La sugerencia automática le ayuda a obtener, de forma rápida, resultados precisos de su búsqueda al sugerirle posibles coincidencias mientras escribe.
Mostrando los resultados de
Mostrar solo
|
Buscar en lugar de
Quiere decir:
Esta página se tradujo para tu conveniencia mediante un servicio de traducción automática. No es una traducción oficial, y puede contener errores o traducciones imprecisas. Autodesk no garantiza, ni expresa ni implícitamente, la precisión, la confiabilidad ni la exhaustividad de la información traducida por el servicio de traducción automática y no será responsable por los daños o las pérdidas que se produzcan como consecuencia de la confianza depositada en dicho servicio.Traducir
I am happy to say that we believe we have implemented this idea with the Revit 2019 release! You now will have the ability to apply a background or foreground pattern to materials, elements, and overrides. Check out the feature and let us know what you think.
So, this implementation is great, but it's flawed. You can ONLY apply a Drafting pattern for the Background.
Because we are limited by the .pat filetype, we can't create nice looking patterns that show different lineweights, colors, etc. based on the lines within the patterns. I thought this dual hatch pattern option would help with that, but it doesn't in this instance.
I want to create a 2x4 ceiling pattern, then have lighter lines at 6" intervals along the 2' span. This can't happen. I can easily create a basic hatch pattern in Revit for the 2'x4', and I could easily create a basic pattern for the 6"x4', but I CANNOT put both of them on the same material?!?! WHY?
What is the reason behind implementing something half way or partially? Or maybe I'm just crazy and something is wrong. Is anyone else seeing this limitation? Obviously this in Revit 2019, with the hotfix 1 installed (2019.0.1).
Having 2 patterns with full control over each would be best. And that means allowing us to use both model OR drafting for either the foreground or background patterns.
But yes, hopefully there is still some work being done on the patterns in general, as the .pat file is getting old...
Unfortunate as if often the case, new features just become a Check Off to development. Further enhancements making the feature more usable seem to get pushed way to the back of the line.
Agreed. Many of the "new" features are implemented exactly as a user has described without any extra thought put into how they will be used in the actual software. We look to the developers to actually think about user experience and implementing things that work all around, not just partially.
Do we have to create another Idea and get 500+ votes to make a previous Idea implemented fully?
I've seen it many times over the years - features are implemented from Wish Lists, but how they the features are to be implemented don't seem to get the same treatment. Once a feature is put on the Development List, surveys should be sent out requesting the Key Features of implementation. Priorities should then be set to those features - because they won't be able to get to all of them. Besides Focus Groups, Comment Engineering (ala Reddit) would also help.
Thanks for the feedback about model patterns being used for both foreground and background. We appreciate your thoughts and time/effort to provide your feedback. We would encourage you to create idea for additional functionality in this area.
As a workaround to this issue with model and drafting patterns, it is possible to combine patterns in the text PAT file or to switch (or create a copy) a pattern from a model pattern to a drafting pattern by editing the PAT text file directly. There is a thread on AUGI related to this that might be helpful: http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?71026-Editing-the-Revit-Hatch-PAT-File .
As to the comments about our process for addressing wish list items, I'll try to answer without being defensive (though sorry if it comes off that way). We try to gather as much feedback as we can while researching ideas and during the development process. In this case, we connected with people on this idea thread as well as the original poster directly to get their thoughts and understand their requirements, we posted a survey on our preview release site with our beta testers, and included customers directly with our teams as they developed the functionality (called sprint demos). Through out the process, we made adjustments based on their feedback to try and best meet the needs of everyone. Our goal is to listen as much as possible and provide an experience that meets the needs of most of the customers we talked with - though, we know that we aren't able to fulfill all requirements from everyone and we are not able ensure that we have collected every possible piece of feedback before we release a feature. Your feedback after the release is very helpful and will help us to decide what more functionality we should prioritize. Please keep the comments coming.
@harlan_brumm, thank you for the information and I do apologize for my tone but it can be frustrating seeing how much we all pay for this and it just seems we are continually helping to test the software and help improve it without getting a ton in return. Obviously we see the improvements in the software eventually, so that is a plus!
In regards to changing a model pattern to a drafting pattern, I'm not sure that would actually solve the issue. Since drafting patterns scale and behave differently in general, I'm assuming we'd see the same behavior when it's applied as a double pattern and things wouldn't look the way we would like. I have yet to test this, so maybe someone else on this thread has and can shed some light. If not, I'll try as soon as I can and report back.
I will admit I personally overlooked the drafting vs. model patter thing... once I realized it I emailed the team working on this, but at that point I think Revit 2019 was out. Ugh, missed opportunity - sorry. Personally, I would have liked to represent basic masonry coursing in sections; brick section pattern (drafting) with horizontal coursing lines (model).
I think @casquatch is correct in that the suggested workaround will not work - as you would not be able to control the color of the 6" lines separately if all in a single pattern definition. On a related note, just sharing, here are a few posts I wrote on the subject:
I was also part of that test group together with Dan but I didn't want to break the NDA. As Harlan has replied, I figure it's fine to share some thoughts now.
I must say that the team working on this took every effort to gather as much feedback as they could (including calling the people who had added comments in this thread). They make mock-ups of all dialogs and workflows and then gathered feedback again. It was the exact opposite of "let's just smack a new feature in there and call it a day".
For double patterns they had to make adjustments to import and export of dwg's, change the V/G dialogs, change the patterns dialog (they didn't have to do that but they did to improve workflow), change filled regions, change phasing overrides, change element overrides, etc etc
However, in the end every new feature brings up other questions: why not have a pattern generator, why not have rotating drafting patterns, why not have aligning of patterns on curved surfaces, etc etc. In the end a judgement call has to be made when to stop, or this team will be working on patterns for 5 years straight (and not tackling of the other +6000 revit ideas).
As for not having full lineweight control over patterns: it's an issue that has discussed a lot and it seemed really hard to find a consensus in the user community on HOW that should be handled. There's a ton of different ways to do it: control per pattern, per material, per object styles, V/G, phasing, element overrides, ... You could just say "do it all" but that's both going to take development time away from other much needed features and make Revit an even more complex beast to learn and manage.
As for why not model+model pattern: as I understood it, this would open up another can of worms (can you align/rotate both model patterns separately etc?). I felt that this type of usage would be better fixed with a pattern generator (which is one of the top 5 Revit ideas, so it's bound to happen someday). Remember, time the team didn't have to spend on making model+model pattern happen can be reinvested somewhere else on the top+20 idea list. If you want a fix in the meantime I highly recommend the free PyRevit plugin which has a great pattern creator.
Lastly, I would recommend everyone to join the beta program. You'll get a better appreciation of how much effort the developers put into new features and you'll get a chance to provide feedback before features make it into the product.
Thanks for all the responses. I'm just wondering (out loud) the process of "enhancing an enhancement" and if these types of suggestions carry as much weight as "new features". There are many enhancements which have been requested, but workarounds have been "canon" and seem to never make it into the application (e.g. splitting schedules over multiple sheets, making curve edges invisible, maintaining SKP smoothing groups,et al).
Instead of a separate Pattern Generator, why not support SVG as a pattern format? You'd get everything - bitmaps, vectors, line weight, etc. No need for a separate app and users could create them using applications they're already comfortable with.
The easiest way to be added to our preview release (beta) program is to reach out via email to revit.preview.access@autodesk.com. We will then get you setup.
As for your question about the "enhancements": when you look at the detailed change logs you'll notice that continuous small enhancements are being made all the time. I wouldn't be surprised that more coding time is spend on fixing existing bugs and small enhancements than creating new features. However, these small changes are often not promoted like the big new features are so they often slip under the radar.
As for the examples you mention (splitting schedules, smoothing groups in sketchup, ...), these are all on Revit Ideas, just like +6000 other suggestions. I'm sure splitting schedules is going to be tackled someday (as it's a very popular Idea in the top +50), but there are +1000 ideas with more votes than Sketchup smoothing groups so I don't expect that to be tackled any time soon.