Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

(Faking) Property Lines in Sections

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    (Faking) Property Lines in Sections

    So property lines are 2D, that much is fair enough, afterall as a real world concept, they only consider perimeter & area - but in the world of architectural documentation there is a want, nay a need to show their boundaries in sections.

    I've seen the "trace with reference lines" workaround, but that's only useful if you cut the "line" perpindicular, which is seldom the case, not to mention it adds a level of VG/filter control that just makes it less than ideal.

    I've just been playing with using a baluster-less railing, using a "dot" & "dash" railing profile - but that's limiting because the "line" is model-scale based, not drawing-scale based. That and I can't choose just to show the cut railings (and with a solid fill) and hide those in the (projected) distance...

    So I've been trying to create a line-based generic model, of a repeating dot/dash/dot pattern both in plan & elevation using array'd solids & voids. But it's feeling really dirty - and testing it in a project, I can't make it Site, Entourage or Planting because of their limited VG controls, so it's stayed a generic model, all modelled on a new sub-category - I'm losing faith in the method.

    Am I waffling? What I'm trying to get at is, besides manual drafting, is there another way?
    Last edited by snowyweston; July 27, 2011, 04:37 PM.

    #2
    Originally posted by snowyweston View Post
    ...I've seen the "trace with reference lines" workaround, ...
    Did you mean to write "reference planes" instead? Depending on the situation, it might be possible to do this: from the site plan, create a reference plane, and then create the property line, align and lock; then, from an elevation view create a matchline, aligned and locked to the same reference plane. If the plane moves, both the property line and the matchline will move. Using VG, you could make the matchline use the same linetype as the property line, if it is necessary.
    Freelance BIM Provider at Autodesk Services Marketplace | Linkedin

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Alfredo Medina View Post
      Did you mean to write "reference planes" instead?
      Whoops, yes, I had.

      Originally posted by Alfredo Medina View Post
      it might be possible to do this: from the site plan, create a reference plane, and then create the property line, align and lock; then, from an elevation view create a matchline, aligned and locked to the same reference plane. If the plane moves, both the property line and the matchline will move.
      That works - until the reference plane gets rotated - then the matchline loses it's associated - that and the property sketch lines don't appear to like being locked.

      Hmmm... there must be some other way!?

      Comment


        #4
        You can use massing. Create an in-place massing family, sketch the boundary and use a dimension and parameter to control it's relationship to the property boundary. Tried locking the sketch it but Revit complained so I used dimensions/parameter instead. Nice part is you can deal with vertical clearances too by constraining the top and bottom sketch of the mass form separately. Could do the same thing for buildable area by creating a void form that removes the property form where setbacks allow the building to exist. I added another image with the void added to the mix.
        Attached Files
        Last edited by Steve_Stafford; July 29, 2011, 11:37 PM.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Steve_Stafford View Post
          You can use massing. Create an in-place massing family, sketch the boundary and use a dimension and parameter to control it's relationship to the property boundary.
          Looks promising Steve - I'll give it a go Monday. Thanks.

          Comment


            #6
            Why not use simple dummy walls with a line pattern override set up by a view filter? Or am I missing something here?
            Martijn de Riet
            Professional Revit Consultant | Revit API Developer
            MdR Advies
            Planta1 Revit Online Consulting

            Comment


              #7
              No, you're not missing anything, I'm just fielding for as many options as possible to experiment with.

              The issue I've had to date has been adequately getting the cut/projection VG behaviour working as desired so that the "property line" object doesn't obscure objects behind it - although with your method that could be countered with a few tab-through-and-hide-selections in the linked model.

              Again, another thing to try Monday, cheers.

              Comment


                #8
                So it's Monday, and my tests are complete - or at least complete enough for me to be satisfied by a solution... Going to go with your mass suggestion Steve - it's clearly the simplest method AND the best output - thanks.
                Attached Files

                Comment


                  #9
                  Small remark on the Walls: it is off course possible to make these transparent. But I do see the benefits of the Massing solution since it doesn't require a view specific override...
                  Martijn de Riet
                  Professional Revit Consultant | Revit API Developer
                  MdR Advies
                  Planta1 Revit Online Consulting

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by mdradvies View Post
                    Small remark on the Walls: it is off course possible to make these transparent.
                    The other thing was both sides of the wall showed the linestyle - so extra linework overrides were required.

                    Comment

                    Related Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X