Existing Doors supplied by the factory?

[DaveP]

This has been discussed before, but I'd like to start the thread again.

Could we have the factory add a New/Existing parameter to the Revit-supplied Door families?
I'm about to embark on duplicating the Door families & drawing the leaf at 45 degrees instead of 90. I believe this is pretty much an industry standard, so it would be nice to be able to just change a parameter on a bunch of doors at once instead of having to load twice as many families and then swapping out all the 36" doors, then all the 42" door, then all the 48" doors.

As an alternative, rather than having a New/Existing check box, how about a parameter for Opening Angle? The default would be 90, but you could set the Angle to 45 (or 30, or 60) for Existing. That might take care of the 3D display showing closed doors, too.

Does this warrant a Poll?

[Haden]

I have built a series of doors (not all fixed & finished, but some are working) which have just that -- a swing angle parameter which is an instance (not a type) parameter. Unfortunately, it does not automatically correspond to the phase (new or existing) of the door, so I have to select all the existing doors and change that parameter to 45 degrees, etc. I do believe that the developers were querying us recently in order to incorporate these issues in an upcoming version, but I don't know how soon that is slated for release.

[Roger Evans]

As far as I am aware it is not an industry standard here in the UK ~ although desirable to show doors at 45 deg it is not essential

Can you clarify what you mean ? that Existing doors are shown at 45 & new doors at 90 ?

Generally I reckon its a good idea ~ I could live with that provided cupboard doors could be made 30 / 60

[DaveP]

Yes, we typically show New doors at 90 & Existing at 45.

My initial thought was that there's simply a New/Existing flag that shows one or the other. But the more I thought about it, you'd get much more flexibility if you could specify the angle. That way people could show it anyway they wanted - regardless of the Phasing.

The important concept, though, is that there is just one Family that can be toggled from New to Existing. I'm working on a Floor plan at the moment with a couple dozen Door Types. I have to pick one, Select All Instances, CAREFULLY select the matching Existing door Type, and update them. It's the CAREFULLY part I'm nervous about. I have to make sure I don't accidentally pick, say a 34" x 84" Existing door to replace a 36" x 84" New door.

[patricks]

I believe one of the tutorials shows how to modify one of the existing families to add a door opening angle parameter for the plan view representation. You can make the angle an instance parameter, a type parameter, or you could just set the angle in the family if you never would need to change it.

[Haden]

I believe one of the tutorials shows how to modify one of the existing families to add a door opening angle parameter for the plan view representation. You can make the angle an instance parameter,...As I mentioned above, I have already built such doors, and the instance parameter does work fine. I think it is too redundant to build a separate family for each degree of swing, when all else is the same about a given door. What is needed, though, is a way to automatically show doors of the same family which are in the existing phase at 45 degree swing, and the same family doors in the new phase at 90 degrees, rather than having to pick each instance which is already at a certain phase, and change its instance parameter manually. I gather that we should also have this feature still allow an override to each condition if you want it. For example, there may occasionally be a new door which needs to be shown at 45 just to make the graphics of the drawing look ok. In this instance, the door schedule will obviously communicate to the contractor that it is indeed a new door.

[Alex Page]

Its not the Standard where I come from, We use arcs for door swings of new doors and a single line for door swings of existing doors. My method of doing this
1. In all my door families I have a new and existing symbolic door swing loaded as a component. I also have an existing yes/no parameter which these swings visabilities are tied to
2. I also use instance parameters for swing angle.

In the case of showing 45 degree for existing, couldnt you use the method I use but have the symbolic door swing of the existing door drawn at 45 degrees and not looking at the swing angle parameter? (ie: you could change the new doors swing angle, but not the existing). Then by changing the families type to existing, the correct symbolic door swing will show

[clarkitekt]

I have created a family that the swing angle is parametric. See attached.

It's a work in progress, but it is actually fairly detailed. You can adjust the plan swing and model swing. The pivot point is accurate also. There are some other features you'll have to play around with...I don't remember how much I had completed.

[LRaiz]

You can make a family where swing angle is a type parameter. Then if you want to replace ALL 90 degree doors with 45 degree ones you would not need to do it one by one. Just make a door schedule that shows door types and have doors grouped by type. By changing a value in schedule cell that shows type dropdown you will be changing all doors from one type to another.

[DaveP]

Thanks for all the suggestions and hints, everyone.

I realize I can modify/create a family to accomplish this, but the whole point of my original post was - doesn't EVERYONE Existing doors? As evidenced by this thread, EVERYONE is creating their own families.

I thought it would be nice if we could have something from the factory that would give us consistent Existing doors - rather than having everyone doing it differently.

[bclarch]

I believe this is pretty much an industry standard...


I thought it would be nice if we could have something from the factory that would give us consistent Existing doors - rather than having everyone doing it differently.
What this thread makes apparent is that there isn't a standard convention, which is why people are creating their own content consistent with their office standard. On our jobs (residential) all of the doors have 90 degree swings. We differentiate between existing and new as follows. Existing doors are a lighter lineweight and are simply not tagged. New doors are tagged and have a thicker lineweight. The obvious problem for the Revit programmers is, whose convention should they use as a "standard"?

[Steve_Stafford]

...What this thread makes apparent is that there isn't a standard convention, which is why people are creating their own content consistent with their office standard...This is exactly what delays the creation of new features, when the customers can't agree, "what do "we" build? "Let's do something else we know they'll like" It isn't technology holding things back every time, it is quite often just differences that are polar opposites, solving the same "problem". Just my opinion mind you...

[abarrette]

What this thread makes apparent is that there isn't a standard convention, which is why people are creating their own content consistent with their office standard.Point taken. I would personally rather have a standard family that can be modified to my specific office's requirements than having to start from scratch. I would also like a library that has been standardized to itself for the creation of my own families to start from. There is a far cry from a standard convention in symbols and a standard convention in family creation. Right now there are no "rules" when it comes to family creation. Everyone has made their own families in a vacuum and shares them without considering the impact on the people they share them with. All of these existing doors for instance, if I place all of these door families into a project and swap them out with each other how much do you want to bet that some of them will move, or flip orientation because "his" door is oriented differently and ha a different origin from "her" door. How about ALL doors have the origin on the hinge and are right hand and swinging to the interior. Would that be so hard for the factory to provide? A baseline that hits 70-80% of the industry that is easily changeable for particular offices to use? What most people miss when a "standard" is talked about is that it won't help everyone, just most of us and those it doesn't help will certainly be well on their way to their own solution regardless of their particular "standard".

There is more to this issue than just lack of content. It is a lack of consistent content that hinders us the most. Without a basic standard provided by the factory for family creation the power of interchanging outsourced families in projects and exchanging families between users will fail. In light of this, I understand why there hasn't been much in the way of manufacturer support for content. They have no benchmark to aim for and the users, as evidenced by this thread, can't provide a consistent benchmark for them to hit. There is only one group that currently has the ability to do this - Revit Development. We're teetering on the fence here... lets make sure we fall on the right side.

[DaveP]

Bullseye, Aaron!

You made my point much more eloquently than I did on my original post.
If we had something that hit 70 or 80%, at least we'd all be starting from the same point. If you want to modify a family, fine, but at least everyone would have a parameter called "Existing" instead of half of the user-created families calling it it "New" and Un-checking it for Existing.

How many people reading this forum have modified their office standards because there was a Revit family already created that just looked a little different. Most of us have office standards whose rationale is "we've always done it that way"? Come on, raise your hand.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if many of the factory-supplied conventions BECOME industry standards simply because its too much effort to recreate them for a minor change.

Exactly WHAT the standard is, is not nearly as important as IF there is a standard.

[LRaiz]

A conceptual framework for the requested EXISTING parameter that controls door swing is not clear in the case of multiphase (more the 2) project. It may even be not very consistent with Revit approach to phasing.

Imagine a project with 3 phases (p0 = preexisting, p1 = phase1, p1 = phase2). Such project would have views corresponding to both p1 and p2. If a door did not exist in p0 and is to be build in p1 then
1) What should be the value of EXISTING parameter? The door already has a parameter "construction phase" that will be set to p1. EXISTING parameter seems redundant and can not be set to neither true nor false because the same door is existing from p2 point of view but is a new construction from p1 point of view. This problem does not exist if a project has only 2 phases, existing and new.
2) Which swing should be shown for doors build in p1? If a swing should change depending on construction phase then the same door must show different swings depending on a view that displays this door. A P1 view would have to show a swing different from P2 view. This definitely complicates implementation.

A convention of changing door swing for existing doors does not appear to be an industry standard. In this circumstances it should be understandable that Revit developers have been focusing on other issues.

[BWG]

A conceptual framework for the requested EXISTING parameter that controls door swing is not clear in the case of multiphase (more the 2) project. It may even be not very consistent with Revit approach to phasing.

Imagine a project with 3 phases (p0 = preexisting, p1 = phase1, p1 = phase2). Such project would have views corresponding to both p1 and p2. If a door did not exist in p0 and is to be build in p1 then
1) What should be the value of EXISTING parameter? The door already has a parameter "construction phase" that will be set to p1. EXISTING parameter seems redundant and can not be set to neither true nor false because the same door is existing from p2 point of view but is a new construction from p1 point of view. This problem does not exist if a project has only 2 phases, existing and new.
2) Which swing should be shown for doors build in p1? If a swing should change depending on construction phase then the same door must show different swings depending on a view that displays this door. A P1 view would have to show a swing different from P2 view. This definitely complicates implementation.

A convention of changing door swing for existing doors does not appear to be an industry standard. In this circumstances it should be understandable that Revit developers have been focusing on other issues.

I don't think the door swing angle is necessarily a standard - maybe for a region of the country or world, but not de facto. We do both commercial and residential and each are the same for the different firms I have worked for. Tag new doors and no tag for existing doors. Demoed doors are dashed. We show doors at 45 degrees when there is something unusal about the door, like it is a shower stall door instead of a bedroom door - both are new. So now, what do you do if they are thinking in remodel that all doors at 45 are existing - or any angle for that matter? I think this decision would be better left to individual firms.

[neb1998]

when doors are close together sometimes its necessary to swing the doors at different angles, then what? Another paramater for 30 degrees = new, 45 = existing, 60 = new and 90 = existing,....i cant imagine the contractor getting out a compass to figure out the difference.

[Steve_Stafford]

Everyone has made their own families in a vacuum and shares them without considering the impact on the people they share them with.This sounds like you resent people sharing families with you? :? Is that accurate? Perhaps I'm missing your point...

[Steve_Stafford]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if many of the factory-supplied conventions BECOME industry standards simply because its too much effort to recreate them for a minor change.If this were likely...everyone would be satisfied with the current elevation symbols right? :)

[neb1998]

Perhaps families should come with a disclaimer.....Families may be difficult to manage, they may have seperations, adoptions and even deaths. Families should be used with extreme caution and only with supervision.

[Alex Page]

Well....I hardly ever use families from the factory/ or other people, other than when in a panic (even then, I take notes to rebuild the family at a future date). When I download other peoples families, its more to work out how they made them, then I create mine with a similar philosophy.
Sure it would be great if everyones are the same...but I feel that that is a impossibility, everyone will always have different standards/ ways of thinking. The last thing I need is the factory limiting me to only create things the way they assume is the best.

[abarrette]

A conceptual framework for the requested EXISTING parameter that controls door swing is not clear in the case of multiphase (more the 2) project. It may even be not very consistent with Revit approach to phasing. Good point. I understand that phasing is a more complex issue than it might seem. However, does the above situation represent a significant portion of the work the users of Revit are doing? In the 2+ years I've been working with Revit I have never had to deal with complex phasing in a project. It seems to me that the developers are focusing one particular reason to NOT produce something that a large volume of users are requesting.

My personal solution to the complex phase issue would be to have the family be able to query its place in time. While having this happen on placement may be an issue (although that would be my preference) it should certainly be possible once it is placed. Revit understands time if only in an ad-hoc basis. If a door is constructed in P1 and the view is set to P1 previous/new it shows correctly (i.e. 90 degree for me). If the view is set to P2 previous/new the family adjusts to show correctly (i.e. 45 degree for me). If the view is set to P0 the phasing engine should assert itself and hide the object because it hasn't been built yet. It is yet another parameter that would have to be incorporated into the family but would be infinitely useful IMO. ONE family for a door, not TWO. Revit is a database and providing two representations of a single object in that database breaks the prime rule of databases and lends towards inaccuracy which is what we're all trying to avoid by using Revit in the first place. An object ( A door for instance) should exist ONCE and only ONCE in the database and the phasing controls should deal with the visiblity of the entity in question.

No offense but it looks like, and has always looked like, the developers are trying to find excuses to not provide content. While there may be better things for the developers to work on they shouldn't be ignoring the content issue which needs to be addressed. If the developers don't want to provide a standardized content library that the users are requesting provide guidelines so other people can create standardized families that work consistently. Doors aside, the issue of standardized family creation still needs to be addressed. If the developers won't do it, who will?


This sounds like you resent people sharing families with you? :? Is that accurate? Perhaps I'm missing your point...
You're kidding, right? The point I'm trying to make is that we are sharing families to help each other. With no guidelines to follow we are quite likely to cause more harm than help by sending someone a family to use. How is someone going to know what a "Good" family is compared to a "bad" one? What are we measuring our families against? We are measuring them against our personal need at the time, not the reality of what the object the family is being created for needs to be addressing.

[abarrette]

Sure it would be great if everyones are the same...but I feel that that is a impossibility, everyone will always have different standards/ ways of thinking. The last thing I need is the factory limiting me to only create things the way they assume is the best.
I understand what you mean. I'm not looking for limits I'm looking for standard bases to build from. I'm looking for interoperablity. Your door shouldn't be exactly like my door (standards and everything afore mentioned) but I should be able to expect your door to WORK like my door if I were to swap them within my project.

Just listen to us arguing over something we complained about in AutoCAD. Who has loaded their "Door" block into a drawing and had half if not all of the doors turn inside out and flip over? Probably quite a few of us. Wouldn't you like to avoid that in the future? We may not be there yet but the general process remains intact. I will, at some point, need a Revit model from someone to work in/change I would prefer it to work like I've been told Revit should work. (i.e. better than the alternatives)