offset framing stick symbol line without affecting the physical model /edited - was 'analytical model'/

[lionel.kai]

Maybe through a "Stick Symbol Annotation Offset" (scale agnostic) parameter?

ISSUE: When we have framing that overlaps (one beam directly above another), we want to show a parallel dashed line to represent the beam that's below. We also want to tag both beams. See plan:

CURRENT SOLUTION: pick a distance based on the plan scale (3" for 1/8"=1', 1.5" for 1/4"=1', etc.), set the "y Offset" to that distance, change the "Stick Symbol Location" to "Location Line", and MOVE THE BEAM by the same distance.

KNOWN ISSUES: If the same two beams are to be shown in an enlarged plan (or any plan at a different scale), the gap shown between the two beams will be too large or too small. Sometimes the beam must be moved off of its supports (resulting in the ends not showing properly - too long), see plan at left column:

ALTERNATE SOLUTION: Detail Lines (not preferred, as they must be manually coordinated if the beam moves, changes length, is deleted, etc.)

WISH: Add a "Stick Symbol (Annotation) Offset" parameter (or similar) that's based on the distance it will be on PAPER (we could set it 1/32" and the gap would show properly on 1/4" or 1/8" scales). The beam would not need to be moved (and no other parameters would need to be affected. ALTERNATELY: some kind of view-specific offset that could be applied.

[KateMorricalTowne]

Seconding the usefulness of this kind of instance parameter.

We use detail lines now when we have to (I think physically moving the lower beam is a terrible idea--sorry), but something along the lines of how the "brace symbol" works would be great.

[lionel.kai]

I think I wound up doing the "move" solution because that's what we do for ledgers (and that's the only reasonable solution in that case). I suppose we could still tag the lower beam AND do a Detail Line (which is what we have to do in some cases anyway). My biggest issue is that the Revit developers think we should be "faking" (offsetting) the PHYSICAL beam instead of the SCHEMATIC representation. 😞

I also made a Screencast for this, but never linked it because I rambled a little. I think it might be useful for some to see, though (0-1:40 shows the workaround): http://autode.sk/2jo2X03

[sasha.crotty]

Thanks for taking the time to submit your idea. Unfortunately, this idea did not get the support of the community over the last 6 months and as such we will not be pursuing it at this time. Please feel free to rework (titles and clear descriptions are really important) and resubmit this one down the road.

[lionel.kai]

@pawelpiechnikreally?!? An archived idea with only 4 votes! Cool... 🙂 I hope it will hit 2022 (as that may be our last Revit version).

[lionel.kai]

Of course, this isn't on the roadmap, so is it really "accepted" @pawelpiechnik?

[pawelpiechnik]

@lionel.kai please associate it to this item: https://trello.com/c/O5TxuEYu/105-versatile-analytical-modeling-in-context. please let me know if you would like to be more engaged in "Previewing"

[lionel.kai]

@pawelpiechnik That card is very vague and all-encompassing. I suspect that will take multiple versions to implement (so we probably won't see this small change in the 2022 version), but could you post a link to the appropriate/associated beta forum? I couldn't find it, but I'd like to be able to give feedback in the appropriate place.

[pawelpiechnik]

It is now enabled through the Analytical Model autonomy and users change control in Revit 2023: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ClsmT-EMzY

[lionel.kai]

@pawelpiechnik I don't see ANYTHING in that video that indicates that this idea/wish/feature request has been implemented. It only talks about the analytical model. We can make MULTIPLE analytical models now? Interesting... but totally irrelevant to this idea.

I just checked the March Frame preview (in lieu of downloading & installing Revit 2023), and assuming it includes whatever's in Revit 2023, and assuming I can mention that in this context (as I'm not discussing features that haven't been released), I don't see any new parameters of framing (W Shapes in particular) that indicate the ability to shift the stick symbol laterally without moving the beam. If I'm wrong, PLEASE let me know. Otherwise...

@kimberly_fuhrman-jones please change the status back to "Accepted" (although I suspect that it will actually go back to "Gathering Support" as it was probably just a case of a bunch of ideas getting grabbed for addition to the roadmap without actually reading them). Just please don't put it back to "Archived" (the number of votes DID double in the year and a half it was re-activated)!

[pawelpiechnik]

@lionel.kai, this video is a marketing and value proposition introduction to the new philosophy of the analytical model. As the Analytical model is autonomous now and changes to physical model do not automatically impact analytical lines, it's on engineers to decide how a change needs to be managed given design recommendations and disposal. As on your screenshots and title above you indicate annotations for physical lines and objects, any changes to those would not impact geometry of analytical objects. 

If this is still not solving that usecase we can always change the status of the idea or maybe it would need to be rephrased if needed: it may be that you didn't mean the analytical model but the stick line of a physical representation. Feel free to clarify if needed.

[lionel.kai]

@pawelpiechnik You are correct. I should have said "offset framing stick symbol line without affecting the analytical or physical models" or maybe just "offset framing stick symbol line without affecting the physical model" since the analytical model is a separate thing now anyway (and we don't really care about it). If you (or @kimberly_fuhrman-jones) can change the status and title to be more clear, that would be great! 🙂

[nathanberube]

AS A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, I WOULD FIND THIS FEATURE USEFUL.