How do I show a door thickness hatched for an object

[Jay Hatfield]

I'm running Autocad Architecture 2013 and have been using door objects in my drawing. My boss would like me to show the doors as solid. I've went into object display and can't seem to find how to show the door hatched. Changing the drawing view from "2D wireframe" to shaded shows the door as solid in model space, but when I do a print all of my layers show as color (using ctb plotstyle) Does anybody know of a way to get the doors to print solid?

 

Thanks

[Jay Hatfield]

Also, it works for me to hatch the door independently, but how can I group the hatch with the object?

[tzframpton]

Have you tried using a Door/Window assembly instead? You can customize it where it shows only as a door, and if you notice in your Style Overrides, there's hatching properties available. I've never tried to consolidate a Door/Window Assembly as a single swing door, but I just quickly jumped in and seen where it may be possible.

 

If not, you can override the door with a regular 2D Block to get the desired results. So you do have options at least.

[Jay Hatfield]

Currently, I have an object "AEC Door" and the door does not show a hatch. Could you tell me the steps on how to do this. It sounds like you are saying it's possible. How with autocad architecture 2013. I would like to preserve the 3d object because I can use it to make door schedules, tags, etc.

 

Thanks

[tzframpton]

Currently, I have an object "AEC Door" and the door does not show a hatch.

Correct. This is why I mentioned to try and use the AEC Door/Window Assembly instead. But it will require more "work" to get it set up. Once you have it right, it'll always be there to use.

 

Could you tell me the steps on how to do this. It sounds like you are saying it's possible. How with autocad architecture 2013. I would like to preserve the 3d object because I can use it to make door schedules, tags, etc.

It's hard for me to monkey around at the moment as I'm super busy. Normally when I have downtime I can provide steps. I do know it's possible though, just gotta do some tweaking is all. And if you use a normal 2D Block, the 3D AEC Door is still there in place. The 2D Block only replaces the visual aspect of the door in a Plan View. Think of it simply as a "graphical override" while in 2D Plan View. The 3D AEC Door is still the only thing that's being used in the model components.

 

Are you just getting started with ACA or something? Have you given through to Revit at all?

[Jay Hatfield]

Ok thanks. If you get time or if anybody else has the time can you please provide steps. I've monkeyed around with for too long now, to no avail. For the time being, I've simply hatched all 50 doors. Unfortunately, this was just a quick fix and the hatch and door share no relationship. I know there has to be numerous ways to do what i'm trying to achieve. Is there a way to combine or group the hatch to the door?

[Jay Hatfield]

 

Are you just getting started with ACA or something? Have you given through to Revit at all?

 

I've been using ACA since 2009 version. My boss still uses r14. The problem I have transitioning to Revit and/or ACA based drawing is getting it to look like his standards. For example, he likes his doors to be hatched, text styles, dim styles, etc. I have been working here for 3 years and we really don't have the time for the learning curve and "monkeying around" with learning how to do draw a door with revit when 2d based is quicker. I guess I will just have to continue to explore on my own free time. I'll figure it out, was hoping for a fast, easy way. For now, it's faster to draw it in 2d.

[tzframpton]

I've been using ACA since 2009 version. My boss still uses r14. The problem I have transitioning to Revit and/or ACA based drawing is getting it to look like his standards. For example, he likes his doors to be hatched, text styles, dim styles, etc. I have been working here for 3 years and we really don't have the time for the learning curve and "monkeying around" with learning how to do draw a door with revit when 2d based is quicker. I guess I will just have to continue to explore on my own free time. I'll figure it out, was hoping for a fast, easy way. For now, it's faster to draw it in 2d.

Since your boss still uses R14, that makes me understand the level of demand your company needs. However, once you get good at Revit, AutoCAD is no match for it in terms of "speed". In fact, AutoCAD Architecture "stole" all it's intuitive interface and tools from Revit.

 

Project Navigator = ACA, Project Browser = RVT.

Display Styles = ACA, Object Styles = RVT.

AEC Objects/MvParts/Multiview Blocks/Dynamic Grips/Dynamic Blocks/etc = ACA, Familes = RVT.

 

The list goes on. Only Revit does it better because the DWG format can't recreate the intuitiveness that Revit offers. If all you need is to "draw" floorplans, sections & elevations then AutoCAD is fine, and AutoCAD Architecture is even better. If you're doing serious designs, large sq. footages, or intricate designs, then you can get the Building Suite which comes with Revit and ACA in one package, for the same price as ACA alone (or close to it). Then you can use both to your discretion.

 

But you are right, it's faster to "draw" in AutoCAD because you don't "draw" in Revit. You "model" and "construct" in Revit. But, the time it takes to create a section or elevation in Revit is instant. And the accuracy is 100%. The time it takes to create one in AutoCAD is.... well, however long it takes you to draw it. Then, the accuracy is always in question.

 

The only reason I keep pushing Revit is because you already have taken an interest in ACA, which is completely the DWG ripped-off version of Revit, which is "the real deal". Just food for thought is all. Obviously it is up to you to consider what's best for your (or your company's) interests.

 

[Jay Hatfield]

 

The only reason I keep pushing Revit is because you already have taken an interest in ACA, which is completely the DWG ripped-off version of Revit, which is "the real deal". Just food for thought is all. Obviously it is up to you to consider what's best for your (or your company's) interests.

 

 

I agree 100% and am just as sure that Revit is the future/present. I have been "modelling" in sketchup, maya, 3dsmax for years and am fairly proficient in them and have even done some 3d modeling in cad. Does revit support import/export of sketchup models, like ACA does? I went to a seminar on Revit and was very impressed with features like "conflict resolution" and I understand model based architecture, but my problems lies in the transition over to 3d and keeping my boss happy by maintaining office standards. Another problem is that revit is not compatible with autocad. Is it difficult mimicking text styles, hatching, etc. with Revit? We actually got ACA suite 13 last week. Thanks for all of your time!

[tzframpton]

....but my problems lies in the transition over to 3d and keeping my boss happy by maintaining office standards. Another problem is that revit is not compatible with autocad. Is it difficult mimicking text styles, hatching, etc. with Revit?

This is a huge, huge misconception with Revit. Whatever your office standards are, you can almost 100% transition these same visual styles into Revit. Almost 100%. There will be a few things that won't be able to easily be accomplished, but you're talking very tiny details, and usually just with text formatting issues because Revit hasn't got a MTEXT type of editor with a WYSIWYG MS Word style of formatting options. Any and all items inside the "drawing" part of the sheet, hands down, can be mimic'ed. Text styles, hatching, linetypes, lineweights, all of it.

 

The other argument is the fact that when you jump to a program like Revit, the benefits far outweigh a boss' opinion on how something should look merely because he "says so". Yes, I understand.... what the boss says is what the boss gets, but that does not mean the point is not valid. All views/annotation/tags/etc... they are all linked with parameters. It's impossible to get them wrong, or miss them, or have anything cross referenced, just so as long as you use them in the manner they were intended (which you will, it's easier than standard annotation).

 

A friend of mine who's a Revit guru told me once,"When I started really using Revit, for the first time I felt free." I didn't realize what he meant until I got good at Revit. You never have to remember anything, or go back to reference if something was changed or updated. It's always updating any and all changes, period. Viewport tags, section callouts, sheet names, Titleblock info, dimensions, etc etc x infinity.

[irneb]

There's 2 aspects which I still can't get exactly as my previous job's standards forced us to have it:

 

Section lines needed their text elements to rotate together with the line's orientation. Revit doesn't allow that - the text is horizontal no matter what you try to do.

 

Schedules do not work any which way. You have to use the Revit method of scheduling. Particularly prevalent with Finishes Schedules. But door & window schedules were also more work than simply drawing the thing manually in acad - at least because of the (IMO) stupid design of the schedule which meant you needed to generate a schedule filtered for each door type (which could be 100's and in one case 1253 door types) - previously I did this using ACad and Access though lisp.

 

Fortunately my current place of work is much more Revit centric, and the boss understands that for efficiency / competitiveness we need to compromise some methods to work simpler in Revit. Not that it compromises the quality of the deliverables, but compromise in the sense that: "OK I'm willing to accept a section line that looks different from what I had previously". If you can't get your boss to agree on these - then Revit is doomed in that office, and as I've found that office is doomed in the ever more efficient Revit-centric industry.

[tzframpton]

Section lines needed their text elements to rotate together with the line's orientation. Revit doesn't allow that - the text is horizontal no matter what you try to do.

Create a separate Section Head Type and rotate the text to a horizontal position. A workaround, yes, but still works.

 

Schedules do not work any which way. You have to use the Revit method of scheduling. Particularly prevalent with Finishes Schedules. But door & window schedules were also more work than simply drawing the thing manually in acad - at least because of the (IMO) stupid design of the schedule which meant you needed to generate a schedule filtered for each door type (which could be 100's and in one case 1253 door types) - previously I did this using ACad and Access though lisp.

Yes, manual schedules simply aren't there. This is where linking AutoCAD files still come in handy. But there are workarounds. Every begin a schedule and use Key Schedule instead? This allows manual editing and once you get it set up it works great. Once again, a workaround, but still works.

 

Not that it compromises the quality of the deliverables, but compromise in the sense that: "OK I'm willing to accept a section line that looks different from what I had previously". If you can't get your boss to agree on these - then Revit is doomed in that office, and as I've found that office is doomed in the ever more efficient Revit-centric industry.

SO true. So so so true.

[irneb]

Here's the problem section head. What I ended up doing was create 4 different types (Pointing Left, -Right, -Up and -Down), you needed to use the correct one depending on the direction in which the section pointed. Though it still had issues with diagonal sections.

 

But wors was that no matter what I did, a section line indicated on a section / elevation would draw ALL its text horizontally. And due to the design of this section - the sheet number needs to be vertical.

[tzframpton]

Ah, I see. So in the first image, you can't create a separate Section Head Type, and rotate the Sheet Number Label? Also, another workaround, would be to use a Label with Opaque Text and just have everything oriented in a horizontal position, and in a position where the arrow that surrounds the callout bubble doesn't interfere no matter what rotation it is. The Opaque text will mask the section line if it ever goes through it.

 

Yes, Revit doesn't allow 100% free-to-the-hearts-desire abilities with certain objects, but my stance would be that it's simply a comprise for using a better product that leverages parametric capabilities which the advantages far outweigh vanilla AutoCAD capabilities.

 

Just my very humble $0.02, of course.

[irneb]

Just my very humble $0.02, of course.

In full agreement. Unfortunately it doesn't help the OP with this. I'm very surprised that AEC doors can't get a hatch inserted. Could you try using a different pen for the leaf? Or perhaps add multiple lines to simulate a fill? I know we used to do that in the time of pen-plotters.