Revit Architecture 2011 - Are layers possible like in AutoCAD?

[pcslam]

Hi I am new to the forum, I have been trying to figure out whether or not Revit Architecture 2011 has layers like in AutoCAD. It's fairly easy to make your work visually pleasing in terms of the line weights in different views. I would really love to apply the same effects to my drawings in Revit. I was wondering if someone could enlighten me on how to go about making my Revit drawings more clear with more detailed lines or layers, etc. Thank you in advance!

[Lee Roy]

The first rule to learning Revit is

 

IT IS NOT LIKE AUTOCAD

 

There are no layers. Unlike AutoCAD, what you see on the screen is exactly what you will see on the paper, no stupid color translations. Check your Visibility/Graphics Overrides, Object Styles and Filters for setting and playing with line and object styles.

[tzframpton]

I agree with Lee Roy. Revit is not an AutoCAD replacement nor is it intended to be. Everything you can accomplish in AutoCAD can be accomplished in Revit; it's just a matter of learning the proper methods and procedures to get the same results in your visual output.

[irneb]

The first rule to learning Revit is IT IS NOT LIKE AUTOCAD

 

I actually feel that type of answer is very un-helpful. Sure RVT is not ACad, but rather than simply saying: Do it the Revit way. Why not explain what that RVT way is to accomplish the same product as you'd get from ACad?

 

It's not "strictly" true that Revit is ABSOLUTELY unlike acad. There are things which work different, but generally you'd find it's just that the names change and the order of doing things differ. The main reason people say Revit-is-NOT-ACad is because it has a lot more and/or different functionality than acad has.

 

For what the OP is referring to: You need to adjust the object styles. Basically object styles are like Layers in ACad - only they're much more than only layers. And they're automatically applied to whatever you draw - it's as if Revit "knows" what layer to place what thing on, unlike ACad where you had to manually set the layer.

 

You can adjust their normal display properties through the Manage / Object Styles dialog. Or per view through Visibility Graphics. Note if you use the VG so your view is a bit different from "normal", you can use View / View Templates in a similar way to ACad's Layer States. The ObjSt/VG dialogs are more comprehensive than the ACad's Layer Manager, e.g. for each object style you can set the fill and linestyle for that object in elevation as well as when the view sections through it (separately). This is much "nicer" than having to use 2 layers in ACad to distinguish something like Wall from Wall-Below.

 

As for linetypes / lineweights - it works similar to acad, only it gets combined into Line Styles (i.e. a linestyle uses a particular line type and line weight). So if you make your own LineStyle give it a descriptive name - so you "remember" what it's for.

[irneb]

As an example. I'm making a view into something for council submissions. They've got particular colouring requirements for things like brickwork (red solid fill) as opposed RC (green solid fill). Our normal wall type displays with a brickwork hatch like this (note I'm directly going through a View Template since I want to apply this to multiple views without going through all the steps again and again):

 

This opens the Apply View Template, I create / select a template I've made myself. Then click on the VG Overrides:

 

This opens a VG dialog for this template. Here I adjust the default cut pattern for all walls (i.e. when the view sections through a wall) - to a solid fill red:

 

But how do I distinguish a Concrete / RC wall? In this case I'm going to use Filters (note these are a lot nicer than acad's layer filters as they apply overrides automatically). Open the VG dialog's Filters tab, click add and select the filter(s) I want (note you create your own - see later in this post):

 

Then you add overrides for each filter, same as you do for object styles:

 

If you don't already have filters set up, then you can add them from the same dialog(s):

 

Finally after clicking the OK in the View Template Apply dialog, my view adjusts to the new settings:

 

You can select multiple views in the project browser, right-click on one of them and select Apply View Template. This would then set that view template to all of them at once. IMO this is even better than using ACad's Layer States.

[Lee Roy]

I actually feel that type of answer is very un-helpful. Sure RVT is not ACad, but rather than simply saying: Do it the Revit way. Why not explain what that RVT way is to accomplish the same product as you'd get from ACad?

 

It's not "strictly" true that Revit is ABSOLUTELY unlike acad. There are things which work different, but generally you'd find it's just that the names change and the order of doing things differ. The main reason people say Revit-is-NOT-ACad is because it has a lot more and/or different functionality than acad has.

 

It's meant more for the mentality, Revit is not like AutoCAD. if you read further into my post, you'd notice that I suggested Object Styles, Visibility/Graphics Overrides and Filters. I'm sorry that I don't have the time to hold hands, take screenshots and type up how-to's; especially when it's outlined in several places on this forum and in several Revit Beginner publications.

[tzframpton]

It's meant more for the mentality, Revit is not like AutoCAD.

I agree. I always tell people of AutoCAD backgrounds that when you double click the shiny little Revit icon, you need to mentally block out all you know in AutoCAD. When you do, you'll begin to use Revit in the manner it was intended. It may be a little over the top, but it's the principle of my point that matters.

 

[Lee Roy]

As others I've taught here have said, "The quicker you quit trying to use it like the AutoCAD, the faster you learn it and start making amazing models."

[irneb]

"The quicker you quit trying to use it like the AutoCAD, the faster you learn it and start making amazing models."

 

I always tell people of AutoCAD backgrounds that when you double click the shiny little Revit icon, you need to mentally block out all you know in AutoCAD.

 

It's meant more for the mentality, Revit is not like AutoCAD.

I know the principle behind this. I'm with you on the concept that you shouldn't think about drawing lines as you do in ACad. But since the late 80's I've used addons in acad where you don't draw lines - you draw objects (i.e. draw a wall, place a door, etc.). That aspect is now "built-into" revit from the ground up. There are "some" things which can be compared to acad - though mostly they'd have a different name (e.g. Layers and VG are close to each other, though I think VG has a bit more functionality).

 

What I'm mentioning is that I find the Revit forums tend to fall back on that particular "phrase" more often than not. I don't see someone telling a poster on the ACad forum something like: "You don't use acad like you do a drawing board. Go read the help / manual". It's not meant as a dis on anyone (least of all anyone here ), it's just an observation from my experience: the ACad forums feel more helpful / friendly than the Revit ones (not just here on CT). Maybe it's just a "Revit mentality" as opposed to the "Acad mentality"

[RobDraw]

The reason that particular phrase comes up so often is that a vast majority of new Revit users are from an AutoCAD background and cannot help but make that comparison. "How do I do this (AutoCAD thingy) in Revit?" is frequently asked so often. The answer is usually some form of "You don't" but do this to get the same result. Plus AutoDesk has made the interface so much like AutoCAD that it prepetuates that mentality even further. I have to disagree that telling someone that it is not AutoCAD is not helpful. It is probably the msot helpful advise you can give to an AutoCAD user that is learning Revit.

[irneb]

It is probably the msot helpful advise you can give to an AutoCAD user that is learning Revit.

Ok, might just be me, but I've found "learning" Revit (self-taught originally, though had training later up to expert level) since around 2005 with (then) 17 years ACad experience - it actually made me "get it" faster if I thought: "What does Revit provide which is similar to what I'd have done in ACad?"

 

Perhaps it's because I originally used ACad with extensions (never a raw "vanilla" version). Thus I was used to knowing that you're "drawing a wall" as opposed to the nuts-n-bolts raw acad method of drawing multiple lines on several layers. Since around 2000 some of my employers weren't of the opinion that such extensions (e.g. Arch Desktop / CadTools) were useful - no matter how much I showed them how I could do something a lot faster through ACad-R10+CadTools than ACad Vanilla 2000-2013.

 

So when I started with Revit - the concepts weren't that foreign to me. I actually felt at "home", more so than with Vanilla ACad. Thus I followed that Revit was "like acad, but with extras". The major difference is it's like that from the very foundation, unlike an extension on ACad which adds similar functions onto Vanilla.

[tzframpton]

I will say, the only time I do make AutoCAD comparisons in Revit is when in a Section View where 2D linework is needed for "cleanup", or in a Drafting View. What throws AutoCAD to Revit comparisons off for me, is that in AutoCAD you start a command first, then you select objects, then you execute. In Revit it's the exact opposite. Revit wants to know first what you want to manipulate. So you select the object first, then select the command, then execute. Selecting things in Revit gives you the tools needed to appear, or converts text/tags/dimensions blue to show they are now editable, etc.

 

irneb, I do hear you loud and clear and I understand your stance. I can disagree a bit too aggressively at times on this forum for certain things, but not in this case because there is definitely merit to your principle. My disagreement is very passive with you and more of a very humble opinion type of disagreement so please don't think I'm totally bashing the idea. You are a superb CAD designer and I've been more than impressed with your abilities since I've seen you become a member of this forum. Maybe that's the issue... you're just so far advanced in all CAD platforms that it's just natural to you, so between coding to AutoCAD to Revit, it just makes sense to you! haha

 

[RobDraw]

What throws AutoCAD to Revit comparisons off for me, is that in AutoCAD you start a command first, then you select objects, then you execute. In Revit it's the exact opposite. Revit wants to know first what you want to manipulate. So you select the object first, then select the command, then execute. Selecting things in Revit gives you the tools needed to appear, or converts text/tags/dimensions blue to show they are now editable, etc.

 

That is not at all true, Styke. Both programs allow the user to either select before or after the command. AutoCAD has come a long way with contectual menus and the ribbon. Revit has buttons to execute commands before selecting. I use both methods in both programs depending on what I am doing or to just try a different way.

[tzframpton]

That is not at all true, Styke. Both programs allow the user to either select before or after the command. AutoCAD has come a long way with contectual menus and the ribbon. Revit has buttons to execute commands before selecting. I use both methods in both programs depending on what I am doing or to just try a different way.

Yes, this is true and obviously I know things like this are possible. Things like, Move, or Copy, you can initiate first.

 

However, try editing the Sheet Number label in a Titleblock without selecting the Titleblock. Or try changing the Type Mark of an AHU without selecting the Family. List goes on.... :wink:

[irneb]

...please don't think I'm totally bashing the idea...

No I'm not thinking that, I don't find your disagreement in any way "disagreeable" . Thanks for the compliments though! I feel extremely embarrassed now

[irneb]

However, try editing the Sheet Number label in a Titleblock without selecting the Titleblock. Or try changing the Type Mark of an AHU without selecting the Family. List goes on.... :wink:

Let me see: For those in ACad I'd have done (in order of preference):

 

1. Select Title Block / Tag and then change the attributes in the properties palette; or
   
2. Ctrl+Double Click to edit the attrib as if it's a piece of text; or
   
3. Double click on the TB/Tag to open the Attribute Editor; or
   
4. Start the EAttEdit command, pick the TB/Tag.
   

So Revit uses option 1 or 2 - which was my favourites in acad anyway!

[Lee Roy]

irneb, you used AutoCAD in a way most users don't, so it wasn't difficult for you to "convert". Most users use AutoCAD in it's raw form, or very close to; so when converting to Revit, it's not easy and they try to relate 3D Revit back to 2D AutoCAD, which just doesn't work and makes the learning curve almost vertical.

 

I was one of those that just picked it up and ran with it. I had used SolidWorks and Inventor before Revit. When I was first introduced to Revit, it was in building families, which is eerily similar to my experience with SolidWorks. So from the get-go, my thought process was detached from AutoCAD. Others that learned with me (not formal classes), were trying to liken it to AutoCAD; as well as countless co-workers since.

 

Not trying to drag you down at all. People who can pickup any software and become proficient quickly, seem to be few and far between. We have to realize that not everyone is capable of just switching software as easily as we can.

[irneb]

You might just be correct! Perhaps just wishful thinking on my part ...

[RobDraw]

You got me there, Styke. There are a lot of things in Revit that you cannot do without selecting first. I just found your wording a little "constrained" and "absolute".

[tzframpton]

I just found your wording a little "constrained" and "absolute".

My apologies for that in advance. I sometimes have to communicate that I'm not the wordsmith that some are and it's hard for me to relay info in my brain as clearly as it comes out typed lol. I never mind someone clearing my muddled words up.