What Revit Wants: Learn Design Computation in Two Minutes? – goo.gl/HXcfyV
The IT Department Is Dead. Long Live the IT Department pocket.co/sizmq
Really Good Article: 8 steps to a successful BIM marketing program – goo.gl/t2cA2r
It’s New Years Eve day and I’m sitting in front of my laptop about to scan through the 214 new articles in the 321 blogs that I subscribe to. As you can see off to the right, if you scroll down a bit, I have my blogs categorized by topics. When I go through the new articles each day I find that I scroll through the CAD-based blogs to mark them all off as “read,” almost without even reading their headlines. I simply no longer have any interest in reading about the latest developments, issues, plug-ins, etc. within the world of AutoCAD (and this is coming from the guy who runs CADuzer.com). Now that I’m back on a Revit-based project (and it is a full-fledged, no exceptions Revit-based project), I can’t imagine going back to AutoCAD. To be clear, I have no problem continuing to use AutoCAD for tasks here and there, but I’m just simply not interested in reading about the solutions people have come up with for it, the latest service packs or updates or new beta programs and versions of it. I think the software should be put out to pasture. I think any further development for it should be finished and then discontinued. Again, to be clear, AutoCAD has been a wonderful program for many years and has suited the architecture industry very well. This reminds me of what many people these days say when they talk about how the Internet is killing newspapers. You know what? It is! That’s called progress! With all of the advances that have come in recent versions of AutoCAD, such as parametric objects, it is inching closer and closer to Revit. Well, we’ve got Revit…it’s called Revit. Anyway, that’s a long way of saying, I’m thinking about removing my “CAD” blogs category.
Hey All. Here’s a very quick Revit 2010 tip concerning the Conceptual Mass. In this new feature of Revit, which puts you in an environment similar to the massing (or Building Maker) environment of 2009, you no longer need to click the Set button and then choose the reference plane on which you’d like to work. Simply pick the plane first, and then start creating whatever you’d like (including dimensions!).
Hey All. I just got a question about grid lines and being able to choose where the bubble appears. By default, within the Element Properties dialog box of a 1/4″ grid bubble type, the Plan View Symbols End 1 (Default) is turned on while the Plan View Symbols End 2 (Default) is turned off. The user did want “End 1” on for horizontal grid lines, but wanted “End 2″ on for vertical ones. He also wanted, however, to continue using the 1/4” symbol. The following image shows what his plan looked like when he first created the grid lines:
I went through with him how to make a duplicate of the 1/4″ grid bubble type, change the setting and quickly apply it to the vertical grids. Here’s how:
1. Select one of the horizontal grid lines (the one whose bubbles are correct), right-click and click Element Properties.
2. Click the Edit Type button and, when the Type Properties dialog box appears, click the Rename button.
3. Add a “-H” to the end of the name so it looks like this: “1/4″ Bubble – H”. This will help keep it consistent with what we’ll name the changed vertical 1/4″ grid bubble type for the vertical grid lines.
4. Click OK and then, back in the Type Properties dialog box, click the Duplicate button.
5. Name the duplicate 1/4″ Bubble – V and click OK.
6. For whichever option of Plan View Symbols End 1 (Default) or Plan View Symbols End 2 (Default) is checked, uncheck it, and check the other.
7. Click OK and then OK.
8. Back within the workspace, select all of the vertical grid lines and click the Type Selector:
9. Select 1/4″ Bubble – V.
The vertical grid lines will now switch to the opposite end:
I’m sure there are other ways to do this. Anyone have any other ideas?
Hey all. Sorry for the loooong delay in posts. I really don’t have an excuse, so I’ll just get into this post. Last week I taught the new feature in 3ds Max 2010 called containers. I really like this new feature but I’m not sure if I agree that much with it’s implementation. Containers, I think, act very much like xrefs…that is, xrefs in AutoCAD. One of the options it has is edit in place. This has been incorporated into xrefs in AutoCAD for quite some time, but not 3ds Max. I think for this release, the best parts of xref scene, xref objects, groups and containers should have been combined into this single tool. Let’s go over how containers work and, as we go, I’ll mention what I think should be done differently.
1. First, I’ve started a new file, created a few objects and saved the file:
2. Next, to make this file’s objects available to be linked into other files, I must create a container. Since a container is considered a helper, I go to the Helper tab on the Command Panel and click Container:
3. Now, click and drag and an open box will appear (as seen above).
Opinion: Notice that you don’t have any options for the Container on the Command Panel right now. I don’t really understand this. We have to switch to the Modify tab to see them.
4. On the Modify tab, within the Local Content group, click the Add button.
5. When the Add Container Node dialog box appears, click any objects you want to be included within the container and click the Add button.
Opinion: This seems very much like xref objects as in, which objects do you want to bring in, in the xref objects process?
6. Once again, on the Command Panel, within the Local Content group, within the When Content is Inherited group, select the Allow Edit in Place option.
Opinion: This is exactly what happens in AutoCAD when you select an xref, right-click, and select Edit Xref in Place.
7. Still in the same Local Content group, click the Save button and save the file to your computer.
Opinion: Notice the new file extension: *.maxc. It would seem to me that creating a separate file when the objects are already accessible within this file is unnecessary.
8. Now, let’s bring the container into a new file. Once in the new file, click the 3ds Max symbol at the top-left, expand References, and click Inherit Container:
9. After selecting the .maxc file you exported earlier, you’ll now see the objects came into the new file at the same coordinates they did in the original file. Also, just next to them, you’ll see a closed container box (see above).
Opinion: Just as with xref scene objects, I cannot select any of the imported objects. I can, however, select the container box, go onto the Modify tab, click the Edit in Place button and then select and edit them. Why not just let me select an object, right-click, and then click Edit in Place…just as I can in AutoCAD?
10. As stated in the above opinion, select the container box, go to the Modify tab and click the Edit in Place button.
11. The container box will now open and the objects will be both editable as well as selectable. You can edit them, select the container box, and then click the Save button (which will save the changes back to the original file).
Opinion: Why not just let me select any of the objects, right-click, and click Save (similar to selecting any object from within an open group and clicking Group –> Close)?
Overall, I think the idea of a container as a collaborative tool is really great. I think, however, that the xref scene, xref objects, groups and containers tools can be combined into a single tool that does the same thing. What do you think? Are you using containers? Has it replaced the xref scene or objects tool for you? Let me know!