|
|
No, it's terrible
Sort of, it leaves a lot to be desired
Mostly, but still needs rework before use on projects
Yes, I use downloadable content often as is
All Families Are NOT Created Equally
Here's your chance to tell the Revit content providers what you think they are doing well, and where they need to improve. I am gathering feedback for a paper that I am co-authoring on how to find, evaluate and augment content. Your thoughts will be very helpful.
Here's the original post:
http://www.seandburke.com/blog/2009/...created-equal/
Conversation in this thread or at the blog are encouraged.
Re: All Families Are NOT Created Equally
I think the big issue is- and will remain to be- that content out there is not always being built by REVIT knowledgeable users, but by people working for manufacturers that are learning it to try to get their content out there in to projects.
Is the content living up to expectations? Not for me. There is an office wide mandate to not download ANY content from ANYWHERE, so much so that the content search has been disabled in Revit.
I think the Factory is doing a good job TRYING to promote better content out there on seek. I know i personally have had a FEW conversations with people there, surrounding this very topic. They actually are trying. The Family Modeling Guide/guidelines are a good start, but it brings up SO many issues, its quite an udnertaking.
For me anyway, the rules are very different for two catagories of content:
Generic Content, and Specified Content.
Entirely different set of rules for both, in my opinion.
Re: All Families Are NOT Created Equally
Aaron,
Thanks for the comments. I have heard this theme from other firms as well. A common theme is to take the approach that the only way to ensure quality is to have a policy that forbids downloading. Of course this puts a tremendous strain on the firm when they are just starting out using Revit - the front loaded approach to content building.
Can you explain more your difference of strategies? It sounds interesting.
Re: All Families Are NOT Created Equally
Well, Generic Content is what we use for designing. I need a Door. Or a window. But i dont know what it will end up being. So at THAT point (design) i want it flexible, parametric, and yadda yadda.
If its SPECIFIED content, do i really care if its parametric? If Anderson makes a window model 2240, and its a specific size, and a specific material, do i really care if its parametric or not? IDEALLY id like that entire "style" of window to be one family with types, but at that point, i dont really care. It *is what it is,* so i shouldnt be editing it.
Now, for performance Revit wise, i care very much for both. ANY imported-non-revit-geometry makes the file a deal breaker, in my humble opinion. Not worth the headache. Over-the-top modeling = deal breaker.
But then you get in to scheduling and data, which is one of the main reasons im not sure content from outside will ever work. Ive set up a few offices now, and everyone had different desires for door and window schedules. Not just because "its how weve always done it," but because they focus on different parts of the ARCHITECTURE. Considering what is "value adding" on projects, its sometimes faster to build something that REPRESENTS the product from scratch, than it is to get a family from outside, then add in the necessary parameters to make it work correctly.
But the value adding discussion plays a lot in to that, as does "what youre doing with the model." As i said, that discussion/issue is VERY far reaching.
Re: All Families Are NOT Created Equally
Yes i've heard similar thing from a lot of the 'bigger' firms out there. Maybe they need to look at releasing a "standard" as all of the content developers (us included) seem to have their own standard of what they think should happen.
Maybe Autodesk could look at some sort of certification process (a bit like the itunes store??)
Re: All Families Are NOT Created Equally
None of the options in your poll describe my experience. I have only used McQuay chillers and Victaulic fittings so far. Mostly I use OTB and my own generic stuff. I thought the McQuay stuff was pretty good for such a complex piece of equipment without showing too much detail. The vic stuff was ok for 2-line or fine detail level display,but lacked single line or medium-coarse detail level display. Not sure how they got that past Autodesk scrutiny for seek acceptance.
From an owners perspective, it would seem logical to use manufacturer content, although probably only 50% of jobs will actually get the basis of design equipment actually installed. If and when the contractor uses the competitions stuff, what if they don't have any revit content. Of course its relatively easy to construct a replacement family with just the nozzles and add whatever parameters for descriptive data were in the original model. But if the contract doesn't specify that kind of as-built activity as a requirement, that ain't gonna happen. A lot of contractors are not going t have that level of sophistication anyway.
Re: All Families Are NOT Created Equally
Well well... have we caught up with the United States. We being the Dutch Revit users.
Before everything else, I'm not an active member in Dutch Revit user groups. IMHO many Dutch Revit gurus are know-it-all headstrong jerks with no care for your needs and more interest in pressing how they 'think it should be done'. In short, most of them are geeks.
That being said, a few of them did pull together and worked with big players in the Dutch AEC market to develop standards. Even Revit-resellers are sharing libraries, manuals and shared parameter files. In a small country like ours with few real BIM-minded multinationals and many companies trying to catch up, it's easier to develop some good conventions.
OK let's use real-world scenarios to compare with. A brick supplier sells bricks and not masonry. You can order a window, but the factory would have to order their own supplies in order to make one. Is it so unrealistic to think that the BIM industry should share conventions and not libraries? If anything, I think we should share profile families and product documentation rather than to expect a family that someone else built to work for our company.
Re: All Families Are NOT Created Equally
Exactly... flexibility versus efficiency. It's the two approaches that seem to be at odds with each other when it comes to content in Revit. I'm not proposing anything just yet, but what if you could have both? Wouldn't that be an added value?Originally Posted by twiceroadsfool
So, parametric is a nice to have, and non-native graphics are BAD. I hear you there. I have found it frustrating when looking at a long list of families on a site and the thumbnails all look nearly identical. Something as simple as a hardware change on a door for instance. Two doors, different families - one with a kickplate, and one without. Why? I doesn't take that much planning to determine if a graphic is visible or not, or if a type parameter has some text filled in or not.
But, I digress. I don't want to influence your comments too much. I'm looking for the type of honesty you all are so willing to share. I thank you for that.
Re: All Families Are NOT Created Equally
Actually, there is one that has been released for submitting to Autodesk Seek. You can find it here: Revit Model Style Guide
Does it provide enough? I'm not sure yet. It certainly still requires someone who understands the family editor, and can make judgements on level of detail and symbology.
Re: All Families Are NOT Created Equally
Clog boy,
Are any of those standards available for sharing? It would be very interesting to see what another market has done to date. Sharing is critical to elevating the industry - a few firms are doing it openly here in the States, but not as many as it would take to form a solid workflow around a single platform. There are generic BIM Standards out there, but they don't address things at the granular level that something like the Revit Model Style Guide aims to achieve.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote