Masking Pipe segments but not backgrounds

[gsegura482GX]

Greetings,

I am running into an issue where i am trying to hide pipes shown in a call-out section of my drawing but it is hising both the background and the pipes. I am trying to do this using masking region and sending it to the front or back and its the same outcome every time. Anyone have an idea on how to hide piping in a call-out region to be visible in the call-out region only and not the full drawing.

Thank you ahead of time, 

[ToanDN]

Turn off Pipes category?

[gsegura482GX]

i can turn off pipes for the entire floor plan but that is not what i need. i just need to remove pipes in the call-out box and when i click the call-out box go to its visual graphics settings and turn off pipes, the pipes are still being shown.

[msanschagrin · Accepted solution]

We handle this by creating a workset for enlarged views.  We select the pipes we want to hide from our "base" plan view, put them on that enlarged view workset, close that workset in our "base" plan view so that the pipes we don't want to display are hidden.  In our callout, we do the opposite: we open the enlarged view workset and close the other ones so we only see what we want in our callout view.

Curious to learn how other people achieve this.

HTH!

Max

[jkarben]

I recommend not hiding the piping on the base plan. It adds value to the plan as is. The reader can see where equipment is, etc. and the callout is there to point the reader to the enlarged plans for more detail. Don't make more work for yourself. 

If you must, another option is to use a plan region in the call out area and move the plan region's view range out side of the building. You will need to also break each system where it intersects the callout. PIA. Not worth it IMO.

[msanschagrin]

I partially agree with you, here's why: 

1. Not hiding pipes in the callout area might work, depending how many pipes are in that area.  In some situations, it will be clear, in others, not.  I guess this is more of a personal/situation base choice.
2. Using a plan region will hide your pipes, but it will also force you to have a different cut plane from the base view, and alter the way your architectural link will display.  For that reason, I wouldn't suggest to use this solution.  See attached screenshots.

This is from my experience and how we display things on our plans.  You might be doing differently and present your pipes in double lines, which will make your pipes in that area look better.

Regards,

Max

Without Plan Region or Workset WorkaroundWith Plan Region

[jkarben]

I've found it best to not let old habits prohibit new efficiencies and added value.

The only reasons we hide pipes in a callout area is because the view doesn't adhere to established norms. Sure the drops are too big and overlap, that's different but just fine IMO. That is why we do the callout to clarify the area, because it is cluttered and too busy and establish the norms. In the example you are forcing the reader to move to a different view/sheet to see where the pipe are ran when that info is readily available in both locations. 

Sorry should of clarified that Plan regions work when the linked model is set to a view from the linked model and is set to that view's view range.

[msanschagrin]

As I said, at this point, it's a personal choice/preference thing 🙂

Thanks for your input!

Max

[RobDraw]

I don't agree with using worksets for visibility. Worksets have a different purpose. I would set up a parameter made specifically for this purpose and use a filter(s) for visibility of any of the pipes and fittings in the callout. I also don't think that all of the pipes should be hidden. There is value in showing larger pipes in the callout area as opposed to just having blank space and making the person reading the plans hunt for basic the same kind of information shown for the rest of the plan. I will usually show as much as I can but not necessarily tag the smaller branch piping that is tagged in the callout view.

[msanschagrin]

Rob,

Regarding Worksets and Visibility, I know it's not part of most good practices, but I am curious to learn why.  I mean, I know it is not their primary purpose, but what "valid" or logic reason should prevent me from doing so (except then reading everywhere it should not be done).

Thanks,

[RobDraw]

---

@msanschagrin wrote:

Rob,

Regarding Worksets and Visibility, I know it's not part of most good practices, but I am curious to learn why.  I mean, I know it is not their primary purpose, but what "valid" or logic reason should prevent me from doing so (except then reading everywhere it should not be done).

---

To me, when it is a well documented best practice to not use them in this way. It is usually a good idea to explore other options to control visibility. If you really want to use them in this way, nothing logical I can say will prevent you from doing it.

IMVHO, if you want to be successful in your Revit carrier, you should use the right tool for the job. This use of worksets is akin to layers in Autocad. There is no real intelligence to that property when used for visibility. Filters offer a selection visibility properties be applied, not just on or off, and are the right tool for the job because controlling visibility and graphics is what they do.

[ToanDN]

They are just tools and can be used as long as they get the job done. The argument that you shouldn't be using worksets like Layers is just someone's opinion and I have never seen any accountable explanations why.

Oh, you can make filters based on worksets too.

[msanschagrin]

---

@RobDraw wrote:

IMVHO, if you want to be successful in your Revit carrier, you should use the right tool for the job. This use of worksets is akin to layers in Autocad. There is no real intelligence to that property when used for visibility. Filters offer a selection visibility properties be applied, not just on or off, and are the right tool for the job because controlling visibility and graphics is what they do.

---

I get what you're saying about the worksets and layers comparison. I hated worksets so much when I was first introduced to Revit in 2008.  I also agree that the main purpose for filters is to turn off or change VG of elements.

---

@RobDraw wrote:

---

---

To me, when it is a well documented best practice to not use them in this way. It is usually a good idea to explore other options to control visibility. If you really want to use them in this way, nothing logical I can say will prevent you from doing it.

---

I've seen in almost every good practices sections not to do so, just like you say.  What I would like to know is where does this comes from?  Is it just that people from the industry decided that worksets shouldn't be used that way. If so, fair enough.  That's what I am trying to find out.  If you could point to some documentation that explains the reasons why it shouldn't be used that way, I would be more then happy to take a look at it and finally understand the reasoning behind it.

Hopefully I don't sound like a d***, English isn't my native language, I am not being sarcastic, just trying to understand where this good practice comes from 🙂

Thanks for taking the time to exchange with me!

[RobDraw]

I'm sorry but I'm not really interested in anything that talks about why it's not the right tool for the job. I use filters. Call it a personal choice if that makes you feel better about using worksets. If you want documentation, you'll have to find another source. All I can offer is an opinion, apparently. I'm of the school of thought that just because can get the job done doesn't mean I will use it as long as there are better options. I also am not saying that I would never use worksets for visibility in a pinch. It's always good to have options.

To me, the most convincing reason is that worksets do not need to exist in every project.