Donate Now Goal amount for this year: 3000 USD, Received: 2475 USD (83%)

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42
Like Tree18Likes

Thread: Brick/Block Coursing Layout Family

  1.    #11
    Forum Addict GMcDowellJr's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 21, 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    2,184
    Current Local Time
    08:54 AM
    I think it more closely matches how it's built IRL... the 3/8" joint is nominal, after all... particularly in plan (and the shorter the wall, the more noticeable the difference).
    Mengelmn likes this.

  2.    #12
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    8,983
    Current Local Time
    10:54 AM
    Whether its what happens in the field or not, the farther "up the stream" you let the "slop" creep in, the more of it there has to be. Plain and simple. Its no different than rounding dimensions and saying *they cant build to that tolerance anyway.* But if it works for you, cool.
    Dave Jones likes this.

  3.    #13
    Member
    Join Date
    May 30, 2015
    Posts
    164
    Current Local Time
    10:54 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by GMcDowellJr View Post
    I think it more closely matches how it's built IRL... the 3/8" joint is nominal, after all... particularly in plan (and the shorter the wall, the more noticeable the difference).
    Modeling / Drawing it the way it is built is absolutely my preference.

    Personally, I go through and set horizontal datums on coarsing as need, dimensions and coordinate across all elevations and sections. - Masons can build to these datums and accommodate variance in the field because of construction and material variance. It’s been done this ways since the pyramids.

    To often I’ve seen designers spend hours trying to model and draw to a Machine level accuracy when doing masonry. Included in this is convoluted Revit families accurate to the 256.






    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4.    #14
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    8,983
    Current Local Time
    10:54 AM
    We should all keep licking that lollipop of mediocrity. Because... Some person in the field will fix it. LMAO.

    Sent from my Phablet. Please excuse typos... and bad ideas.

    Aaron Maller
    Director
    Parallax Team, Inc.

  5.    #15
    Member BLothian's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 11, 2013
    Location
    Livingston, Scotland
    Posts
    391
    Current Local Time
    04:54 PM
    I personally follow the adage: "Model it as it SHOULD be built"
    Twiceroadsfool likes this.

  6.    #16
    Member kowen1208's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18, 2013
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    349
    Current Local Time
    09:54 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
    We should all keep licking that lollipop of mediocrity. Because... Some person in the field will fix it. LMAO.

    Sent from my Phablet. Please excuse typos... and bad ideas.

    Aaron Maller
    Director
    Parallax Team, Inc.
    Out of curiosity, is there a hypothetical level of precision that you feel is unnecessary? Say Revit had rounding to the 512th of an inch, or 1024th of an inch, or 1000000th of an inch. Is there a point at which you'd think it's excessive? Would modeling to 256th of an inch then be considered mediocre?

  7.    #17
    Member BLothian's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 11, 2013
    Location
    Livingston, Scotland
    Posts
    391
    Current Local Time
    04:54 PM
    We talked about this in another thread recently but I keep a dim style with a precision of 0.000000001. It's only used for modelling accuracy checking and I settled for this value (and not the highest level of precision possible) as I found this precision was not reporting values affected by floating point accuracy. I still only input sizes to 0.1mm and angles up to 0.01 degrees.

  8.    #18
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    8,983
    Current Local Time
    10:54 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by kowen1208 View Post
    Out of curiosity, is there a hypothetical level of precision that you feel is unnecessary? Say Revit had rounding to the 512th of an inch, or 1024th of an inch, or 1000000th of an inch. Is there a point at which you'd think it's excessive? Would modeling to 256th of an inch then be considered mediocre?
    Before i can *properly* respond to that, we have to clear the air on an assumption that goes along with the conversation: Whether or not modeling to a hypothetical level of precision actually takes *more time* or *more effort.* I think you'll find that's at the center of the argument, as (unfortunately) a lot of folks are just plain lazy. BTW, im not specifically saying that about ANYONE on the forum or in the thread, but in the industry.

    I have dimension styles in my template that are called HIGH TEST. They round down to the highest decimal precision Revit will let you enter as a custom field. I think its .00000000001 (i forget if its 10, 11, or 12 zeroes). One of those is set to feet, and one is set to inches. But the point is this: If i'm modeling WITH these dim styles, it doesnt take a single second longer to do any particular modeling than it does at a lower (sloppier) level of accuracy. That's simply a fact.

    Also a fact, is that (in any type of work) the reason they call some tasks "post production" is that you want them done POST the main production. Consider the old old old old workflows of coloring elevations in Photoshop, after drawing them in AutoCAD. You quickly learned that the more of the gruntwork you did in Photoshop, the worse off you were, when the design had to get updated. So configuring your CAD files for better exports, so your POST work could be more efficient, was a godsend. The farther downstream you pushed the "issues" the less workarounds were needed.

    Similarly, copying audio casettes. If you have one source casette, and you want twenty total, the best quality way is to make all 19 from the original. Of course, once you make the first copy, you now have two versions. One is original, and one is almost as good. So, you can double your speed, if youre okay with lowering your quality. But, what it means is- for folks good enough to notice- depending on which casette they end up with, they might have to do more equalization at the end, to account for it. When the "issues" were allowed earlier in the process, they were still fixable, but it took more work *in post* to fix them.

    So, related to AEC, where it gets to be "shades of gray" is that people want to use certain workflows that are faster, but sloppier (like copying the copied casette). Tracing CAD/SAT/SketchUp/converted PDF's, etc. At which point, we are having a totally different conversation. In that example given above, i would never copy the copy. I would consider the *time to do the task* the time to make 19 original copies, and thats what i would do.

    So, having said all of THAT: Is there a hypothetical level of precision that i feel is unnecessary? Absolutely! And its not an insanely high tolerance. The bigger issue is that everyone seems to think that you have to have *one universal* answer for ALL aspects of the model (and NO, im not talking about f**king LOD). For instance: Masonry? Bricks? Blocks? Partition dimensions, wall sections, roof slopes, door opening sizes and dimensions, floor finish and wall finish thicknesses? All of these things are in my scope of work, and in my responsibility, to document. Hence, i document them as accurately as possible (and make sure all "precision" issues are downstream of my scope of work, that is to say- there isnt a precision issue WITHIN my scope of work). (Regarding the question of "whats an acceptable "tolerance" of precision, i refer back to the point of it doesnt take longer to be more precise).

    Having said that, certain aspects (many aspects) of what we show in our scope of work ARE Generic in nature: Our doors point to specifications, which points to the actual objects to be used. Our Millwork points to specifications, which point to the actual objects to be used. Our wall sections may show a Metal track and Metal Stud that are both called 6", which refer to a specification which refers to the actual objects to be used. I believe in showing all of these things accurately, to the maximum size of the Design Intent, naturally.

    But if you look at my Millwork Elevations, they dont show 1/8" or 1/16" gaps between Cabinet Doors and Drawers. Its covered in details, and in specs, but there isnt a value add to putting it in the drawings. (There is a case for there to be a value detriment, as then someone could be dimensioning to the wrong items). And make no mistake about it: My Millwork components are CAPABLE of showing those gaps. Similarly, if you zoom in, in a wall section, our metal track and metal stud overlap, somewhat. Obviously in the real world, that doesnt happen. Similarly, things of "membrane thickness" get diagrammed (Roof flashing details, waterproofing details, etc) and are somewhat exagerated (not with dimensions shown on the exagerated aspects of details, mind you).

    But there isnt an "object" in "this group of items" where someone downstream is going to actively take-off the measurements OF the aspects that are generalized, FROM the model and output documents itself. Yes, someone is going to take the Nominal Door Height (7-0) and the Nominal Door Width (3-0" and the Frame Depth (4-3/4"), but if the panel is actually going to be 2'-11 13/16", that isnt going to be a dimension that comes from an output of our scope of work (other than being derived from the 3-0 and the specs and/or submittals). There wont be a DRAWING from us, that someone could scale or measure, that would imply that the dimension WASNT 2-11 13/16, is what im saying).

    But Brick and Block walls? All day long, i want those AS accurate as possible. I work with guys in the field all the time, that want to automate and leverage layout and coursing, right from drawings and/or models. Yes, they CAN work our minor coursing issues. But its also true that if its coursed CORRECTLY in the drawings and models, i dont have to look at a building later that has busted ass thick goofy joints in it, covering up someones slop.

    Does that make sense?
    lawrenceolmos likes this.

  9.    #19
    Member kowen1208's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18, 2013
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    349
    Current Local Time
    09:54 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
    Does that make sense?
    You lost me at "cassette".

    I kid. Yeah, it makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to respond in such detail.

    Are your printed dimensions set to as fine a precision as your working dimensions? Is there a point of diminishing returns there?

  10.    #20
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    8,983
    Current Local Time
    10:54 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by kowen1208 View Post
    You lost me at "cassette".

    I kid. Yeah, it makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to respond in such detail.

    Are your printed dimensions set to as fine a precision as your working dimensions? Is there a point of diminishing returns there?
    Printed dimensions are set to Project Units which are set to feet and fractional inches at 1/256". The goal, of course, is there aren't smaller fractions than 1/8's showing. We just make that happen by fixing the model, not rounding the dimensions. Sure, there are occasional whacky dimensions, but that's how projects go. There are NO dim styles here that round to any fraction other than 1/256.

    The HIGH TEST dims literally won't fit anywhere, unless we work on double sized sheets, which we do on some projects for General Contractors. But 11 or 12 decimals is a damn long text string. Haha.

    Sent from my Phablet. Please excuse typos... and bad ideas.

    Aaron Maller
    Director
    Parallax Team, Inc.
    lawrenceolmos likes this.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Vertical Brick Coursing
    By Drew in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: September 10th, 2015, 02:21 AM
  2. Depict Brick Coursing
    By Joshua Kohl in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 17th, 2015, 01:49 PM
  3. Best approach for Raked Brick Soldier Coursing
    By SuperDave in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: June 20th, 2013, 01:49 PM
  4. modeling a brick wall ( brick by brick)
    By Andrew P in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 1st, 2013, 03:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •