|
Forums >> Revit Building >> Technical Support >> v.9 area analysis
|
|
|
active
Joined: Sat, Jul 16, 2005
44 Posts
No Rating |
I hope it is just me. The area analysis seems to be not functioning properly on a v.8 file.
I've wasted enough time to drop back to v.8 and maybe update with a more functional build?
Sam
|
This user is offline |
|
 |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Sun, Apr 25, 2004
1207 Posts
 |
In Revit 9 rooms and areas are now both "objects".
You need to insert an area which can be tagged upon insertion or tagged later.
HTH
Tom
|
This user is offline |
View Website
|
|
|
active
Joined: Sat, Jul 16, 2005
44 Posts
No Rating |
Thanks for the reply. Problem is, I use area analysis mostly for site area analysis, pick line based, and not applying area rules. Works great in 8. I am hoping that I just need to mess with 9 to get the same functionality?
Sam
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Sat, Jul 16, 2005
44 Posts
No Rating |
I've looked into this further and seems like it may be a bug unless I am missing a setting. I tested in v.9 native and got the same behavior. See the missing line segments where the area boundaries get close? The area is closed even though the area boundary line appears not to be. It should be able to tag the entire area, but requires two separate tags. Not a problem except that the area between the missing segments is not getting counted in either. Thus there is a small area going unreported which cannot be defined or tagged with a third tag. I guess I should report this directly to tech support and wait a few months before I start using v.9 and get the latest build. I am not sure how to go about reporting it.
Sam
Post edited on 2006-04-21 13:08:37
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Sun, Apr 25, 2004
1207 Posts
|
The Revicity server won't let me open your attachment.
I opened R9 to play with the area, and the work pretty much the same as in 8.1 with the exception that you need to place an "area" entity which can then be tagged.
If lines are moving around it may be because they are still trying to conform to "area rules" which are the BOMA area types hard coded into Revit. Try setting all the "area types" field to the same BOMA type and see if the lines move back into position. (I would use "office area"
Tom
|
This user is offline |
View Website
|
|
|
active
Joined: Sat, Jul 16, 2005
44 Posts
No Rating |
Image retry. I understand the defining part first.
I guess somone needs to approve the image?
Post edited on 2006-04-21 14:26:55
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Sat, Jul 16, 2005
44 Posts
No Rating |
Now we are getting somewhere.
Sam
Post edited on 2006-04-21 14:46:38
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
site moderator|||
Joined: Mon, Jan 12, 2004
2889 Posts
|
Definitely send the file support.
This item has already been identified so the more people who report it the quicker it will be fixed. Basically to avoid issues of areas not being properly enclosed, when boundary lines are close together in corners revit takes shortcuts and cuts off the small corner (basically in the belief that this area is insignificant). Personally i hate it when things are inaccurate.
So send your file off with an explanation and hopefully they will re-address the area calculation codes.
HTH.
|
This user is offline |
View Website
|
|
|
active
Joined: Sat, Jul 16, 2005
44 Posts
No Rating |
Hmm,
Insignificant? I think not, since the sum of the parts must equal the enchilada. I love enchiladas.
Will report now that I have confirmed it is a bug. May have to bug since this one is BIG with me.
Thanks Mr Spot,
Sam
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Sun, Apr 25, 2004
1207 Posts
|
Area plans as Mr. Spot noted can be tricky in that Revit will try to close the gap of unconnected area lines.
For site work have you explored using the property line tool? You can pick over lines just like the area tool and it will report areas and those areas can be tagged. I don't think the property line tool will try to force areas closed like the area line tools will.
Tom
|
This user is offline |
View Website
|
|
|
|
|
active
Joined: Sat, Jul 16, 2005
44 Posts
No Rating |
Hi Tom,
The answers to your pertinent questions are all yes. But I do appreciate the effort. I have fussed with this for a few hours now and just can't get it to work as it did in v.8. Mr. Spot has pointed out that this is known behavior, and even intended, so AD may not actually consider it a bug. I don't have any problems closing my areas so I guess this may be for hasty work? I must say: I HATE AI.
Sam
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Sat, Jul 16, 2005
44 Posts
No Rating |
FYI,
This is the quick response I got from AutoDesk:
"Sam,
I have just received an update from development. This is a known issue and they are looking to address it on a future release. I have added this support request to the list of persons who have filed against this issue. Hopefully we will see the correction soon.
Best Regards,"
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Sat, Jul 16, 2005
44 Posts
No Rating |
Hello,
I am very pleased to Report that this was resolved in v9.1 or sooner. Bumping up against it late this Sunday evening I started up my already installed v9.1 and barely lost a beat. The timing could have been more critical either. This makes me feel very good about my efforts to bring others to our side of the isle.
Thanks AD,
Sam
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
Search
truncated area 01.png
truncated_area_01.png