Show and Tell!

[mjdanowski]

I saw this topic on the Autodesk forums, but I am too lazy to register there so I shall post a similar topic here!

Lets post screenshots of our accomplishments/work in Revit MEP/Systems!

[Scott D Davis]

Isn't it great to see exactly how your rooms are going to be laid out?? 8)

[dbaldacchino]

Those rooms seem too big to me...can we take some SF out? ;)

[Brian Myers]

What's really cool is that now you can use the view specific graphic controls to go in and change the individual colors of virtually any object. As a result, you can have your interior designers try different interior color schemes, materials, etc. in any view without actually changing the properties of whatever they are changing. I was showing my co-worker how to do various Kitchen color schemes and was changing walls, counter tops, even the refrigerator color on the fly based on what he wanted to see.

[LRaiz]

What's really cool is that now you can use the view specific graphic controls to go in and change the individual colors of virtually any object. As a result, you can have your interior designers try different interior color schemes, materials, etc. in any view without actually changing the properties of whatever they are changing. I was showing my co-worker how to do various Kitchen color schemes and was changing walls, counter tops, even the refrigerator color on the fly based on what he wanted to see.
Are you saying that you like the ability to created uncoordinated set of documents?!
I don't have a copy of 2008 and am only guessing how far ACAD-like concepts made it into Revit.

[Brian Myers]

Are you saying that you like the ability to created uncoordinated set of documents?!
I don't have a copy of 2008 and am only guessing how far ACAD-like concepts made it into Revit.

Hmmm... Yes and No, not exactly.

Two Examples:

1.) You design a living room. You can change the color of the walls and furniture inside it. Also, you can change the pattern of the materials on these objects. BUT this is view specific. So the walls (in one view, being view specific) can look different in this view, but they are still the kind of wall you created if you schedule them or do a section. What changes is the graphical representation of that object in that view. Walls/entities can also be made transparent individually if the ability to "see through" a wall could be useful.

2.) I want to see all the kitchen cabinets as a "non-white" color. I can show an interior view to the client and change the colors on the fly to get feedback from the client. I'm not actually changing anything that's scheduled, just the representation of that element in that specific view. By doing this I can get real feedback on the fly from the client, I do like this and its something that never could have been done quickly in Revit in the past. Ideally you would do this in elevations/camera views that were not part of the set.

So yes, if abused you could have a set that is not coordinated graphically (different patterns/colors representing the exact same objects) since the parameters/data of these objects wouldn't be changed in schedule or elsewhere in the set. Of course, its not much different from not using keynotes and labeling the same thing different in two different locations. This is a feature that has great potential if used properly, but can lead to coordination issues if abused.

[dbaldacchino]

Dilbert (err...Brian), how can you do that? You cannot change the material assigned to an element. You can override surface patterns, projection lines, etc, but not change a material. So unless you use a solid surface pattern for everything, how can you change their color? If I had my choice, I'd rather have the option to override materials or perhaps assign different materials to objects. This way, I can override the cut pattern of individual layers of a wall for example, so I can show coursing of masonry in section, but not in plan.

I can see what Leonid is alluding to. Right now if someone tells me about some visibility issue they're having, I can quickly point out what's wrong. The new overrides will turn the tables and make it much harder. Those that know what they're doing will use the tools wisely and do great things. The main problem though is that most people just don't fully understand the product, find the quickest (and easiest?) way to do something, and they'll do it (typically incorrectly, causing a series of other problems). We haven't rolled out 2008 yet so only time will tell. I just hope we don't give a lot of people too many sharp blades and have them constantly hurting themselves and others! I don't want to sound negative, but unfortunately in the workplace nowadays, not enough resources are spent to properly teach/train staff and they're left to fend off on their own.

[Brian Myers]

Dilbert (err...Brian), how can you do that? You cannot change the material assigned to an element. You can override surface patterns, projection lines, etc, but not change a material. So unless you use a solid surface pattern for everything, how can you change their color?

Those that know what they're doing will use the tools wisely and do great things. The main problem though is that most people just don't fully understand the product, find the quickest (and easiest?) way to do something, and they'll do it (typically incorrectly, causing a series of other problems).

Sadly, I almost answer to Dilbert now. ;)

I understand the confusion. Let me step back for a moment. You are correct it's a matter of changing the surface patterns, etc. But lets say you have a gyp board wall. If I assign a concrete surface pattern to it, visually everyone will think "that's a concrete wall". Yes, its still a gyp wall, but unless you cut through it or note it, visually it looks like a concrete wall. On the same note, for most objects for "generic" rendering purposes we tend to notice color. So assigning a solid surface pattern to an object and giving it a color effectively changes that "object" to that color in that view. Sure, its not like a rendering, but it easily generates the feel of the color scheme. I don't have my Revit machine here at my house to show an example, but you'll have some fun changing interior design "colors" from within a camera view to feel the effects on the space.

While I agree with you that most people do things the quickest way, I have issue with not giving tools to people that can use them wisely just because others might not. Yes, I'm aware this is a comment that many people will totally not agree with, but I'll take the power to customize my plans any way that makes our companies more productive. It reminds me of criticizing the gun when a person shoots themselves in the foot. The gun was powerful and did its job... we just need to train people on how to use the gun (cad program) properly. I'm totally for coordination and all of Revit's benefits, but there gets to be a fine line between needing to model everything just so (or digging down deep to make a "simple" change) and needing to just show it the way you want to and move on. This could result in less coordination in the wrong hands, but it could result in better productivity too in the right hands.

Point being: Right or wrong we are reaching a point with Revit where its being marketed as a product that can bring in AutoCAD drawings, can draw details in 2D, and now can change the visual properties of individual objects in different views. Revit is not a "coordinated" program, its simply a "more coordinated" program with the potential to be as coordinated as those users that use it want it to be. This is hugely disappointing to many people, but its also what many individuals/companies have been demanding. I don't believe either viewpoint is wrong either. Revit is/can be the program you want to use it to be.

[dbaldacchino]

I tend to agree. I want the tools 'cause I take time to understand them and know when and how to use them. So if we're not gien the tools just because the majority will mess things up, then I'd feel cheated! I just hope I don't have to spend time "making things right" for those that don't. Well, I guess I'd just have to change my attitude a bit or make myself unavailable haha.

Thanks for the explanation, that's what I figured. And as a correcion to my previous post....if I had my choice, I'd want a different representation option for section versus plan for materials, instead of overriding them. Overriding the material seems like a solution to what I'd like to have, but it's actually not the best option. We could also get different representations per view scale, as we typically want more detail with finer views.

Anyway, sorry for hijcaking this thread....Good work mjdanowski!

[kyle.bernhardt]

Good side discussion guys, but to re-direct the thread back to the original intent...I'm posting some eye candy from my personal model I've been building to get better with the program (still only 4 months on the job) and test functionality.

Not everything in here is completely correct from an engineering perspective (no vents yet, etc), but it's been a great way to get a good understanding of what we need to work on, as well as making a cool looking model.

Comments and questions welcome.

Kyle B

[mjdanowski]

In response to all the material discussion, what I currently have is a family material parameter which links to certain faces, and when I place a panel I simply choose either "Emergency (Red)" or "Normal (Blue)" for the material. It helps a lot in keeping things organized, but it is still a pain to manually have to choose which color it is to be.

I have tried other approaches to this (such as making a shared check box labeled "Emergency" and linking it to a view filter), but it doesn't seem to be as effective. What would really be useful is if we could use formulas in material parameters (ie. if (Emergency, Emergency (Red), Normal (Blue)) where "Emergency" is a check box parameter). Or even better, like was discussed before, adding materials into view filters instead of just line colors/weights/patterns.

As engineers, we are less concerned with what it actually looks like physically, and more concerned with how it can be organized in views to represent what kind of system it is under.

[mabrey]

Here are some pics of the MEP of a pilot project I did with Revit Systems. A good chunk of it is in there, but it is still not complete.

Enjoy,

Jon

[rrubert]

This is my round plaque air diffuser. I found out after I drew it that making it stretch to make different family types of different sizes would be too complicated because of the curved geometry of the extrusions. If anybody has an easy way to make the curved solid revolve extrusions stretch, let me know.

[mwiggins121466]

Where did you get the electrical equipment in 3D from? I will guess you made it. Looks great. I am working on a 3 story MOB. We are doing lighting, power, nurse call, fire alarm, and security. I will post when I have something worthy.

[brendan.upton]

Hi All,

Here are some screen shots of a model that i have been working on. It's just some typical level layouts for an office building but i'm very happy to have finally figured out how to apply colours to the different elements. It took me a while to find the 'solid fill' selection in the visibility graphics...

Anyways, i still need to put some sprinkler layouts in... i will post some more pics once these are done.

I'll add a disclaimer here that this model may not be 100% correct from a design point of view but it gives some representation of what it could look like.

Cheers,
Bren.

[jbaumann]

Thought it was about time to renew this thread.

Job Description: 80 tons of VAV ductwork and support piping for a 25,000 square ft., two story aquarium building. Full mechanical contract documents produced with Revit MEP. Questions and comments welcome.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

Jarrod (and others)
Are you finding that you are using the 3D views to assist contractors and trades? If so, what kind of feedback are you getting from them? Are any of you MEP folks displaying the architectural models as a halftone, ghosted image to help put all this in context?

I've always liked the look of 3D mecahnical layouts and, just like our architectural models, feel they can help explain complex routing and system configurations much easier than a 2D view.

Glad to see you all pushing the development by using the software as intended. Keep up the good work. :beer:

[brendan.upton]

Hi All,

Thought i'd post a quick update also, as i feel we have been making steady progress.

The mechanical design of the plant areas is progressing nicely on this project. We have built cooling towers, heat exchangers, fans, silencers etc. for this model which seem to be working well but it will be interesting to see how these equipment item families will evolve, as I’m sure they will.

We have also built some obscure duct fittings along with other bits and pieces to get a result that we could not seem to get with the ‘out of the box’ fittings that come with Revit.

Of course, we need to start focusing on placing other services inside this model to start coordinationg with, but all in all, I have been very pleased with what we have been able to model with Revit MEP.

Cheers, Bren

[Matthew Stuver]

I'd thought I would share as well... Heres a an elementary school...