Harvesting CAD Details - Best Practice?

[arb]

I know that there is information out there on the best practice for working with AutoCAD libraries within Revit, but after several searches and many, many posts and articles I am still lost. I posted the same question on Autodesk's Discussion Group, but I've had better luck lately finding solutions here.

I've read Autodesk's Technical Bulletin on Revit 2010 file performance, so I believe that importing DWGs and exploding them will most likely destroy the universe (or atleast our files.) I even tried a little experiment with a clean Revit project file and watching the file size inflate as I imported a DWG, and then exploded it. I also tried exploding it in a separate file, grouping the information, and THEN pasting the group into my test file, and the least file growth was caused by simply importing a DWG (which doesn't give us much flexibility when we need to edit it.)

So, are all you experts out there really importing/linking into separate files and placing detail lines/model lines/walls/etc. over the imported/linked components? There's a wealth of DWGs on manufacturer's websites that we use to plug into our details, but how can we work with their DWG's without killing our file sizes?

Are there any improvements to RAC 2011 that affect how users are working with imported content?

Thanks.

- Alex
.

[twiceroadsfool]

If we have a detail in DWG that we absolutely HAVE to have, we take the time to convert it to native Revit. We import it... NOT in to our project, in to a blank file. Then we explode it. Then we select every pice of text, and change it back to a native Revit Text. We convert the single lines of text to normal notes in Revit, and we delete the exploded arrow heads and line segments, and switch them to leaders from the text. We delete the lines from exploded dimensions (and tick marks, and the dim text), and we redim in Revit. We take the Filled region styles that are now present, and swap them out for native Revit stuff. then we select all the lines, and convert them to our normal drafting lines from Revit.

THEN, we copy and paste it in to a library files Drafting View, with reference planes for sheet alignment, etc.

THEN it gets Insert > Insert from file > Views, in to the project.

Basically, it gets redone. No shortcuts, no import/link (with or without explode). It just doesnt take that long to do it right.

[Alfredo Medina]

It just doesnt take that long to do it right.

Unless you have hundreds of drawings and not hundreds of hours available to do that. It depends on the resources available. If you have people to dedicate to that task, is fine, but think of a professional detailer, who is migrating to Revit after having worked in AutoCAD for 20 years, and has an extensive and excellent library of CAD details; linking is the choice for him. He can continue developing the details in AutoCAD while using the modeling and scheduling capabilities of Revit.

[twiceroadsfool]

We agree to disagree. :shrug:

It always *takes time* to get up and running in a new platform. The only difference being most of us were in AutoCAD for a very long time. if you want to be doing it half baked, and get half baked results, then rock on Linking in CAd details in to views. Heres what you can look forward to:

1. Having to go back to AutoCAd to make any and all alterations to those details (or exploding them and dealing with the eternal headaches that brings on).
2*. Any .shx fonts printing like absolute garbage, in terms of lineweights.
3*. Any .shx fonts that utilized special characters for things like stacked fractions, symbology, or whatever, not displaying properly in the Revit environment at all, including- but not limited to- any font narrow and font justifications that arent supported by the Link.
4*. Dimension Styles not displaying properly in some cases, including- but not limited to- lineweights, font types, etc.
5. Hatches not displaying at the proper densities, and some hatches "bleeding" depending on how they were bounded in the AutoCAd environment.
6. Annotative items in the AutoCAD / ACA environment not always displaying properly when Linked, depending on their Annotative Scales in AutoCAd or ACA.

Those are the ones that come to mind off the cuff, but if i dig out my notes from the Implementation stuff back when i had an office that was 50/50 ACA/Revit, there was more that im certain im forgetting.

On top of that, heres some more:

The ones in Asteriks' above may not apply. If were talking about pretty savvy AutoCAD users, as you claim, then chances are by 2010 the .shx stuff is gone, in lieu of nice TTF font styles and Dim styles. Which alleviates those problems, but then begets you the Annotative Problems, including but not limited to all of the text, dims, and hatching, and various scales of those details.

Also, the OP mentioned .dwg's from websites, which makes me THINK this isnt a library of thousands of details waiting to be converted.

But the bottom line is: We ALL had TONS of stuff to convert. Rome wasnt built in a day. You need that Hot Pipe Flashing Detail today? Convert it today. Need it tomorrow? Convert it tomorrow. Sure, youll have a few projects where the deadline will creep up, and maybe youll only get 65% of them done in time. So youll link the rest. You have to do what you have to do.

But PLANNING on doing it that way, just for the sake of an existing library that was done "the way we always done it" is shortsighted, and i wouldnt recommend it. But thats just my two cents.

[eric.piotrowicz]

Absolutely side with Aaron. Way back in the hand drafting days we had typical details in form of sticky-backs that got slapped on sheets as needed. How many folks are still plotting entire sets and then manually placing stick-backs for typical details just cuz that what we always did before?
Of course there will be those crunch times that Aaron mentioned when things just have to get done by whatever means possible. The important part is to recognize those down and dirty shortcuts as temporary band-aids and not standard operating procedure.

[Alfredo Medina]

As I said, it depends on the situation. I see Aaron's points very reasonable. If I was in charge of a production department and I had to establish a policy about this, I would surely follow his approach. But the software provides options for different scenarios, and for the case of the seasoned professional detailer I was mentioning as an example in my previous post, I don't see him spending time re-drawing all his extensive library of CAD details in Revit if the linking option is there and works fine for him, even if he has to do some editing in his details before linking them.

[eric.piotrowicz]

I definitely understand your point because we have a couple of those types in our firm. The trouble is that its creating more problems than its supposedly eliminating. I say supposedly because they believe they are saving time and therefore doing things correctly. However they aren't listening to any the problems its creating and won't acknowledge the time it takes for others to fix those problems.
There are some good reasons for bringing in CAD files, like site and grading or consultants who havn't made the leap yet. Using this function for major portions of the project is not why the functionality is there.

[twiceroadsfool]

As I said, it depends on the situation. I see Aaron's points very reasonable. If I was in charge of a production department and I had to establish a policy about this, I would surely follow his approach. But the software provides options for different scenarios, and for the case of the seasoned professional detailer I was mentioning as an example in my previous post, I don't see him spending time re-drawing all his extensive library of CAD details in Revit if the linking option is there and works fine for him, even if he has to do some editing in his details before linking them.

And in an eleventh-hour hail mary to get a job at the door, i could justify it. But even for a "professional detailer" its a shortsighted strategy, to PLAN on linking all of your details, "just because" you have an extensive library.

I mean, arent we all professional detailers? Isnt that what architecture is?

EDIT: And thats what im talking about, Eric. its NOT efficient, monkeying around with all the problems imported and Linked CAD details provide. Youre going to have to make some serious changes to the CAD details to get them to look even halfway respectable (in my opinion, anyway...), unless youve been working in AutoCAD a particular way, with particular standards. And if you havent, youre going to be partially redoing them anyway. Might as well take the extra ten minutes and do it in the right platform.

[Alfredo Medina]

I mean, arent we all professional detailers? Isnt that what architecture is?

Not exactly. By professional detailer I mean just that, a person who earns his living detailing specific portions of a building, for fabrication and construction, such as in the field of curtain walls. It's a different profession altogether, not necessarily performed by an architect.

[twiceroadsfool]

Okay, i think you missed my point, lol. People DO detail in Revit. So someone "in his case," is still just someone who has existing details in "Platform X," which happens to be AutoCAD.

Theres no time like the present to start converting details.