RUGI to AUGI

[jbalding48677]

Ladies and Gentlemen -

As many of you have heard AUGI (Autodesk Users Group International) has invited all of the Revit users to join their community. It has always been my impression that the Revit users have a very special bond and have been doing some great things as part of (or not part of) RUGI (Revit Users Group International). After the acquisition it seems only natural to merge RUGI and AUGI, but we don’t want to loose what we have going here.

With that philosophy in mind I have agreed to be the Revit Product Chair for AUGI. One of my focuses is to make sure that the AUGI serves the Revit community as well or, dare I say it, better than we have been accustom to. One thing that AUGI is doing is redesigning their web site. Some of the features, from my understanding, have been driven to aid the new Revit community. I am working with the developers of that site and have suggestions and Revit requirements of my own. However, in the true spirit of the Revit community, I am open you your ideas and feelings. That being said I would like to solicit information from any of you willing to contribute.

What do you like/dislike about the NG’s?
What do you like/dislike about the RUGI site?
What ways would you improve them?
What additional functionality do we need?

Let’s start with that and see what develops.

Thank you for your consideration.

If you would like to join AUGI (free) go to www.augi.com and sign up.

Let’s keep this thing together and continue to “Rock” the Revit world…

[christopher.zoog51272]

Everyone,

What crazy past few day this has been :D

I really can't see this as being anything but GREAT NEWS!

Surely, most longtime (and new) users of both alt.cad.revit, RUGI and now this forum, would agree that the time has come pull these great resources into one formal entity. I have read more than few posts here and at alt.cad.revit asking for this type of forum on rugi, or “how can we get family sharing here at this site”. But the real question is, why not take the best from each and have everything in one site?

When I started this forum, just three short days ago, I worried a bit about creating yet another site for users to follow, however, I felt this style of forum would indeed be an asset to the community. (And I hope you agree that it is.)

I had an excellent conversation with JB today, regarding the future of the users groups. I am planning to working directly with Jim and AUGI to help make the new site better than any software user group site out there. I will lobby hard to get this type of forum technology incorporated. We really have only scratched the surface of what this powerful bulletin board engine can do.

What will happen to this site? Nothing, or should I say A LOT :!: I will keep maintaining and improving this site for as long as users still post! We can use it as a sounding board and testing ground for elements to be included in the new site. Please don't think I've lost interest already, I'm planning several new features, will constantly be massaging the graphics, and I will soon allow some user customization of how the board is presented. But it's not just me here! I'd love to here input or better yet, hands on help!

This is truly an exciting time for Revit users!

Please respond to Jim's request for input for this will be YOUR users group!!!! :mrgreen:

[GS Fulton]

Like the interaction with other users in the NG's. Really like the way Zman has set this up (organized into categories). RUGI site is good. Perhaps a standardized format would be good but that might be asking too much of shared stuff.

I do believe that the best part of the Revit world that I have been connected to for over 18 months has consisted of everyone sharing information, methods, and help in a very generous fashion. After years of abuse from vendors in the computer world it is truly a breath of fresh air. A product that actually delivers more than you expect and works every time you fire it up and a community of helpful people is, I believe the way things ought to be.

I'll check out AUGI but I'm still a little suspicious and hesitant since all the old posts got flushed out of the NG's we've all gotten used to. Those were an incredible resource that I referred to ALL the time and have been backing up regularly but still only managed to get about 10% of them. That was a big shock and nobody has said why or what happened. Good luck with AUGI and I will check it out.

Zman, you're awesome, can't say enough. So generous, so caring, I think I'm gonna cry.
Get some sleep.

[Tibor]

Jim,

A few years ago I joined AUGI and it cost $35/year. I received very little value for this. I'm glad to see that Autodesk has made AUGI free. If we are to migrate from RUGI to AUGI, please do your best to keep it that way.

[hand471037]

There is this website that I read from time to time at http://www.cgarchitect.com/

Something like that might serve as a idea for the Revit section of Augi. Something that is a message board like this; but that also has a slashdot-like frontend that allows for current news postings in regards to Revit and CAD in general, has interviews/how-tos/mini-tutorials, lots and lots of content, case studies, links...

Actually, one of the biggest things is probably content. I love RUGI for the content; it's great to reference an exsiting family when you're first getting into making families. Also it's great to have access to lots of families, like chairs and such, for quick schematics. It would also be great if Augi contained Revit content from varous manufactuers; so that you can browse real products and d/l them. If it also had the Revit standard content libraries, so you could download them when you're working remotely with a laptop that might not have a full installation of Revit.

Also you'd really wanna keep things open, and very loosly moderated. Also, make a 'neutral' party in charge of moderation, or have very clear rules that the moderators stick too. Much too often with web boards you'll get moderators that edit based upon personal agendas; or you'll wind up with a few expert people blabbering to a bunch of cowtowing fanboys; or myopicly focused groups that refuse to talk about anything but a very narrow area. One of the things I value the most from the Revit newsgroups is that the majority of people on them are other Architects or designers like me, with real-world examples, and a broader perspective on how CAD and Revit fit into working methoids and the office than a CAD manager, technician, or IT Specialist might have.

[jbalding48677]

Thank you Jeffrey, as always, I knew I could count on you as a good source.

Welcome.

[hand471037]

A good source, or someone who can't keep thier big mouth shut? :wink:

Anyways. Making some headway up here in S.F. in regards to getting a local Revit user's group up and running. There are a few firms up here interested in getting together. Hoping to put something together this month, if I can!

[jbalding48677]

Let me throw out another question.

One of the issues we are dealing with for the new AUGI site is what they are calling the "AUGI Exchange". That is where users submit LISP routines, blocks and in our case families. There is a short form to fill out when you are submitting a family that will populate the searchable database. The question is, what kind of information would you like to use to submit and better yet what ways will you be searching?

Categories?
Materials?
Manufacturers?
CSI #?
Author?
UL #?
?
?
?

[christopher.zoog51272]

bump :wink:

nobody else thinks this "exchange" is going to be cool? Let's here some ideas :idea:

[Dean Camlin]

I think it's a good idea. I'm sure there are a lot of families out there that Reviteers have created for their own use that could also be useful for the rest of us.

But how can you set standards of quality? There are still many aspects of family creation that frustrate me, and I know I'm not doing them right. Sometimes they're overconstrained & I can't figure out why. Or I don't want, or need, to take the time to set up external parameters.

I'm not the only one. Some of the Andersen families, for instance, have required editing when I've used them.

So do we even need to have initial quality control? We've got a big user forum here. If people can download, use, and tweak corrections to certain sub-par families, then maybe original correctness doesn't matter so much.

[JamesVan]

I think the lack of response is a sign that we're heading into uncharted waters...

Why don't we take a look at what we already have.
- The RUGI downloads section is neatly organized into CSI Divisions. That works well, but it could get unwieldly as tons of more content gets dumped in.
- If you look into Revit's types of families, you start to see some underlying organization. You have floor-based, ceiling-based, roof-based and wall-based families. You have detail components and annotation.

Hope this helps.

[Dean Camlin]

Oh, I see, Jim, you were asking about how the "exchange" should be organized--not necessarily about its content. Well, I use the CSI categories, because I like to try to tie the graphic information more closely to the specs. But for the international members, that probably won't do, unless they've adopted the CSI organization. And I recall that you have your reservations about that method too.

But I'm not completely happy with Revit's assembly- or host-based organizational structure either.

[PeterJ]

What is CSI?

Why not adopt the NBS constructions, NBS work sections systems?

Its National Building Specification by the way.

I think you need to simply find a means of collectng things logically, so famiily type is probably a good starting point as all Revit users have to divide things into door, window and so on.

P

[Phil Palmer]

One of the problems I find with the RUGI family download area is the way in which families are organised.
Take for example the 'Windows' section
This at present has in the region of 350 created window families.
There needs to be further 'keywords' or something attributed to the window section to make it easier to find a particular window type.
Trawling through all 350 takes an age to find a particular window I may be looking for.

e.g. - with trim / without / manufacturer etc etc.

[Dean Camlin]

PeterJ wrote:

What is CSI?

Why not adopt the NBS constructions, NBS work sections systems?
Its National Building Specification by the way.

CSI = Construction Specifications Institute, a US organization which has created a uniform format for organizing construction materials and specifications into 16 Divisions, and further subdivisions.

Is NBS a similar British effort?

Phil Palmer wrote:

There needs to be further 'keywords' or something attributed to the window section to make it easier to find a particular window type.
Trawling through all 350 takes an age to find a particular window I may be looking for.

I agree. When I reorganize Revit content (whenever there's an upgrade) into the CSI sections, I often subdivide each folder into families, detail components, profiles, etc. For window families, I may subdivide that folder into metal windows, wood windows, plastic windows, etc.

[jbalding48677]

All right, now we have a discussion going, thanks everyone for putting in your two cents.

Dean, you are correct, I am not in favor of the CSI format with the underlying reason being that, while it is a good solid standard, it is essentially for the US. I am in favor of using the same folder structure currently in Revit. I feel that it will be easier, on the whole, to download folder to folder that way. Beyond that, if we do not use the Revit standard, what standard do we use, Dean’s, Y’s, Zoog’s, Smith’s. Undoubtedly, you all would have a system that works for you and your firm but I doubt it is exactly the same thus there would be even more disagreement.

NOW FOR THE GOOD NEWS, we are planning on making the AUGI Exchange a searchable database. In other words, you might be able to search by CSI division. Phil, that is essentially what you are asking for when you say "keyword" driven. With that in mind, I pose the question again. Can you think of any additional categories that need to be searchable outside of:

Categories?
Materials?
Manufacturers?
CSI #?
Author?
UL #?
Construction Type?

Now for the question of quality, currently there is a submission form and process for objects. AUGI is proposing that the objects/families be reviewed by a qualified user to verify parameters, standards, usability and review the submission form for accuracy. To me that seems like a very tall order. We have a few options:

1. Submit and have the form reviewed for accuracy and post to the Exchange
2. Submit and do a full review of the family and submittal form then post to the Exchange
3. Same as number 1. with the addition of incorporate a rating system to rate the families and authors.
4. Insert your opinion here.

As you can see the Exchange portion of the site will be a huge undertaking and requires thought and consideration. This discussion needs to continue…

[gregcashen]

Why don't you post this again with a "poll" so we can vote for our favorite?

Personally, I think a stringent review process would just get in the way...it would take longer for families to show up, and some wouldn't even make it...I suspect that Modern Medium families wouldn't qualify, since they are not parametric! Maybe there could just be a form that is filled out with each family uploaded that had a bit more information. Then that info could be displayed so we could have a better idea of what we are actually downloading.

Greg

[christopher.zoog51272]

Why don't you post this again with a "poll" so we can vote for our favorite?

Personally, I think a stringent review process would just get in the way...it would take longer for families to show up, and some wouldn't even make it...I suspect that Modern Medium families wouldn't qualify, since they are not parametric! Maybe there could just be a form that is filled out with each family uploaded that had a bit more information. Then that info could be displayed so we could have a better idea of what we are actually downloading.

Greg

That's good point, Greg. JB and I have talked about this, and we figured that it might be a solution to have families that are uploaded be available immediately, but receive an "un-verified" status, meaning use at your own risk. Families that have been verified could be note as such. That way the families are ready to go right away and wouldn't have to wait for a review.

Z.

[jbalding48677]

Z -

You have summerized our discussions to a tee. I am leaning that way, however, checking the submittal form is quite necessary because of the database implecations. That shouldn't take too long.

I think I will put together a couple of polls on the topic. Look for them sometime tomorrow as I am swamped right now...

I am looking into the rating system option as well.

[jbalding48677]

Zoog -

We need a multiple answer poll. I wanted to poll people on the following.

"What categories/topics would you want to be able to search by when looking for a family in the AUGI Exchange? (Check all that apply)

Categories
Materials
Manufacturers
CSI #
Author
Peer Rating
UL #
NBS#
Construction Type
Uniformat
Other

I guess I could put up which is most important, but I am affraid category would be first. Is there a way to do a check all that apply poll or a rating poll, rate from 1-10???

[PeterJ]

Dean

To go back a bit and answer your earlier post NBS is a UK system that uses CAWS (Common Arrangement of Work Sections)for specification and scheduling.

Take a look at http://www.thenbs.co.uk/NBS/scopecontents.html for more detail on how it is laid out.

Pete

[Dean Camlin]

Wow, Peter, that's a pretty extensive system. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a single organizational system in use for the global construction industry?

(Kinda like SI is supposed to be the common global measurement system, I guess.)

Jim, maybe you should add NBS# to your budding poll.

[christopher.zoog51272]

Zoog -

We need a multiple answer poll. I wanted to poll people on the following.

"What categories/topics would you want to be able to search by when looking for a family in the AUGI Exchange? (Check all that apply)

Categories
Materials
Manufacturers
CSI #
Author
Peer Rating
UL #
Construction Type
Other

I guess I could put up which is most important, but I am affraid category would be first. Is there a way to do a check all that apply poll or a rating poll, rate from 1-10???

I'm afraid that may be beyond the scope of the "polls" allowed by the board. I'll look for some hacks that would allow for what you are describing, or maybe I'll just make a new page to host this poll. I'll look into it either way.

[PeterJ]

Dean

Its a pretty comprehensive system, but it breaks down nicely. A typical building spec. for me runs around 60-100 pages using NBS, but generally it ensures that I don't miss stuff and becasue much of the definitions stuff is done for you, it doesn't take too long to produce something fairly tight.

The idea behind CAWS is that people with differing specification systems can come together and still have in common a core of definitions so that their documents can tie together and it works reasonably well.

P

[jbalding48677]

Jim, maybe you should add NBS# to your budding poll.

Good idea, thanks, done, see original above.

[mlgatzke]

What would you all think about sorting Families by CSI's UniFormat divisions instead of the MasterFormat divisions.

That would mean sorting by:
Substructure, Shell, Interiors, Services, Equipment and Furnishings, Other Building Construction, Building Sitework, and General

instead of:
General, Site Construction, Concrete, Masonry, Metals, Wood and Plastics, Thermal and Moisture Protection, Doors and Windows, Finishes, Specialties, Equipment, Furnishings, Special Construction, Conveying Systems, Mechanical, and Electrical.

Might make more sense. What do you all think?

[jbalding48677]

Mike -

I will add that to the list.

[PeterJ]

I have no particular problem with the CSI format, indeed we keep the library organised on this basis. The other big player that I'm familiar with is the CIsfB system, which uses a similar breakdown.

I imagine that a geographical weight of opinion will bias you to using the CSI system as it will be familiar to more people.

Pete

[mlgatzke]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Both Uniformat and MasterFormat are both CSI organizational formats. Masterformat is the (currently) 16 divisions, but is slated to drastically increase in 2004 (you may want to keep that in mind before beginning the project Jim). You can see the upcoming format at http://www.csinet.org. UniFormat is actually intended for outline-spec use and is not slated for any changes. I don't know which would be better, but keep in mind that the MasterFormat system is going to increase in size to (I think) 50 divisions next year. IMHO Jim, you wouldn't want to establish a system of catagories only to have it outdated right away and different from the rest of the industry.

[jbalding48677]

Didn't know that, thanks.

[jbalding48677]

This thread has kind of faded, however, I would like to revive it and ask if there is anything in particular you all want to see (within reason) on the new AUGI site. They are pushing to get some of the details ironed out so they can polish it up and launch it. In other words, now is the time to speak up, not later.

Gracias -

[gregcashen]

Here is my biggest wish for a Revit site...any site. I want to be able to track which families are new and which are old...i.e. which have been downloaded and which have not. For instance, when Autodesk releases a new release (redundant?) of Revit, there are frequently new families in the family library and they issue a new library called Revit 5 Library. I have no way of knowing which families are new and which I already have on my system (many of which I have modified, so I obviously don't want to overwrite them) What about if Rugi became the place to more cleanly categorize families such that each time a new library comes out, autodesk could post a Revit 6 New Families download to Rugi? This wouldn't be a problem if I hadn't renamed all of my folders and reorganized families into more logical categories (or so I thought at the time!) I can't just drag the new library into my library and select no when it asks to replace all files that already exist in my folder.

This pertains not just to Autodesk families, but also to Rugi families...we need to be able to sort families in general by date and select ones which we haven't downloaded since a certain time.

Also, I would like to have a more consistent naming convention for the families on Rugi. Right now they are all over the place. It seems like we should be able to come up with something similar to the AIA file naming conventions for families, no?

Anyway, hope this isn't all useless nonsense. It's late.

[jbalding48677]

That is great feedback. I know that it is something I would also like to have. I will see if we can't pull it off, it does not sound too easy.

[PeterJ]

Without claiming to know too much about web design, surely the AUGI design will be dynamic in content, i.e. the uploads to server and the presentation of download opions will all be handled by a database residing on the server - much as with this BB which Chris runs with the php software and a mySQL database - so every upload could be date tagged. That wouldn't indicate that it was new per se but would at leastb tell you when it was uploaded. As an extension of this a tag could be set in the database indicating the upload was new but with a fixed expiry date - say 30 days hence.

I would like to see greater subdivision within any download site, such that windows were divided as casement, DSS, top hung, and then by clear pane and subdivided perhaps. No doubt similar subdivisions would present themselves for the other families.

"Q was here...your pain is my pane", Z's high tech word/spell check at your service

[PeterJ]

I just went to look at RUGI to see if a particular family had already been made and it's not there.

The download page reports a 404 error and the home page simply reads Mindspring Internet Services or something similar.

Has it already been subsumed into AUGI or has it run out of funds?

P

[Martin P]

A build history, showing what the builds have fixed would be useful - to see if it is worth downloading the latest build.

A known issues/bugs list would be nice, might save us all hours if we come up against a bug, and think we are doing something wrong.

A top 10/20/50 whatever of things they intend to do in the next release, and we can rate their priority.

Is this the sort of thing they will have?

[Scott D Davis]

How about a dowloads area, for things such as the Conversion Tool, the PDF writer, etc.

[Steve_Stafford]

Don't know about that Scott, I think the stuff that Autdesk provides as "part" of their product ought to be on their web site.

To put it in both means it will confuse some and also be a version "headache" for AUGI/RUGI.

I think A/Rugi should be slightly separated from authentic Autodesk data and remain more user/3rd party data.

[bclarch]

I agree with Steve. The items that Martin requested would be very helpful to have but they should be the responsibility of Autodesk Revit as part of standard customer support. I have never understood why they haven't provided a list of bug fixes and enhancements for each release because they must track this stuff internally for their own use and sanity. There must be some liability issue. This would be less of a problem if you didn't have to uninstall the old release prior to installing the latest build.

[Scott D Davis]

yeah, you are right about the downloads, Steve. Maybe then it is just direct links to the Autodesk site where these items can be found.

[Steve_Stafford]

Links would be better so at least the user can get to it quicker than trying to wade through Autodesk's site.

[aaronrumple]

anyone needs it - I have a batch command to automatically set up CSI folders and subfolders on a system. I also have this for ASTM Uniformat II.. I find this another good filing system as ASTM covers assemblies where CSI is just parts.

[hand471037]

What about a spot for 'accessory' tools like Aaron's Batch script? There's also this guy down in Autrilia that does things with custom Python scripts that parce the ODBC output and do varous things, like cut-and-paste spec secition into a word document. The Augi site could have an area for these 'extra' non-Revit family tools...

[jbalding48677]

OK -

Let me see if I can answer several with one response.

1. The database will be searchable so you will be able to search by the last date you downloaded.

2. Subdivisions good idea, however, at this point I think we will stick with the original. The first category we might implement that in would be windows as there are about 300 on the RUGI site now. The search capabilities will help you search for Casements that were posted after 4-15-2003...

3. Build history is probably something we can post in the form of a forum header to discuss the implications of each build.

4. Bugs and Known issues. Will probably start as a forum discussion and we will take it from there, but a fine suggestion.

5. Next release notes - That is a tough one because even the folks at Revit aren't sure what is going to be in the next build for sure. There have been themes in the past and that might be helpful. The wishlist area will certainly be looked at for each release.

6. Tools and other stuff - direct links are possible, perhaps a Misc. Page for this type of stuff.

Keep it coming -

[gregcashen]

No one has commented on my idea to set up a naming convention for families...is this not seen as necessary or simply unimportant?

I have a hard time keeping things like windows straight because of the different naming conventions used to describe everything. I end up not using ones that have unintelligible names or worse, I rename them and then they are not the same as the ones on Rugi, so I download them again thinking I don't have them yet. It would be really helpful if we had a common naming format...or maybe it wouldn't.

[jbalding48677]

Sorry -

I didn't address that but I feel that it is very important. What kind of information do you need/want to see in a family name?

- Mfr.
- Category (window, door, etc.)
- Type (dbl hung, slider... Pocket, double acting...)
- Sizes?
- ?

I am all for standardizing them and this is an opportunity to do so.

Thanks -

[Phil Palmer]

Some form of 'standards' would be very good for ANY family creation.
I believe this would be very difficult to achieve because how far do you want to take this ?
I have a tendancy to create various sub-catagories within families on top of the 'suggested' sub-catagories you get from "out of the box".
A lot of time I may not actually require them but it gives me a greater flexibility in displaying the family.

Do most people keep with the existing sub-catagories or end up also creating their own ?
I suppose these sub-catagories of families can be driven by good family template files IF there is general agreement.

[gregcashen]

Some form of 'standards' would be very good for ANY family creation.
I believe this would be very difficult to achieve because how far do you want to take this ?

I just want to take it far enough that I have meaningful names for my families that at least categorize themselves within folders. Right now I have casement windows that are named all over the place. It would be nice if, for windows and doors, we could at least come up with a naming systme that was descriptive and allowed for better organization of families...that's all I'm thinking right now. I could care less about categroies and sub-categories within families.

Greg

[rcox]

Hi, all. Good discussions.

We have been naming our files within a comma delimited format, similar to how the Accurender materials are named. We are always assuming that there will be an open API at some point, and we are currently using journals to do some programming.

Our format is as follows:

Lozier,Gondola,Contoured End Display,Upper Panel.rfa

or

Generic,Gondola,Contoured End Display,Upper Panel.rfa

Manufacturer,Product,Type Description,Further Descriptions down the line as breakdown is required. We would consider switching Product and Manufacturer, so like items are grouped. We have used this process to match our materials, so that our finishes are easily tracked in that monster we call the material library. i.e.

Lozier,Yel,Powder Coated

We feel sizes are better described in the Type name.

[PeterJ]

For me manufacturer is pretty much a non-starter as so much of what we do is either bespoke or generic so that a manufacturer of window or door or post box is unnecessary. It is probably in any case defined in the spec and I can quote from there if necessary..

Where I would require sub-division is into types of any product.

P

[gregcashen]

I tend to agree. I can put all of the families from a certain manufacturer into a different folder...but what if something happens and I have to re-download the window. It is conceivable that 2 windows from different mfrs have the same name then...I am thinking we need a "primary key" type of system like in a database in order that families are always identifiable.

[rcox]

I agree that the manufacturer should be secondary to the type of component that is represented. However, I feel it is critical to the naming of any family. We currently have over 5000 families in our libraries and it is necessary for us to distinguish them by manufacturer. Alternatives to mfr name should be terms like generic or custom, which both will indicate some form of action still required for implementation. i.e.

End Table,Custom,Boat,Glass Top.rfa

[jbalding48677]

I am in agreement with Robert (rcox). I think that the mfr/generic/custom should be a part of the name. Two things that I am a little concerned about;

1. Commas - does that cause any problems? I am used to seeing a "-" in between the fields. Robert what are the benefits of a comma over the dash?

2. Filename length - Coming from an 8.3 world long filenames always raise an eyebrow. Don't get me wrong we settle in around 15+/- characters. Then there is the issue of not being able to read them in the pulldown within Revit. I guess we can get that fixed.

I will post a proposed filenaming standard for discussion soon... Any suggestions?

MTC -

[rcox]

The benefit of using commas is that it complies with data export standards. This is especially beneficial to us when randomizing merchandise within categories or selecting finish materials within the family. This convention may also be beneficial in search mechanisms as well.

I do feel there is some concern with long file naming, but the alternative is lack of clarity. We name them as long as they need to be to clarify the product. Revit will eventually accommodate the longer names within a tree format, I am sure. We always try to design in all future capabilities in our development.

[jbalding48677]

Filename - Agreed, it is best to have the info there than not at all or convoluted.

[gregcashen]

I agree with all of this and I have become a full-fledged convert to the idea that we need to include mfr/custom/generic in the name. I don't care how long it is as long as I can tell what the family is without having to open it and dissect it! Proper naming conventions will go a long way toward describing what the family is without having to see the whole name anyway. With a random naming standard we HAVE to look at the whole name to see if we are missing something.

I can deal with commas...it gets confusing when there are variations of dashes, underscores, and space-dashes...

[jbalding48677]

OK -

How about this

Revit Category,Type,Mfr,model,Misc.rfa

Samples:

window,slider,pella,xyz123.rfa
casework,cabinet,generic,none.rfa
profiles,crown,focal point,12345
site,accessories,bollard,gereric,none.rfa (note the subcategory)
curtain wall panels,glass,generic,none.rfa
door,single,generic.rfa
plumbing fixture,tub,generic.rfa


Robert et all, does it make a difference if we exclude a field like in the last 2 examples? HMMMM, what if we made these fields mandatory upon upload and the filename is built on the fly??? Is that complicating things? Or simplifying things in the long run.

What do you all think?

[Allen Lacy]

Jim, I think you're on the right track. I think the Revit category should be more basic (only the things that Revit will place in a project), i.e., window, door, component, mullion, curtain wall panel, column, detail component, annotation or profile. Then break components down into types such as casework, bike rack, plumbing fixture, etc.

Also might want to include somewhere whether the component is 3d or 2d. My two cents.

[David Conant]

Remember that whatever file name you use will show up in schedules if you use Family and Type Name as a column. You can, of course, use Description instead, but then you will have to enter a value into that parameter for every type in every family.

[jbalding48677]

Jim, I think you're on the right track. I think the Revit category should be more basic (only the things that Revit will place in a project), i.e., window, door, component, mullion, curtain wall panel, column, detail component, annotation or profile. Then break components down into types such as casework, bike rack, plumbing fixture, etc.

Also might want to include somewhere whether the component is 3d or 2d. My two cents.

Good imput, see edited version above. Sub-categories raises a new issue. Also do we put in "none" when applicable?

[PeterJ]

That looks pretty good Jim, I note David C's concern but I have to say that generally I have not found the family name and type columns very useful at all in schedules.

P

[gregcashen]

Also might want to include somewhere whether the component is 3d or 2d. My two cents.

What about allowing optional descriptors like the {subcategory}, {Misc}, and {2d} fields below:

Revit Category,{subcategory},Type,Mfr,model,{Misc},{2d/NP}.rfa

I don't think we need to include a 3d descriptor, but if it is not parametric or is 2d we could include a ,2d, or ,2d_NP, descriptor. Otherwise, assume 3d and parametric.

[Yman]

Boy, I don't know if I want to reinvent the wheel. I have been doing this for some time and most of my families are in division format. A real easy way to find things you want too. Now the only families in the CSI format are the componenets that show in the pulldown besides windows, doors, columns because they show in a different pulldown than the components when you start the door or window tool. I also have all my detail components the same way. I have found that doing it the CSI way that I and everyone else in the office can find the component a lot faster than "Now what did I call that or what did Chris call that"

I don't know if I want to find things by manufacturer. Sometimes I don't even remember the manufacturer and I scroll down to say 13-mfg,.... and select and drop into project.

My 2 cents worth.

Y

[jbalding48677]

[quote:0a8a69c405="Allen Lacy"]Also might want to include somewhere whether the component is 3d or 2d. My two cents.

What about allowing optional descriptors like the {subcategory}, {Misc}, and {2d} fields below:

Revit Category,{subcategory},Type,Mfr,model,{Misc},{2d/NP}.rfa

I don't think we need to include a 3d descriptor, but if it is not parametric or is 2d we could include a ,2d, or ,2d_NP, descriptor. Otherwise, assume 3d and parametric.[/quote:0a8a69c405]

I am thinking you are probably right, except I would use the Misc. to put in 2d/NP/whatever.

Now I have been talking to the guys on the other end and they say that we can have the database generate a filename on the fly as families are submitted. I am thinking that that is a GREAT way to go. That way it is consistent and no one has to argue over it. The way I see it, the filename will be generated and there will be a column in the database for "original filename" and perhaps upon download you could select the one you want. I just threw in the download part, not sure if it is feasible.

As for Yman's CSI, while CSI will be an optional field that can be filled out upon submitting, I don't see it as a filename property because it is US only and generally just the parts and not assemblies. The "I" in RUGI and AUGI stands for International :wink: :wink: :wink:

So - revit category,subcategory,type,mfr,model,misc.rfa??? All lower case??? What about units? Metric vs Imperial? Getting a little long here...

My 3 cents -

[beegee]

[quote What about units? Metric vs Imperial? Getting a little long here...

My 3 cents -[/quote]

Jim,
I don't think metric v imperial is strictly necessary. Its fairly easy to go to settings and change the units there, then save. Only problem is - if the content is reissued at a new release, then it overwrites the original, or else you end up with a separate library for those families where the units were converted.

My cents worth.

beegee

[gregcashen]

I like the straight-forwardness of Yman's approach, but I think you might be right, Jim. I opened a can of worms with this, and having done usability testing for a couple of software companies, I know that not everyone will agree with one standard naming convention until someone just says "this is how it's gonna be!" I'm afraid you are in the unenviable position of being "that guy" this time Jim. Sorry I got you into this!

I think your idea to have the option to retain the original file name is great.

Now, one more thing I hate about RUGI downloads right now: there is no way to batch download all of them at once. I either have to get a separate piece of software or manually click all of them. I've already done this, but for new updates, if there was a way to download all new files since {insert date here}, that would be awesome. Don't know if it's possible, but it would be cool!

[Steve_Stafford]

Now, one more thing I hate about RUGI downloads right now: there is no way to batch download all of them at once.
DITTO!!! :!: :!: :!:

Can I be more emphatic?? I like the download option on the Revit content FTP that let's you grab the whole collection. But I understand the content isn't as volatile as that of RUGI...

[beegee]

Now, one more thing I hate about RUGI downloads right now: there is no way to batch download all of them at once. I either have to get a separate piece of software or manually click all of them. I've already done this, but for new updates, if there was a way to download all new files since {insert date here}, that would be awesome. Don't know if it's possible, but it would be cool!

I'll second that, in fact I think this feature is almost essential to make the download process user friendly and practical for busy reviters :)

Jim, any idea yet when the site might be launched ?

beegee

[jbalding48677]

Now, one more thing I hate about RUGI downloads right now: there is no way to batch download all of them at once. I either have to get a separate piece of software or manually click all of them. I've already done this, but for new updates, if there was a way to download all new files since {insert date here}, that would be awesome. Don't know if it's possible, but it would be cool!

Well there will be one way to get all from {insert date here}; since it is a searchable database you will be able to search a date range. Now the batch download... I don't know, but it just went on the list, and quite high I might add.

The launch... Ahhhh... Lemme see here.... Ahhhh.... No date. Just like Revit releases, it will launch when it is finished. I am hoping for mid to end of the summer. The Revit portion has some catching up to do. But just to let you know, I don't think you will be disappointed.

[christopher.zoog51272]

I also think the naming on the fly thing will be awesome. Chris Y wouldn’t have to rename his families to meet the CSI system, and the download “save as” name can be anything the user wants. Or we could have the option to save as original file name check box that would automatically fill in the save as box. Or even a CSI format naming convention check box. Would that work for you Yman?

That may be a lot of work, but, perhaps a poll of how many users group revit stuff in CSI format?

JB, I think we are on the right track here, but we do need to make a naming convention decision ASAP, times a ticking:shock:

[jbalding48677]

You should be ready to review by Monday.

[Melarch]

Jim and Everyone Concerned,

Centralizing all of the current and erupting websites, news groups and myriad of other Internet based Revit information exchanges and support is a great IDEA. Certianly AUGI is one of the prime locations to focus all this information and support energies. But after following and participating in the half dozen Internet nexus's providing interactive discussion, can AUGI pull together the best that each site offers in the way of services and more importantly will these sites relinquish their sponsoring support and permit AUGI to be the central clearing house of exchange.

I think it is paramount that Revit user's have one site with many venues for discussion, just like AutoCAD products. I look forward to the day when AUGI or some virtual entity can relieve me having to follower redundant threads in four or more active website chats.

But I will say that each of the current hosts provide something different and somethings better than the others. Now if we could only distill all of the Revit user's wisdom into a single resource center.

Mel Persin, Architect-AIA
Network/CAD Consultant, Support & Training
Specializing in AEC Solutions with Revit/ADT/AutoCAD

"You've got to ask yourself, did I fire eight or nine shots. Do you feel lucky today."

[PeterJ]

Mel is right

Although with this BB Chris has almost single handedly killed alt.cad.revit off he, and many of us here, still post there becasue there are people who are new to Revit who don't know about this BB or are just plain dogged in their insistence on sticking to the NG.

It would be nice if there were something strong enough that it was a sole point of contact for the Revit community. I am quite certain that if there were then over time other sub groups would fall out but it remains a pretty good target to aim for.

P

[jbalding48677]

Jim and Everyone Concerned,

Centralizing all of the current and erupting websites, news groups and myriad of other Internet based Revit information exchanges and support is a great IDEA. Certianly AUGI is one of the prime locations to focus all this information and support energies. But after following and participating in the half dozen Internet nexus's providing interactive discussion, can AUGI pull together the best that each site offers in the way of services and more importantly will these sites relinquish their sponsoring support and permit AUGI to be the central clearing house of exchange.

I think it is paramount that Revit user's have one site with many venues for discussion, just like AutoCAD products. I look forward to the day when AUGI or some virtual entity can relieve me having to follower redundant threads in four or more active website chats.

But I will say that each of the current hosts provide something different and somethings better than the others. Now if we could only distill all of the Revit user's wisdom into a single resource center.

Mel Persin, Architect-AIA
Network/CAD Consultant, Support & Training
Specializing in AEC Solutions with Revit/ADT/AutoCAD

"You've got to ask yourself, did I fire eight or nine shots. Do you feel lucky today."

Agreed 100% and that is our goal, as far reaching as it is.

[Steve_Stafford]

I thought since AUGI is hoping to draw us all in, I ought to at least spend a little time there to get aquainted. I've been a member since just after the the 2001 AU I attended. But I've probably visited the site 10 times in that entire time and mostly in the recent month or so.

I do not care for the current wish list set up...one can not browse over the submissions as you can here. That makes it seem exclusive and "puts me off". To vote for a wish would require me to spend hours and hours there....attempting to "auto-generate" items to vote on.

Personally I find Z's wishlist a stimulating way to get outside my box. It provides me with a way to see how well Revit does or does not meet peoples needs. Hiding the "bulk" of the list away from the users and randomly generating a wish to vote on isn't efficient for me to process the info or informative to me. (FWIW, I'm not just saying that because I'm "protecting" my moderating turf, I didn't ask for that forum...I just offered Z my help and he chose where to park me and Scott.)

AUGI is attempting to reach everyone for everything Autodesk...a difficult task to say the least. The Revit Guild has not flourished as of yet, not for the lack of listening in...been listening...mostly to crickets chirping :cry: After more than a year of participating in the ADT guild, I unsubscribed. I have mixed feelings as to the effectivness of that system.

I've attempted on two occasions now to change my email and it appears the confirmation system is not working...since I've not received a confirmation message as instructions say I should. I've posted a message to the webmaster since there doesn't appear to be any other means to register an issue.

I realize that my comments may seem harsh, but they are honest and to be anything else is useless pandering. I look forward to seeing what develops.

[jbalding48677]

If that is harsh, bring it on.

Your comments are objective and straight forward, thanks.

At this point your comments on the wish list have been heard and they (AUGI and Zoog) are in discussion about many topics and if this is not one I am sure it will be. I will keep a pulse on it.

Guilds, Revit-Guild in particular, is basically non-existent and the forums will be the way we are going in the future. The functionality of the forums will be almost identical to what you are used to seeing.

The email thing, can't help you there. Give me a call if it is a real big issue. In fact give me a call anyway. I have a question for you (Steve Stafford that is).