Fix Topography not responding to Phases properly

[SamuelAB]

If you have a topography and use a building pad in Phase 2, it will cut it in Phase 1 as well. Autodesk has aware of the problem since at least 2011 and has acknowledged that the feature is not working as it should.

Right now the work around is to create a whole new topography in Phase 1 to cover all the hole. This leaves a mark that cannot be hidden in some case (when using Realistic views with grass materials or view a 3d view for example). Mostly, this workflow should work as expected. Adding a phase 2 pad should only cut the topography in phase 2 and not create a hole in the topography in phase 1.

---

I would suggest revisiting the way topography works with some experienced Landscape architects. The landscaping workflow is one of the weak point of Revit and it seems to be getting very little attention. For example, I would suggest some elements that are capable of "eating into" the topography, so for example if you add pavers to a topo, you don't have to push the topo down manually.

I would also suggest giving us access to editing the edge of the topo instead of giving us only the clumsy "split" and "merge" surface tools.

[SamuelAB]

Meant to say "Autodesk has been aware of the problem since at least 2011"

[pieterschiettecatte]

Yes!

[samuelsanf]

That's true, but may you should use gradding for the phace 2 topo, then place the building path in the new topo (gradding generate 2 identical topos, one existing and the other in the future to modify).

[pieterschiettecatte]

@samuelsanf You're absolutely right there are workarounds, but that's true for a lot, if not most, ideas on this station.

The way topo handles phasing today is neither intuitive nor logical or consistent with other elements in Revit. Topography would get a lot more user friendly if it did.

For example: we had a project where we were "infilling some existing basements and creating some new basements" and we had to use a complex system of multiple topo's combined with design options and even some hacks with generic models.

Working with two topographies has its share of problems as well. Ffor example: at the beginning of the project you often only have a rough estimate of the existing topo, that you will later refine based on new info. Now if new info on the existing condition comes in, you might have to update two topo's. 

As far as grading goes: it's hard/impossible to have a truly vertical cut (you can't have two points on the same place).Building pads are better suited for this.

In the end, what we really need is boolean operations on topo that reacts to phasing so we can cut and add to topography with all the modeling tools at our disposal (extrusions, blend (would be really helpful for grading), sweeps, etc

[samuelsanf]

@pieterschiettecatte I agree, itsn't intuitive. Toposurface deserve a lot of improvements.

[MarkRummings1764]

I fully support this request.

Sorry in advance for repeating the basic premise in this request but I wanted to supplement this request by illustrating the process I use and probably many others use.  I spent hours on this issue thinking it was a Revit 2019 issue or that I was doing something wrong only to find this deficiency is well recorded.

From a practicality point of view the key point of creating a new graded region in the New Construction phase is to be able to show what changes happened to the topography after the existing topography was modelled.  Where for example there are existing buildings present, as is the case in many projects, the most simple way of siting an existing building in the landscape is to use a pad upon which the building is placed.

What currently happens is that as soon as the new graded region is created in the New Constrcution phase the landscape within the curtalige of the existing buildings in the existing views reverts to its original form before the existing pad was created as though the pads never existed.

Commonly designers are given 3D points files by surveyors but these files commonly only record points around the building.  So where 'create from import instance' is used, yes, the topo is broadly correct but as the existing buildings are not included in the spot levels the outcome is an approximation of mean level where the buildings are.

So, as it is required to have topography sitting immeadiatly under the existing and one is not able to use a pad to quickly cut the existing topography (and fill to meet the pad) that will remain when a new graded region is created, designers currently have a few choices, none of them are 'pretty':

a) Don't create a new graded region but keep modeling the existing. In this scenario an existing Revit file would have to be kept to illustrate what exists as a simple switch of views to show what was there does not work once the proposed is added.   Not what Revit is about.

b) Create a new graded region but then recreate the pads in the New Construction phase beneath the existing. This means you have to repeat what you did in the existing phase which means more work. This works for the New Constrcution views fine but it still leaves the existing views uncut.

c) Create the area under the existing buildings using points in the existing phase before the graded region is created. I haven't tried it buy I assume this will work but be very time consuming.

[Anonymous]

Holly Shishkebab! I just ran into this problem. I literally can't believe that this is still unresolved. Really?! What the hell?!

OK, I had to rant as I've spent two hours trying to figure out what I was doing wrong. Please fix this problem ahead of adding any new functionality. What good is new stuff when the old stuff doesn't even work as expected. Please.

-t

[pieterschiettecatte]

@Anonymous it's perhaps worth bringing this up on the preview forum as well. 

[Anonymous]

@AnonymousMaybe they are waiting or the 10th year anniversary of knowing bou the problem to fix it? That would only be in two years since they have been aware since 2011

[Anonymous]

I really hope this issue can be solved soon. I also spent a lot of my time trying to find out what I did wrong. 

For now, I decided to cover the area with a filled region on my plans.

[Anonymous]

The best solution is probably not to use pads and to create separate topographies in each phases. Of course, this is extremely contrary to proper BIM ways of working and a giant pain for users.

Generally, everything related to sitework and landscaping is severely limited/overlooked in Revit. Autodesk has dropped the ball on landscape architects.

[lionel.kai]

I create the Topo in a separate file so it can be linked in with the "Underlay" option (to avoid issues with foundations, etc. "eating into" it - per OP). Has the added benefit of not requiring the top to be exact - as long as it's hidden by the slab. 

Definitely avoiding use of Pads is the best practice, but if you REALLY want to, create separate "new" and "existing" models for the different site phases - MUCH easier.

Sometimes I even copy the slab-on-grade into a linked (& underlaid) file, drop it, and change it to basecourse - that gives me decent subbase for 90% of the conditions with relatively little fuss. That's another area where Revit has potential, but falls short - what's the point of having multiple Floor layers if the subbase layer will cut through the middle of the concrete thickened slab edge?

[MikeBoiness]

I can't believe that for 8 years people have been complaining about this issue and it's still unresolved.

The building pads are much more easy and accurate to work with than the other Topo features but this issue with the phases makes the building pads almost useless

[SamuelAB]

@MikeBoinessIndeed, I feel like this is a great example of the endemic problem at Autodesk.

They have a system to collect bugs and user annoyances with Revit users, yet the system is clearly broken as it does not resolve into these bugs being fixed in any kind of normal manner.

A major bugs needs to have hundred of people's online vote to get any kind of attention and when it does it is only noticed by Autodesk many years later. Then, there is the whole question of whether they will fix it al all.

Anyhow, the system is deeply flawed and Autodesk has all the tools to fix it, now we just wait until they do or hope someone marches in and breaks the monopoly. It would be a lot easier if Autodesk just fixed their broken ways, since I quite like 90% of Revit and it took us so long to get here as an industry.

[Anonymous]

Hello,

The current topography phasing for the most part works really well. I've noticed a potential bug though!

My understanding: the current workflow for phasing changes to topo objects is to overlay copied top models on top of other, make the necessary cut, fill or pad adjustments and then assign a phase (either by copying manually  or by using the grade region tool). With phase filter and graphic overrides cut and fill can be controlled graphically in section. It works really well and allows me to colour cuts in solid red and fills in solid blue on a phase by phase basis.

Problem: sometimes the graphics of a new phase would overlay a previous phase incorrectly. ie a small strip of fill would colour the whole of the existing topo base rather than just the additional part (see attached 'section showing problem')

Solution: It all seems to do with the creation order of the topos (not the phase assignation but literally which topo you model first). The topo created first will graphically overlay any topos created later, irrespective of the phasing! 

Idea: Overlaying multiple topos works, but it is an extra pain modelling, and being careful about the creation order of the topos will be hard to maintain on complicated models. I would prefer to deal with one topo object and make phase by phase adjustments to it which can be graphically controlled using the project phase overrides. 

Best,

Dan

[pieterschiettecatte]

I agree, but there's already an idea for this: consider adding your vote there, and referring to this post in the comments. 

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/fix-topography-not-responding-to-phases-properly/idi-p/68...

[Anonymous]

Agree with all the comments below.

Its usable at the moment. overlaying copied topos per phase works, but its hard to manage on complicated sites and could do with some simplification.

I'd prefer one single topo object with the modifiers (cut, carve, fill) given the relevant phase status. 

[lionel.kai]

for some reason the attachments aren't working...

[chris_flynn]

Very similar dis-respect for design options that limits the placement of multiple pads over each other for each option. and Still in Revit 2020 this issue still remains!

[BethanyPritchard]

Just want to add to this post that this is STILL an issue.  It is something we had to research a work-around for recently and would love to see it working properly in Revit.