Material priority’s to setup how materials/components (wall, floor, roofs, …) join

[benschilders]

Idea:

Add join/material piority’s directly to material identity data instead of using this on component level.
So instead of setting join orders via this menu, set it up via material settings:

So replacing or overwriting this one’s Structure/Function priority: Structure [1], Substrate [2], Thermal/Air Layer [3], Finish 1 [4]
Finish 1 [5])

So instead of having the posibilty to set it to 5 preset “strenghts/prioritys” it would be so usefull having the posibility to set this as a material setting from 0 to 999.

It would open up so many options to better standardize the connections in everybody’s firm template’s.  
Saving a lot of work and possibly making modeling workflows a lot smoother. 

Why:
This makes accurate 3D modeling way easier and more customizable for the firm that is using it.
You can set up your template to your local building code needs etc, in the standard cases you would only need to model and join and voilla a correct detail (mostly) is generated.

Less need for cut profile, filled regions, ... 

I also believe this fit’s pretty well with Autodesk developing real 3D layered wall’s
(https://trello.com/c/ujPuLQDD) 

Example: 

[mcnamac]

I'm know I'm new to Revit and all, but for the love of all creation, why don't walls just clean up at this stage in the life of a 17+ year old program designed to DRAW WALLS??

We can't all draw L-shaped buildings with flat roofs and perfect T-intersecting walls.  I don't need point cloud support, I need walls that clean up based on function & material, easily, without having to perform a hundred workarounds, whether it's in a design option or not, whether it's in a primary option or not.  

Please work on this soon.  thx!

[RobertAGlover]

There are ways to do this. First and foremost is to ensure that the "Function" of the different layers of the wall are set correctly. If for example you have your gyp finish set to "finish 1" and the brick on another wall type set to "finish 1", Revit will assume that these elements are serving the same function and should be closer together. I generally use "finish 1" for exterior finished and "finish 2" for interior finishes.

If that is set correctly then the next thing to check is the "wall joins" button which will give you various options for how the walls connection. Click on the joint and then use your options bar (under the ribbon) to cycle through options.

If you still can't get it to look the way you want then pull one wall at a time out of the intersection. Then pull it back in. Sometimes just this re-thinking of the intersection is enough to fix the issue.

Last resort - use annotation and detailing to make it look the way you want. It's view specific and time consuming but will get you where you need to go.

Hope this helps.

[mcnamac]

Thank you for the ideas!  I had tried all of these things (other than 'last resort') for an hour, and the images I posted were as close as they would get.  I am beyond frustrated, it should be easier than this.

To clarify, I would like to see a little more improvement in the area of wall cleanups so that:

1. Function / Material settings should resolve 99% of wall cleanups.  That should be the goal.
2. The other 1% could be fixed with the wall join tool.  In my mind, the intersection should still be cleaning up at the function / material level, but you would use the wall join tool to change how unlike materials in the same function level would clean up (ie:  where the material joint shows in my second picture where the 2x4 gray walls meet the 2x6 gray w/ hatch wall.  The other layers are all the same settings in every wall family, and should just work).
3. If this was the case, pulling walls apart and re-connecting them should no longer be necessary.
4. Using annotation and detailing to 'fix' basic wall cleanups is ridiculous.  I understand that is 'how it's always been'.  For 17 years.  The idea is that this shouldn't be the case anymore.  If I wanted to draft walls in multiple views and fix them individually as things change, I'd still be using ACA (where walls clean up just fine, btw).

Switching from ACA to Revit, I have HIGH expectations, but I am constantly finding myself frustrated and disappointed by all the little things like this.  Revit was supposed to be a step forward, not two steps back...

[RobertAGlover]

I see you have used AutoCAD Architecture walls I like that they have a variable three digit number that is used to dictate wall layer priority. Some of the numbers are pre-associated with certain types of materials such as masonry block, or gypsum. If the layers have the same priority number, they join unless blocked by a higher priority layer. This allows for great customization and flexibility in the wall layer interaction and may serve your purpose if it was done in Revit. Having nearly a thousand different priority levels is a bit excessive, but I think we need more than the five currently provided in Revit.

I agree that drafting over the walls is a pain. I'm glad to hear you had already tried all the options I posed, and am sorry it wasn't helpful.

[lionel.kai]

We (structural) don't normally have to deal with finish layers, so this may not help you, but we are often frustrated with corners "missing". Keeping walls with the same top and bottom as much as possible (including offsets) helps (i.e. if one wall is level 1 to 2 and the adjacent is level 1 to 3, split the 1-3 wall into a 1-2 & 2-3 wall). One of our guys (who used ME10 and a bunch of custom "smart" routines) was fond of saying about how Revit was the opposite: the families are "smart", but the software itself is "dumb". 🙂

[kanoferreira]

Please add more, like 2000 levels of priorities (material), and be able to each material have a specific priority so it can be "auto joined", Revit should automatically join (with option to unjoin of course), any material with same specs, priorities etc. It shouldn't matter if its a wall or slab.

[wr.marshall]

see related idea: Drag and drop Wall Layers in Wall Joins - Autodesk Community

 @kimberly.fuhrman though outcome of these two ideas is similar I feel @benschilders idea slightly different as will be the same every time you join wall of the same type of connection. My idea could probably go hand in hand by fine tuning the final connection where special cases are required.

please keep separate.

[benschilders]

@wr.marshall Thanks for commenting and voteing, i think the outcome of our idea is similar but like you mentioned definitly not the same.

My Idea is to have this on material setting level so it would also impact floors, roofs, etc... 

So i agree that our idea's should be kept separated. 

Also i really think that both out idea's would go hand in hand like you say, having material priorties makes alle the connection the same all the time when joined, your Idea can be used for specific fine tuneing 

[hstaabprime]

Having the ability to customize the priority list would be a game changer. Our office has figured out some workarounds for most conditions, but we often run into joins in which it takes a lot of extra work that would be avoided if this feature were expanded.

[benschilders]

@hstaabprime  I really believe this could be a game changer as well, especially if in the future there would 
come a autojoin tool (there are add-ins that can do just that ). 

Right now some of my older co-workers (who came from drawing table to CAD to Revit)  tend to hide elements and overdraw them with filled regions,
because this works faster for them then modelling it...  Wich can give problems on so many levels... 

Thanks for voting !

[MichaelWarwick7522]

Just to reinforce the use cases:

• Fire rating must be continuous, structural and lining layers related to fire must take top priority
• Acoustic rating must be continuous, except where the fire rating goes through
• Wet area linings are higher priority than standard linings
• Bracing components (structure or lining) sit between fire and acoustic, depending on the design
• The building wrap membrane for water and air tightness is really the top priority, but because it is a membrane it can run through fire usually without compromising the fire rating

So two levels of lining are not enough and sometimes lining is a higher priority than the structural layers.

[benschilders]

@MichaelWarwick7522  thanks for the reply, use cases like this is exactly what i meant, thanks for writing it down.

Maybe it can help others decide to vote 😄

[rnorrish]

@benschildersgreat idea. In principle this would work well. I would be cautious allowing walls & floors to auto join materials but an option would be great - think concrete pours or membranes. So I'm clear, you would have say Brick as 901 and a cavity brick retaining wall would have 2 layers of 901 with a conc filled layer in between at say 902. the render would then be 801 and the WP membrane at the rear of the wall 701 or something like that. Being able to disallow joints would still be vital for control joints etc

[benschilders]

@rnorrish  Thank you, i think it is a great idea as well!
dissalow joins could stay the way it functions now with my idea, also i agree that 
it will be usefull to still have this option even if they implement this idea. 

OFFTOPIC:
Autojoin could be a tool for example (there use to be add-ins who could do this). 

Or like a user setting to turn on or off auto join-ing. 

Also wanna clarify that autojoin is not part of this idea, i would rather see this as a seperate idea.
But from experience with another BIM-package i know that autojoin in combo with material priority as a material 
parameter works really well. 
As long as you setup your materials in the right way.

[wr.marshall]

@benschilders though not directly connected to the main topic of wall joins, but see this indirect idea regarding materials and line weights - Lineweight for hatch/fill patterns - Autodesk Community

[danielfriesen]

@MichaelWarwick7522  Your comment about Fire Rating assemblies must be continuous is spot on.  As it is currently, a rated wall has no way of knowing that it's a rated wall, and it gets broken by a non-rated wall intersection, causing a huge amount of manual work to Disallow Join, and trim it back.  This is unlikely to be done by overworked staff, and the contractor rubs their hands in glee when they see it.  Our construction admin staff are constantly flabbergasted by the fact that Revit cannot get it right.

[benschilders]

@kimberly.fuhrman :

I just saw that there was a revit idea (about material priorities added to the roadmap (with just 3 votes),
please consider looking at my take on this idea ) 

Since changing the material priority would be nice but if this still only has 5 priority levels it would still be to 
"simple"

Like explained before by my post and for example by @MichaelWarwick7522  it is really important to be able to manage your firms template according to the local building codes (with priorities ranging from 1-999 as a parameter of a material and not a component layer this would be posible) 

Making the piority levels available on a material level instead of on component settings would open up way more flexibility and options for BIM managers to manage our standard materials 

Thanks for reading my message. 

[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

[benschilders]

@kimberly.fuhrman  Great news to hear !

Ill look forward to seeing the idea on the roadmap, and will definitly try to test and help with the preview where
i can. 

Also i like to note that i fully understand that an idea being accepted is not a promise at all, 
still praying this idea will make it to a release one day, even if it where in revit 2030

Because it really would be an game changer, and make it way easier to get people to BIM model , then just make wrong connections and fix it with filled regions on detail level. 

Have a nice day, greetings Ben