how to change the Associated Level

[Anonymous]

[CoreyDaun · Accepted solution]

It is not possible - a new View must be created. If you go to View tab » Plan Views ▼ Floor Plans (or Reflected Ceiling Plan), if you do not see the desired Level in the list, disable the option "Do Not Duplicate Existing Views" at the bottom of the dialog.

You can create a View Template from the existing View if one doesn't already exist (right-click on that View in the Project Browser) and then assign that View Template to the new View (under that View's Properties) in order to quickly match the Visibility/Graphics Settings.

[Anonymous]

Hi am actually stuck with an issue, I can't change levels on Elevations as when i try it keep on telling me that " The top of the Wall is lower than the base of the Wall.". There a re like 59 errors that need to be sort out and its a huge project I can't run through all of them. Any advice please help. Urgent.

[CoreyDaun]

Elevation Views are not associated with Levels, so based on the error message you are receiving, I'm assuming that you're trying to change the order of Levels in an Elevation View where Walls are constrained to those Levels. If this is the case, then you will have to remove all of the necessary associations and constraints between the applicable elements and the Levels. If not, could you please elaborate as to what exactly you're trying to accomplish and what you are doing to produce these errors?

[bwang-tecoustics]

I see so many people asking the same question again and again. Is this possible now in Revit 2018?

[mcarness]

If this is not possible then why would already created views reassociate themselves to the newly created level? This is exactly what happened on my project where I created a level to build stairs, once finished I go to delete and it tells me it has close to 50 views (that had previously been in the project) associated that will get deleted as well. So I have ventured into the Revit Point of No Return? Recreating is not an option since it has annotations on them, love how user friendly this program is getting! It seems like every year they take one step forward and three back..

[Anonymous]

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?

[RobDraw]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?

---

Why ask why?

Do you have any more details to add to your question?

[SteveKStafford]

Existing views do not re-associate themselves to another Level, ever, for any reason. Their relationship is permanent. It's a fundamental aspect of Revit and very unlikely to change.

As I spend a lot of time working to support people, I can imagine the utter mess it would create if users could randomly reassign views to different levels. You think it is hard to figure out why something doesn't show up now? Imagine a fully documented first floor plan (or hundreds) being swapped to the roof level...just because we can...

[MichaelWolff]

Hi, imagine someone created a ground floor level at a datum of say 0.00 units. Someone else created a level called 1st floor at a height of 0.00 units and yet someone else made a level called GF also at 0.00 units. Imagine they all got working on the project, one on the northeastern rim of the building the others somewhere inside. The building being somewhat large was then sectored in many dependent floor plans which were in turn placed on sheets. After a week someone registers that all three levels are at the same level. Two of the levels are to be removed to keep the project tidy. For this case it would be very tedious to re-create all the floor plans anew on the appropriate level.

[SteveKStafford]

I'm going to guess that the developers are not going to redesign the software to content with people that don't do any project planning or coordinate their work with each other.

[ToanDN]

Are you just making these scenarios up? If that is what actually happening then changing some level in Revit is the last thing your company should be worried about?

[ADuquet]

Well I do have a situation right now: Imagine there is in fact 2 levels at 300mm from one to each other on a overall layout, You won't actually do a view for each one of these level... Imagine then that 50% of that level is associated to the level 300mm down, I can tell you that it is actually messy with the part that is actually up 300mm... (Room won't place themselves (because wall are associated to upper level), Wall-based family will have issues when trying to place them...) Not that it cannot be done, but Revit seems to struggle with that condition... I solved these issues by placing everything on a working view associated to the upper level, but It would have help to change the associated level. But understand me, I do understand the reason why Revit don't allow that! But may be It could be allowed if you were limited to a 300mm Range! 😉

[SteveKStafford]

That's not really a view association issue as much as too many levels. If you really must have (why?) two levels that close together then don't create any views associated with that level. When level annotation is "black" that means no views exist for that level. When they are "Blue" at least one view exists.

I run into many projects where people have gone wild with levels because "Revit is parametric and I have to/want to automatically change stuff....IF..." despite the reality that most building elements relate to a story/elevation.

A project ought to have one level per story/floor/roof. Beyond that I'd have to be convinced "this project" is so special that it must have more. The more there are the more complicated modeling and view management gets. Don't make life harder than it needs to be.

Allowing users to reassign views to another level would create more project nightmares than I want to think about.

[Anonymous]

It's impossible because apparently the markers of Revit just LOVE purposesless rules.

[RobDraw]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

It's impossible because apparently the markers of Revit just LOVE purposesless rules.

---

Brilliant!

[duane.smith]

I have a hard time seeing the apocalypse coming just because someone re-associated a view to a new level.  All a re-association should do (assuming that the view range is set to "Associated Level"), is change the elevation of that view range and thus what appears in the view.  If objects that were annotated are no longer in the view range, those annotations will also disappear with the object, until such time that those objects reappear - good, that's what you want.  So, what's the problem?  I may be missing something more troubling here, but I just don't see it.

It sounds like you are coming from a architectural bias.  Where as, I'm coming from the structural side of things.  I think what you're missing, is that not every project is a high-rise. High-rises have floors, and they are usually fairly uniform and delineated.  So, I can see where levels would be a more limited (reserved) occurrence.  But... If you look at a processing plant, or a manufacturing plant with cranes, platforms, mezzanines, raceways, etc. you'll see a different story (no pun intended).  Those types of facilities need to have levels all over the place, and they are usually overlapping and often times even at the same elevation.  If we could ever get things like cranes and platform located correctly the first time, it would be a miracle.  So, in order to allow the individual adjustability you will inevitably need, you have to set your levels for those items up separately.   You may have several cranes or platforms that are actually at the exact same elevation today, but you don't dare place them on the same level because they will very likely need to be offset tomorrow.  The way I see it, the whole idea behind a level is that if those elevations need to change, you adjust the level and everything that is associated with that level moves too.  Brilliant! 

What I want to be able to do, is to create a floor plan (let's say "First Floor") and annotate everything.  Set the scale appropriately, run dimensions, adjust grid lines, tag objects, cut sections, etc,  Then, create a view template based on what was just perfected and apply it to that view.  Then, once everything looks good, I duplicate the view with detailing, rename it (say... "Platform 1a"), re-associate the new view to the intended level, and change its view template to something more appropriate (like "Platforms").  The idea is to cleanup the base level views, and reuse this work via a copy when creating all of the other level views.  Once the copy is created, I make the appropriate adjustments to the new view.  This process would save me an enormous amount of time annotating.  It obviously would not be perfect, and I know that I can copy and paste dimensions, and propagate grids, but those are extra steps and the propagation doesn't always work that great.  I want each plan view to at least start out as a carbon copy of my first one.

[RobDraw]

Apparently being from the structural side you are not aware of how easy it is to create views enmass, apply a view template, and accomplish exactly what you want a lot faster than your proposed work flow.

Someone much more talented than I once said, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try, sometime, you find. You get what you need."

[RobDraw]

---

@duane.smith wrote:

If you look at a processing plant, or a manufacturing plant with cranes, platforms, mezzanines, raceways, etc. you'll see a different story (no pun intended).  Those types of facilities need to have levels all over the place, and they are usually overlapping and often times even at the same elevation.  If we could ever get things like cranes and platform located correctly the first time, it would be a miracle.  So, in order to allow the individual adjustability you will inevitably need, you have to set your levels for those items up separately.   You may have several cranes or platforms that are actually at the exact same elevation today, but you don't dare place them on the same level because they will very likely need to be offset tomorrow.  The way I see it, the whole idea behind a level is that if those elevations need to change, you adjust the level and everything that is associated with that level moves too.  Brilliant! 

---

Inside your plant, adjusting levels might sound like a no brainer, simple, no dire consequences. Once again, your limited outlook has led you astray. In my realm, MEP, changing levels midstream is not to be taken lightly. It's doable but requires planning and analyses to execute flawlessly. Levels should be set ASAP and stay in place unless absolutely necessary. You have other tools for what you need.

If I were in your shoes, I would be utilizing workplanes for hosting platforms and cranes. They are much more flexible, but, hey, that's just me. I only try to make the program work for me and not let it make me work harder.

[duane.smith]

Please, do tell...  I would love to know a easier process than what I propose.

I am well aware of how easy it is to create views, en masse.  It's really just a couple of clicks and you can create a view for every level you currently have in your model.  There are some things that Revit really makes easy.  The problem is - although you can easily add view templates to address what your views look like, it does nothing for the annotations you want and may have already made.  Which is especially frustrating, is when you're faced with having to add/adjust the same annotations with each new view.  Where as, copying a view maintains all of your modifications.

I understand that Revit has never allowed a view to be re-associated, but what's wrong with doing so?  How is changing a view's elevation, via a level association, any different than changing its boundaries through a Scope Box association?

You intimated that changing this function would be some kind of Pandora's box.  

---

@RobDraw wrote:

"I can imagine the utter mess it would create if users could randomly reassign views to different levels. You think it is hard to figure out why something doesn't show up now? Imagine a fully documented first floor plan (or hundreds) being swapped to the roof level...just because we can..."

---

There are lots of things, that Revit allows, that can really mess you up.  You have to learn to be smarter than that.

If there's a reason for not allowing this functionality, I'm not seeing it.