why not ceiling hosted?

[captainbunsaver]

Am I missing something here? Why are hvac components such as diffusers and supplies not ceiling hosted, and must have elevation manually set?

TC

[luigi]

Am I missing something here? Why are hvac components such as diffusers and supplies not ceiling hosted, and must have elevation manually set?

TC
I am assuming that the real answer is that the ceiling is in the architectural, and the only way for the ceiling hosted HVAC grills, etc. to make sense in the process, is for the ceiling to be an object that can be Copied/Monitored....which currently isn't an option....It only makes sense that the ceilings will be Copied/Monitored....I am wondering if they will add that option in version 10...

You don't want to have a ceiling in Revit Systems that is not associated with Revit Building....

[awascher]

You don't want to have a ceiling in Revit Systems that is not associated with Revit Building....
Why wouldn't you want the ceiling in Systems? Electrical/Mechanical/Special Systems all have equipment that is mounted in the ceiling. Systems use the ceiling more than the Architectural model would. Then it comes down to coordination between the Architect and Engineer as to who draws the ceiling.

Having ceiling hosted families works a lot better since you don't have to align each diffuser/light/etc. so it moves if the grid is adjusted. The only thing is that you have to be careful in deleting ceilings. The hosted families will be deleted with the ceiling.

Our company is in the process of deciding where to draw the ceilings so they are only drawn once. Hopefully they will be added to copy/monitor soon so this coordination won't be necessary.

[luigi]

I maybe didn't write that properly....this is BIM, so there should be one ceiling only....so I am pretty sure that a ceiling will be one of the next objects we'll be able to Copy/Monitor between linked files. Honestly, we don't want multiple diffusers either...so I shouldn't add a "fake" diffuser to my project when the real diffuser is linked from Systems...just like you wouldn't want a "fake" ceiling in systems when you have the "actual" ceiling linked in your file... so you can have a ceiling in systems that is a different ceiling from architectural, but that isn't BIM friendly. Building Systems needs to borrow the ceiling from architectural and Copy.Monitor it, so the engineers can host their equipment on the ceiling. If the architect changes the ceiling height (we would never do that...would we =) then the engineer will get a warning of what the architect did, and when accepted, the diffusers and everything else moves with the ceiling...


BTW, if you make the diffuser face hosted, not ceiling hosted, then deleting the ceiling won't delete the diffusers....we are in the process to modify all of our lighting fixtures to be face hosted, rather than ceiling hosted for that reasons and others...



Why wouldn't you want the ceiling in Systems? Electrical/Mechanical/Special Systems all have equipment that is mounted in the ceiling. Systems use the ceiling more than the Architectural model would. Then it comes down to coordination between the Architect and Engineer as to who draws the ceiling.

Having ceiling hosted families works a lot better since you don't have to align each diffuser/light/etc. so it moves if the grid is adjusted. The only thing is that you have to be careful in deleting ceilings. The hosted families will be deleted with the ceiling.

Our company is in the process of deciding where to draw the ceilings so they are only drawn once. Hopefully they will be added to copy/monitor soon so this coordination won't be necessary.

[Mottiqua]

I agree, make everything face based and call it a day.

[kevin.mak]

Yup. The more general solution is to use the face-hosted families such that it can be hosted to ceiling, and also any faces (including ceiling) in linked files.

[mjdanowski]

One very large problem I still have with face based families though, is that they seem to be disassociated with any room, or room calculation. For this reason, I have created most of our "flagship" families as wall based and for the time being we are at the mercy of C/M.

I would also presume that in the future, development would be geared towards making wall based families have a lot better support and a LOT less overhead associated with them. This is one of the major gripes with systems users from what I have seen, and I doubt it will be ignored. I have also gotten the impression that this is the way it was "supposed" to be done, but the implementation went a little frayed.