See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 45

Thread: RVT OOTB

  1. #1
    All AUGI, all the time gwnelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    2003-04
    Location
    Westchester County, NY, USA
    Posts
    612
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default RVT OOTB

    I just had to improvise a bay window from the OOTB 45deg unit. Changing height param failed miserably. The csmt sides weren't constrained to the same height as the picture, nor was several other little items.
    If Adesk & Revit can't get families right, wtf? Sure this fam was made years ago & probably done by some intern, but c'mon folks.

    I'd really like to see someone (Jeff?) look into this & actually post a reply - or defense. Whatever. Maybe time to review ALL of the OOTB content for accuracy.

  2. #2
    Certifiable AUGI Addict twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    2006-01
    Location
    ---
    Posts
    4,516
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: RVT OOTB

    We keep the OOTB library hidden, hehehe.

  3. #3
    All AUGI, all the time gwnelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    2003-04
    Location
    Westchester County, NY, USA
    Posts
    612
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: RVT OOTB

    I agree, I can't stand SEEK & find OOTB hugely lacking, but I was under the gun to bang something out & needed a larger bay window. Just makes all of us that much warmer & fuzzier to know that Adesk has our backs, given that they have all our money...

  4. #4
    AUGI Addict cdatechguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    2006-10
    Location
    CdA, ID
    Posts
    1,533
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: RVT OOTB

    I find it odd that the better created families are in the UK directory...I tend to lean towards them...
    Michael "MP" Patrick
    "I only drink :coffee: until it's acceptable to drink :beer: or :whiskey: or :wine:"

  5. #5
    Revit Technical Specialist - Autodesk Scott D Davis's Avatar
    Join Date
    2003-04
    Location
    Chino, CA
    Posts
    4,756
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: RVT OOTB

    Quote Originally Posted by cdatechguy View Post
    I find it odd that the better created families are in the UK directory...I tend to lean towards them...
    They were built later. Yes, I feel its time to revisit all of the OOTB content that originally shipped with Revit 1.0. Yes, most are still the same families we had over 10 years ago.

    And I know some don't like me mentioning Seek, because they feel like its just a big sales pitch from me, but honestly, its not. I know Seek was not great in the beginning, and it turned many people off. It;s still not perfect, and all the families there still do not meet the Revit Families Model Guide. But, we have been working hard on Seek to make it better, and it's getting there. Most of the content is now being made by Autodesk Approved Content Providers, so the manufacturers are not tackling it on their own. There are 1000's of families there, and more to come. If you haven't visited in a while, you should check back in. It's really becoming a good resource for content.

  6. #6
    All AUGI, all the time
    Join Date
    2006-09
    Location
    The Kingdom of Denmark
    Posts
    560
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: RVT OOTB

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Davis View Post
    They were built later. Yes, I feel its time to revisit all of the OOTB content that originally shipped with Revit 1.0. Yes, most are still the same families we had over 10 years ago.

    And I know some don't like me mentioning Seek, because they feel like its just a big sales pitch from me, but honestly, its not. I know Seek was not great in the beginning, and it turned many people off. It;s still not perfect, and all the families there still do not meet the Revit Families Model Guide. But, we have been working hard on Seek to make it better, and it's getting there. Most of the content is now being made by Autodesk Approved Content Providers, so the manufacturers are not tackling it on their own. There are 1000's of families there, and more to come. If you haven't visited in a while, you should check back in. It's really becoming a good resource for content.
    Scott, could you please provide a link, or just more info on becomming an "Autodesk Approved Content Provider" ?

    And, when can we expect to have the missing categories covered in the Model Styles Guide ?

    Thanks.
    Last edited by Munkholm; 2011-01-10 at 08:31 PM.

  7. #7
    All AUGI, all the time
    Join Date
    2006-09
    Location
    The Kingdom of Denmark
    Posts
    560
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: RVT OOTB

    And Scott, is there anyway to make the searches at seek only returning "Model Style Guide Compliant" content ? If not, would you consider that for the next update please.
    Last edited by Munkholm; 2011-01-10 at 08:27 PM.

  8. #8
    Certifiable AUGI Addict twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    2006-01
    Location
    ---
    Posts
    4,516
    Login to Give a bone
    1

    Default Re: RVT OOTB

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Davis View Post
    And I know some don't like me mentioning Seek, because they feel like its just a big sales pitch from me, but honestly, its not. I know Seek was not great in the beginning, and it turned many people off. It;s still not perfect, and all the families there still do not meet the Revit Families Model Guide.
    I know im directly one of the people that mentioned not liking Seek being pushed, but i want to be clear that its not about the INTENT, or what the product COULD be, its about what the product currently IS.

    What you said in the above quote is at the ROOT of the problem: Its not that the content doesnt meet "a standard." its that "the standard" isnt a good one.

    To be specific, as an example i opened up the "Casework Category" Guide. Lets go item by item. First, ill preface by saying these are only MY thoughts, theyre not indicative of everyones. But, theyre critical enough (to me) that no one in our office is allowed to pull content off Seek.

    Wall cabinets = Wall Hosted (item 1). Completely bad idea. In fact, any BRAND NEW content being created shouldnt even BE wall Hosted. It should be face based. Particuylarly as more consultants and project teams start to collaborate. Face Based = works nicely with other files. Wall Hosted = giant pain in the butt. particular when you add in (since im PRAYING no one calls it the solution) Copy Monitor is nowhere near the tool it should be.

    Imperial templates (Issue 2). Again, why no face based? Well, lets ignore that for a second. The Shared Parameters Text File? Theyre broken down by the categories OF parameters, in all of the objects, but not by THE objects themselves. So the Shared Param text file has a Length, and a Width, but no Depth. Does that L and W apply to EVERY object needing a Length and a Width? Ill say again, the ones in the OOTB templates dont cut it. And this is HUGE. So WHICH PARAMETERS should be used by all of the DOOR manufacturers? having Length and Width DOES NOT SUFFICE. talk to people USING this software. Single panels, double panels, UNEVEN panels. What schedules? What doesnt? Our door schedule uses practically NONE of the OOTB parameters. So if THIS is the SP file given to manufacturers, we can NEVER get a door we can use.

    Naming Guidelines (Issue 3). Naming is a funny thing. Im obsessive about it, because otherwise Revit projects get out of control very fast. But lets break this down.

    On the surface, the: <Functional Type>‐<Subtype>‐<Manufacturer>‐<Descriptor 1>‐<Descriptor2> portion looks great. In fact, ive had specific conversations with the Content folks at the Factory about this being missing from their own content, so i applaud that.

    ut-oh... Under Guidelines: If possibly, do not include the category in the name. Really? Well how do you expect it to stay organized and easy to find in the Type Selector? Desk will be next to Door. Counter next to couch. And Lamp next to Ladder. These are not things that should be next to each other. Unless we use a third party app to manage our content (which we now are, but its STILL an issue everywhere else in the program...) the Category MUST be the first thing in the name. That puts all of the CASEWORK together.

    Keep File Names as short as possible? Absolutely not. I dont care that the Revit Type selector sucks. I care that the information needed is there. Including: Category, sub-category, Manufacturer, model number, and REVIT HOSTING TYPE. Ever see a user in a complex project load a piece of content and not know what type of host its looking for? Theyre lost. Its one thing if the content is built IN HOUSE and they know what to expect, but in this premise... It could be Unhosted, or wall hosted. In the REAL WORLD, it could be Unhosted, Wall Hosted, Face Based, Line Based, Ceiling Based, Floor Based. For different kinds of Casework, those are ALL VIABLE SOLUTIONS.

    Now lets get on to what the guide DOES and DOESNT address.

    I applaud the Master Part and Master Subcategory list... As being an attempt. But right now, it looks like theyre just copied and pasted out of the OOTB families. heck, one of them has a Material "glass" specified. This needs to get way more in depth, much faster, before itll be of much more value. But its a good start.

    Nested Families (issue 4): When should they be used, and when shouldnt they? The "Revit performance guide" says to limit nested families, and constrained arrays, and complex formulas.... Which rendered it another document that will never see the light of day in this office. Families get nested. Thats how we leverage the power of them. They get SHARED and Nested. Manufacturers dont UNDERSTAND when is a GOOD nest and when is a BAD nest. When to Share, and when not to Share. When to nest a different CATEGORY and when to nest the same category?

    The "Model Style Guide Itself." (issue 5) It uses Level of Detail in families as PROJECT phase thing. Of course i understand we may need different representations for SD and CD, or LOD 400 and 500 downstream... But using LOD in REVIT for this? So do they expect us to alter all of the view templates at every phase of the project and vary the Level of Detail? We use LOD for performance baselining our files: Coarse = working view, Medium = Documentation View, Fine = Presentation/rendering level. But using LOD for Project Phase?

    Recommended File Size guide (issue 6)- Drives me bonkers. We Do ARCHITECTURE. We dont do COMPUTER PERFORMANCE. Im going to make the family show what it needs to show. Every Door family we have (not including the Shared Panels) are a full MB. They have WHAT THEY NEED to do the job. Computer performance is secondary, although theyve never caused a problem performance wise. I dont want people worrying about file size, i want them worrying about PRODUCT performance. Conversely, i dont want them building tons of **** thats 8 MB and takes 45 minutes to regenerate, either. See paragraph above: What should they nest? What should they array? What should they constrain? What should they MODEL?

    Areas to avoid for performance (issue 7)- This one is crazy. Avoid using geometry instead of symbolic lines and detail components. You know, i tried setting up a library by "these guidelines" once. It was terrible. You cant material tag the representation when its symbolic. Then you also need the geometry, and masking regions AND symbolic lines in ALL the views you shut off the geometry in. And it ALL has to be parametric. No thanks. Ill keep the geometry visible.

    Overuse of voids, arrays, and formulas? These are some of the best ways to get max value out of content. This should be stricken from the document, or someone should declare what "overuse" is.

    Examples of appropriate families (issue - That door is a disaster. It doesnt even have a frame. Maybe it LOOKS FINE in plan, but Revit isnt CAD. If it looks like that in plan, its because the hole in the wall is the wrong size. WTF???

    Nesting Recommendations (they are here!)-

    "Instead of nesting, consider...." This portion is funny, since Revit tells you the opposite. Plus, its way harder to constrain things this way. And the file is HEAVIER.

    "Limit Nesting to 2 levels..."- Ever try a fully parametric radial array of ANYTHING in Revit? Not possible.

    ----

    I could keep going. But the point is (so i dont sound like one of the negative nancy's)- its not that the INTENT is bad, its not at all. Im highly enthusiastic for what Seek might ONE DAY be. But RIGHT NOW, it doesnt address anything that i think is important, for manufacturers content. And what it does address, it does poorly.

    Now again, those are only my opinions, none of them are facts. But i felt i should explain, since i know im one of the ones that said Seek shouldnt be thrown around as a solution for content.

  9. #9
    AUGI Addict
    Join Date
    2001-12
    Posts
    1,714
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: RVT OOTB

    Not just your opinion Aaron. Not by a long shot I think.

    And a very good dissection of the issues as well.

    Gordon

  10. #10
    All AUGI, all the time gwnelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    2003-04
    Location
    Westchester County, NY, USA
    Posts
    612
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: RVT OOTB

    Under the gun on this project, like mentioned earlier, I visited SEEK for a simple wall sconce. I found this that seemed close enough for my needs:

    wall sconce-visa lighting 18882.rfa

    It didn't work. Starters: the light is made from an ACAD import. More importantly, the light source was buried deep inside the solid. This is a very simple and basic component, and it's long list of cousins from the same mfr are perfect examples of the mediocre offerings on SEEK, Scott's assurances notwithstanding.

    I hope that many more users vocalize their disappointment with content in the hope of a major improvement.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2014: OOTB Templates
    By wurschel in forum Revit Architecture - General
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2014-07-21, 01:46 PM
  2. OOTB Families
    By rudolfweyers346383 in forum Revit Architecture - General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2011-06-13, 07:51 AM
  3. OOTB Urinal 3D.rfa
    By patricks in forum Revit Architecture - Families
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2010-11-15, 05:30 PM
  4. ootb wall tag
    By dmorin in forum Revit Architecture - General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2010-04-23, 03:12 PM
  5. ootb Geography?
    By H-Angus in forum ACA General
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2006-02-11, 10:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •