Model elements in Revit template file?

[patricks]

We've been making quite a few changes to our office template recently, using some ideas from a new, highly experienced employee. He suggests having a few model elements of commonly used families, perhaps with a small (the smallest possible) ADA toilet layout, and other things.

Is there a consensus on whether a project template should contain model elements or not? In the past years/versions our office template has NEVER contained any 3D model elements at all.

Our current template size is about 10 MB, which is actually a good bit larger than the previous version, because we decided to include a few things like vicinity map JPEG images at a couple of different scales showing the region where most of our projects are located. I'm afraid if we start to include model elements that the template size will really start to balloon.

Thoughts?

[Mike L Sealander]

Our template runs to 69MB. It's loaded with detail components, doors, windows, casework, you name it. There's a theory that it's easier to delete stuff out of a template than to put stuff in, and I've bought into that theory. Having said that, I've considered building little bathrooms, door/wall corner intersections and the like, but haven't gotten around to it.

[Norton_cad]

I concur. I've been doing this since day one. The template only balloons in size if not selectivly purged periodically.

[davidcobi]

I preload with families that are for sure used on every project so the template feels more plug and play. Downside is that you have to reload families when revisions to families are issued. 50mb template here.

[damon.sidel]

I've seen a new way that I think I like: container files. Our template is quite minimal and therefore adaptable. It has what I consider the bare minimum. Then we have a project file with content loaded, schedules created, and all sorts of other goodies. This is the container file and is used with Transfer Project Standards to load what we want. Our goal is to set up a few container files for the different project types that are most typical in the office. And probably like many firms, past projects become go-to's for design elements, so those become container files, too.

[davidcobi]

A view full of your typical patterns is handy to have in a container file so you don't have to import and scale .pat files every time you want to import patterns. Just copy paste filled regions or floors, walls, roofs with the selection of patterns/materials you're going to use.

[patricks]

Yeah we've been building an "Assemblies" file with typical walls, typical floors, roofs, ceilings, etc. that have all the info associated with them, and we can just copy/paste into projects as needed.

To me that seems like a better way to go than having a bunch of model stuff in the template itself. Our template still has typical walls, floors, doors, etc. loaded already, but just not placed in the model environment.

[damon.sidel]

just not placed in the model environment.

Wait, you're saying that the new recommendation is to actually place some of these families in the model environment in your template? It may be a great idea, but I fail to see it's benefit.

[patricks]

It's not any recommendation that I know of, that's why I was asking here.

What was suggested to me is that we put something like a small ADA bathroom layout, or maybe just a little 4-sided structure or something in the model contained in the template. However I'm thinking that sort of thing should be over in the "Assemblies" Revit file that we use to copy/paste various system-family elements from.

[damon.sidel]

Yeah, I can't think of any reason to have anything placed in the model environment in a template. I guess the example of a minimum ADA bathroom layout is relevant because it is not just a single family. If you wanted to have typical layouts like that, yes, I think the "Assemblies" file would do. Each floor/option set/workset/whatever could be for a different typical assembly: bathrooms, furniture layouts, etc. If your firm does the type of work where entire layouts can be reused, this could be a clever way of keeping track of it all.

[Revitaoist]

I have the smallest A.D.A. bathroom layout in our template as a group.

[Norton_cad]

Wait, you're saying that the new recommendation is to actually place some of these families in the model environment in your template? It may be a great idea, but I fail to see it's benefit.

If you have the current data in the template, you don't need to load sub groups. It eliminates the risk of forgetting to load the latest design standard. Also control of the standard remains at the one manager source.