It took a couple hours to figure out the most efficient way to get
the line weights to look like the do in CAD. Now that I figured out
an efficient way to do it I can set up future projects that way and it
only takes a couple minutes to get the majority of things to look
correct. Because the model is parametric I can make adjustments once
(set it and forget it) in the beginning of the project. And if
something doesn't look quite right because of the global settings I
can adjust things on a case by case basis.
- Jeremy
Quoting "Gerard Madden, SE" <gmse4603@gmail.com>:
> If you can, the way to do it is to not do any Revit until the CD phase
> begins.
>
> Budgets for schematics and DD are quickly used up because in revit you need
> to supply so much information early on. If you're working with an architect
> who changes their mind a lot (a rare breed indeed....not) then it can be
> very tough to react fast enough in Revit.
>
> It's also a big challenge for mixing existing and new construction.
> Lineweights and the printed quality of the job takes a lot of massaging.
>
> The learning curve is very steep, but for an engineer who does 3-d
> structural analysis, the transition to BUILD the revit model isn't that
> tough. It's very similar to working in Etabs or Risa etc.... It's all the
> other stuff that's tough.
>
> -gm
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Jeremy White <admin@structuralae.com>wrote:
>
>> Mike,
>>
>> I've used Revit on several projects and I don't ever want to go back to
>> CAD. The thing that is a little different from my experience then maybe
>> from those at larger companies is that I am the only one using Revit on the
>> projects I've worked on. It's "easier" when the architect is using revit
>> because they create most of the model for the structural engineer. But
>> because I am the only trade using it I have to know how to build the model
>> from scratch.
>>
>> There is a huge learning curve when you start using it because it takes
>> time to figure out all the different ways there are to model and draft
>> something(yes, you still have to draw lines in Revit). Once you figure out
>> how to work within the parameters of the program it becomes a lot less
>> complicated. There is a logical pattern to how things are done in Revit.
>> When I am on projects where I have to go back to CAD to draft lines I get
>> as frustrated with CAD as I used to be starting out in Revit because CAD
>> doesn't seem as logical to me (it never really did).
>>
>> It's not to say there aren't things that need improvement in Revit. The
>> program is very "smart" and productive for about 90% of the modeling and
>> construction document creation process, but there are some things that need
>> work and seem a little hokie for such a "smart" program. The 10% that is
>> hokie may eat up about 25% of your time (the old 80/20 rule is alive and
>> well) which is hard to explain to my superiors. But there are plenty of
>> things the waste that time in CAD too (like layers, scaling text, etc.) so I
>> think it breaks even.
>>
>> Overall I'm not at the point where I'm more "productive" with Revit,
>> meaning I don't get projects done faster than with CAD. It take me about the
>> same amount of time to create a product in Revit as in CAD, but my product
>> is a lot higher quality than what it would be with CAD.
>>
>> I still have a lot to learn such as trying to coordinate with architects
>> and their revit model on a project (I did once, but the project was so small
>> that I don't really count it). I have successfully been able to export
>> analytical models into Risa 3D. That actually works a lot better than I
>> thought it would and it increased my productivity a bit because I only had
>> to build the structure once in Revit. Although once I tweeked the Revit
>> model I had to do things the "old fashioned way" and open the Risa model and
>> make the changes.
>>
>> So there are several aspects to consider. Modeling the structure helps
>> coordinate complicated or unforseen details. Once the structure is modeled
>> cutting and developing sections is quite fast. Exporting the analytical
>> model to 3d analysis software can save a lot of time on the engineering part
>> of the project. Creating construction documents is very easy and actually
>> done in a more logical way, in my personal opinion, than using CAD.
>>
>> On a final note. I used to think that Revit would only be useful for large
>> projects, but it is very useful on small projects too. So I use it for
>> every project where I am the leading engineer. Everyone else in my office
>> still prefers CAD because they can't get past that initial learning curve
>> and envision a day when they will be able to model in Revit as easily as
>> they can draw lines in CAD. I'm at that point now so I am very comfortable
>> in the program and I feel out of place when I jump on their projects to help
>> them out.
>>
>> Anyway, I could go on and on, but if you have any other specific questions
>> feel free to ask.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jeremy
>>
>>
>> Quoting Mike Jones <mike.maryjones@gmail.com>:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Jeremy White <admin@structuralae.com
>>> >wrote:
>>>
>>> Harold,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the advice.
>>>>
>>>> I think it would be wise also to terminate 50% of the bottom bars (maybe
>>>> hook them upward) before they enter the column to limit clutter, but the
>>>> top
>>>> bars are going to be a nightmare. I think I will require 2 layers for
>>>> the
>>>> top bars even though the clear spacing is acceptable within the beam. I
>>>> am
>>>> modeling the structure in Revit so I can create the joint to scale and
>>>> see
>>>> exactly how everything will fit together. I'll attach a pdf of the
>>>> isometric when I'm done if anyone is interested in seeing it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again,
>>>> Jeremy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jeremy,
>>> Are you actually using Revit Structure for real projects? If so, any
>>> feedback as to the learning curve from a real world viewpoint (not a
>>> salesman's biased babble). Have you seen any advantages to doing the
>>> switch. Management at the firm where I am employed (thankfully) think
>>> it's
>>> fine for the architects, but that it would do nothing for the structural
>>> engineers document creation process.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your time in this matter.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
>> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
>> ** This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers* Association of
>> Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To* subscribe (no fee) or
>> UnSubscribe, please go to:
>> *
>> * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
>> *
>> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you* send to
>> the list is public domain and may be re-posted* without your permission.
>> Make sure you visit our web* site at: http://www.seaint.org*******
>> ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>>
>
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********