my first project to 2024, and this it the very first problem that hit me - all my site roads which were subregions in the old version were modelled flush, but now as toposolid subdivisions they stick up above the footways (sidewalks)! I've set them to a minimal thickness, but of course I tried to type in a minus figure which didn't work...... close, but a miss!

[Todd_Moon]

This post is spot-on.  In addition to roads, walkways or similar elements that one will want to "tie" to the topography, a subdivision should be able to accept a negative offset for something like a landscape bed, where the mulched surface (the subdivision) is consistently 1 or 2 or 4 inches (for example) below the primary surface...think of how a lawn might sit a few inches above the landscape bed.  Also, an offset value of zero should be allowed.

The key element that is missing in the current definition of a subdivision is that in addition to a parameter that sets the value of the offset surface relative to the primary toposolid, there must be a parameter that sets the thickness desired for the subdivsion.  So, for example, I want a subdivision to be defined as a concrete material, 4" thick, and have the top surface be consistently 1" above the soil surface (the primary toposolid).  The remaining 3" of concrete are therefore below grade and should be clearly "cut out" of and distinct from the soil.

Now, taking this one step even further, I also want there to be a 4" layer of gravel below that sidewalk.  So, I need multiple material definitions associated with the subdivision, stacked vertically.  Hmm, sounds just like a toposolid.  So...the subdivision really should be defined as a different family of toposolid that is linked to the "primary" toposolid and all of the point-specific geometric information is common to both (with the exception of the relative offset, either upwards or downwards.)

The comment about not being able to rejoin a split toposolid back to the original is also absolutely correct.  Splitting and merging toposurfaces is a common workflow that I use in 2023 and earlier to help manage manipulation of the topography.

And let me add that the removal of the pad feature is also very irksome.  Why not have a carving element native to the topography toolset...why should I need to create a mass to do the job?  I normally keep mass visibility off, so, if I need to cut a chunk of space out of the ground, I need to add additional steps to my workflow or create additional template views with masses visible in order to enable this workflow.  Pads were certainly a pain in the butt to work with, but they do have their uses.  How about we just get a "void" topography tool, perhaps?

And as long as I'm dreaming, a tool to actually draw a contour line would be nice.  Such a tool would allow me to set the contours exactly the way I want, rather than having to place a bunch of spot elevations and then manipulate them to approximate the contours.  Trying to get a parallel set of contour lines to show a consistent slope (like a berm) is a royal pain.

[ro]

Possibly the best new feature and no negative. Autodesk, please bring it with 2024.2. ASAP.

[kimberly.fuhrman]

Congrats! We think this is a great idea, so we've decided to add it to our roadmap. Thanks for the suggestion!

To follow the progress of features in development, please see the Revit Public Roadmap and join the Revit Preview Release to participate in feature testing. (Note that Accepted Ideas may not be immediately available.)

The Factory

[AMillarSOA]

@kimberly.fuhrmandoes this now include subdivisions recessing into the topography (please see the discussion above when this was previously marked accepted)?  This is a huge distinction that the previous time this was accepted excluded specifically?

Floors, roofs, and other topo surfaces cutting topography is nowhere near as useful as the subdivision (which follows the grading of the topography) recessing and cutting the topography.  Floors, roofs, and other topo surfaces have to be separately graded, which is a duplication of work, and the whole reason subdivisions are useful (well, not really useful currently, since they only sit on top of the topography).

[kimberly.fuhrman]

@AMillarSOA ,

I would refer to this item on the Public Roadmap and encourage you to add your additional feedback there. @lauren_poonRM962 ?

[ellison]

I agree that a negative-offset subdivision would be a nice feature for a curbed paved area, but while you're waiting for Autodesk to add this functionality you can simply create a subdivision of positive thickness for everything but the paved area.  The subdivision to which I'm referring is shown below in green.  I created subdivisions for curb and gutter as well.