Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

mass floor computation, scheduling different type on same project

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

    mass floor computation, scheduling different type on same project

    Hello folks,
    I am trying to find a way to differentiate in a schedule mass floors following a "Zone scheme".
    In a project, in the very beginning phase of volume study,
    where from a mass family I created mass floors, I would like to compute different areas.

    It seems there is no way than shifting to have area but still walls are not modeled.
    It is the first time I am trying this, and I feel I need to use Dynamo but I though to give a try.
    In the late revit there is a combined new parameters option and it may work for this purpose.
    Any suggestions?
    Right now after some struggling I am ready to give up and use Dynamo.
    The only viable solutions I found it is create different mass families for each different use but it is a no-sense for all purposes.
    If I watch...I dream, if I listen...I think, if I do ...I learn.
    blog

    #2
    For different areas you need different mass elements. In a Mass Floor schedule, you can sort Mass Floors by some Type Parameters of the parent Mass element, and by one instance parameter: Mass Comments.
    Join separate Masses to subtract Mass Floors from one another, and to get correct facade surface areas.
    Maybe share some models to show us what you need?
    There must be a better way...

    Ekko Nap
    Professional nitpicker, architect, revit consultant, etc.

    Comment


      #3
      Thanks, yes I need to use different masses, I was hoping not. The only good workaround would be generating masses straight from Dynamo so they could be faster in adapting to design changes.
      If I watch...I dream, if I listen...I think, if I do ...I learn.
      blog

      Comment


        #4
        What is the difference between the design and the Mass elements? Do you create the design in some other environment and then copy to Mass elements? If so, why not create the design with Mass elements directly?
        There must be a better way...

        Ekko Nap
        Professional nitpicker, architect, revit consultant, etc.

        Comment


          #5
          It is what the boss is trying to achieve. There is a plug-in in between for sun lighting study in the middle, but that apart it is ok. It is only work to do and when design changes all the mass must adapt, thus re-modelled each but each. Also mass floor does not always automatically create as you wish therefore more masses to model in order to sub-divide properly the floor Area which is ultimately the most important parameter to keep observed.
          If I watch...I dream, if I listen...I think, if I do ...I learn.
          blog

          Comment


            #6
            I'm really liking where this thread is going...

            (because)

            I've long been bothered by the same thing - and have recently been experimenting with a method that takes a slightly different approach to how you're describing - but perhaps it's something you could adapt/work with.


            Essentially, I've developed a Dynamo definition that can, in it's present form, take area plan boundary lines and creates masses from them.

            Now a few caveats:

            1. Our work, more often than not, begins at a space-planning level, with almost venn-diagram-like studies, (as opposed to the more-commonly aimed ideal of Revit Massing workflows using a composed mass form to derive a floorplate)

            2. The area boundaries must be cleanly-closed polygons - requiring a "split" using parallel runs of boundary line for abutting areas/masses.

            3a. Dynamo doesn't appear to create a "true" Revit mass forms, in as much it builds the form out of faces, not a (Revit native) solid. The "mass" created still behaves like a mass, but it's something to consider if implementing a 3rd application for analysis that might not like the difference.

            3b. Dynamo makes mass families rather than crafting in-place instances (a benefit in ways, a hindrance in others)

            4. My definition (because I'm amateurish in Dynamo) presently:
            a. nuke-clears any existing masses when run, and rebuilds everything anew (I imagine I could add selector inputs to make it more targeted)
            b. creates singular "floor-plate-volume-mass-families", rather than a "whole-building-volume-mass", so they have to be married by data for reporting
            b. takes forever to churn, because of the above.


            I fear I'm underselling it*, and you're probably asking how might this apply to you?


            Well because we're using Area boundary lines, we're looking at Area Plans, and Area Plans host Areas, and Areas have many a parameter to be used for data and documentation. Any "mass" created an area can also get said area's properties "injected" into them. With appropriate view filters one can readily start to create quite convincing (albeit "blocky", ziggurat-like) volume studies that can be paired side-by-side with said Area plans. Throw some ekkonap magic at some schedules and we're well on our ways to a "magic button" for getting a building (form) from 2D linework.







            *if I remember tomorrow (read: later today) I'll try to follow up with attachments.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by uaifestival View Post
              boss
              I stopped reading right there. I'm here to help you, not your boss. If you think your boss is right, leave him or her out of it. If not, ask us to help you find arguments to convince your boss of your position. Much more productive all around.

              Instead of a script to recreate all masses, write one to automatically place Mass Floors and check join order for user error.

              @Snowy, the one reason I turn to area plans in preliminary design is that a boundary works for all adjoining areas. Once that is out the door, again, why not use Masses? I get the feeling I am missing something here.

              About step 2: I'd fix that in Dynamo, not by manual labour
              Step 3: there's more then one way to create a Revit family from geometry.

              I did enjoy your choice of words there near the end.
              Last edited by ekkonap; January 10, 2018, 09:40 PM.
              There must be a better way...

              Ekko Nap
              Professional nitpicker, architect, revit consultant, etc.

              Comment


                #8
                thanks Ekkonap. I guess you are right in placing Mass Floors automatically so get computed and added or subtracted right in that moment. I am kind of proceeding step by step and that it is a further idea I did not think yet. (Boss, Japan, New Company...they are all part of a quite different environment even if we write on the same thread....just to mention: nobody is speaking English here)
                If I watch...I dream, if I listen...I think, if I do ...I learn.
                blog

                Comment

                Related Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X