Join Paul F. Aubin for an in-depth discussion in this video Chase examples, part of Revit: Tips, Tricks, and Troubleshooting.
- When you have chases or other bumped out pilasters or enclosed poche areas in your floor plans, there's a few different ways that you can control the way they look graphically. And I was once presented with this condition here and the client wanted it to look like you see on the right. So the top open area is more of a negative area or a poche area and they really didn't want to see the inside edges of all of these walls here. And then the one down here, they did want to actually show as a chase area, so for them they wanted that to be a lighter line around the edge and they wanted to put this X in there.
And so, that's a pretty common way to want to display a chase area. Well, of course, with the walls that you see here on the left, wall are going to render the same way on both sides of the wall and there's really no way to tell Revit to make the wall do something different on one side or the other, at least not without a decent amount of effort. So, what we can do though, is we can override the graphics in the view in a variety of different ways. So let me share with you a couple possibilities. And the first is what you're seeing right here on the right. This is using the Linework tool with both an invisible and a thin line.
So up here we're using invisible lines and down here we're using thin lines. And it looks like this: You go to the Modify tab, and you click the Linework tool, and you choose the line style that you want to use. So in this case, I'm going to use thin lines, and you just simply touch the edges that you want to override with that thin lines effect. Then you switch to an invisible line and you go to the next series of edges. And in some cases you have to pick twice. And then there's a slight gotcha that you run into and that's, right here you"ll notice that I can't get just the internal edge.
It's going to see the entire length of the wall. And if I go ahead and click that, it will hide the entire length of the wall, so let me undo. So the solution is, you have to split that wall into three segments. Then I'll go back to my Linework tool and now I can hide the edge of just the middle segment. So, sometimes, if you're using the Linework tool, it's going to take a little bit of extra effort to get exactly the effect you want. Now, as far as the X goes, that's just as simple as drawing detail lines from the annotation tab and, you know, drawing those in diagonally where you want them to go.
Now, it's quick and it's easy and it's effective, but there's a big downside to the Linework tool approach. And that is, that if you go to other floor plans, like the reflected ceiling plan, None of those overrides are applied here. So not only is the override view specific, but, there's really no easy way to copy those overrides and apply them to other views. You would have to use the Linework tool over again in those other views and there might be several of them.
Now, the detail lines, you can copy and paste, but the Linework tool, you cannot. Now, I have another version of the Linework tool here where I've just graphically represented this a little bit differently. And then over here, I have another view-specific possibility, another approach, and this is using Masking Regions. So sometimes folks will say, "Well why don't I just use a masking region?" And, of course, a masking region is just a shape that you an draw, any shape you want. And it will cover up the underlying model geometry.
So this right here is actually a masking region. And if I do Edit Boundary, I'll just delete one of these edges, you just use the Pick Lines here and you can literally pick the edges of the walls and use that to create the shape of the mask. The only trouble with that is, as you can see here, when you're done, it doesn't really fully cover that line. It kind of only partially covers it. It's definitely a little bit thinner. This line over here is a little bit thicker. So you might be tempted to use it over here for the shaft that we do want to display with the thinner line and go ahead and add it there.
And how did I get them to completely hide up here? Well, I just made the mask a little bit larger. So, you can see there, when I select a mask, it goes semi-transparent. And we're seeing the walls underneath. So here you just simply make your mask a little bit bigger than it needs to be. No, there is a small gotcha with this mask right here. Even though, it looks correct on-screen. It's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to get it to print that way. So, the reason for that is, if we go to the Application menu and we go to Print, there really is only two options when it comes to printing masks.
So, I'm going to go to the Setup here and under Options, we've got this check box that Region edges mask coincident lines. And what this means is, the mask will either cover up that line when it's touching it or it won't. But, unfortunately, there's no half-way there. So, when you have this checked, it will completely conceal the edge of that linework underneath. So, for example, if I do a preview here, for this condition it would give me exactly what I want.
But over here, it's hiding too much. But if you uncheck that box, then it will actually ignore it as if the mask wasn't even there and you've got this effect. So, the mask is really not going to be a great solution for thinning the line. You're still going to need linework for that. But it might work okay for covering up the solid potion. But, once again, it's a view-specific modification. But where it has a slight advantage over the Linework tool is that you can copy and paste these masks to different views.
Now, that got me to thinking, "Well there must be a model way that we can do this." There must be a way we can model this geometry instead of overriding the Toody graphics. And in fact there is, there's a few different approaches. So, over here on the left, I've looked at doing an in-place wall family. Now, there's actually an in-place wall family buried inside here. And if I just hide this wall, you can see it right there. And what I did, was I just copied it out over here to show you what the shape of that was. So, if I edit this in-place family, it contains a single extrusion, which, if I edit that, you can see it just matches the linework of the walls underneath.
And I'll cancel out of all of that. And then the Join Geometry tool is used right here to join that in-place wall on all sides. Now, the approach right here is using generic model families and it's a similar approach, only, here I simplified it to just a rectangular generic model. Which means that I actually have two of them in here. One right there. And another one right there. And when you join those together, you have the same result, but it's a little more flexible because this one square-shaped generic model family, which has these instanced-based width and height parameters, can be adjusted to any size you need.
And then you can put as many of them as you need to kind of fill in that area. And that also requires Join Geometry in order to make that merge in with the surrounding wall geometry, like so. Now, the disadvantage of the in-place approach is that, if you move this stuff, unfortunately, the merged one gets left behind. And it will generate a warning. Just click OK, select the merged one, and you can move it separately and then it will restore itself.
Here, if I move this stuff, nothing gets left behind. So it's, perhaps, a little bit nicer. And you also don't end up with lots of in-place families on your project browser, which can also be detrimental to performance. But then I started thinking, "Well, even the Join Geometry is an extra step that maybe we don't want to do. So is there another way?" And I thought about Architectural Columns. Well, Architectural Columns have a super power where they merge in with wall geometry automatically. No Join Geometry necessary.
So, is there an approach that we could do there? Well, here I've got some type-based ones. And that's right here and right here. And here, I have the same ones as instance-based ones. And you could see the difference. The type-based ones don't have the grips. So in order to create a new size there, you actually have to do Edit Type and duplicate and create, potentially, several different sizes for each of your unique conditions. And depending on the size of your building and how many of these conditions you have, that could be quite a large number.
So, the alternative is to create these instance-based ones where, now, you can either use the grips, or the properties here on the Properties palette to just simply change the values to whatever size they need to be and it will resize those. And then you add them to the conditions where you need them. And they'll automatically merge in with Join Geometry. It is even possible to create custom-shaped ones but that's a little bit more involved and so, personally, I think I like using the several small rectangular ones instead.
So whichever of the approaches you like, as you can see, there's pros and cons to each one. But I think, for me, overall, I like the column approach in every way except for the fact that it's still categorized as a column. So, if that presents you a problem, having it still be categorized as a column, then I think the next best option is using the joined generic model.
NOTE: The exercise files for this course can only be opened in the most recent version of Revit (Revit 2017).
Skill Level Appropriate for all
Q: Why can't I earn a Certificate of Completion for this course?
A: We publish a new tutorial or tutorials for this course on a regular basis. We are unable to offer a Certificate of Completion because it is an ever-evolving course that is not designed to be completed. Check back often for new movies.