Revit Systems? or Architecture?

[Tyveka]

Not meaning to become a thorn in anyone's side but I have a question.
We have downloaded the Revit MEP 2008 software and have been exploring the IES Heating and Cooling load calculations. There are a few questions:

When doing the <Building> Load calc, there is only one option for the Building Construction Type, which is <Building>. I am apparently unable to create a new type, though I can modify the variables for that type...what happens if I have different construction on different projects?

Also, shouldn't the Room Construction data and the Building Construction data be filled out by the Architects? Why is this part of MEP? Also, why doesn't this pull that data from the actual Revit elements? If I have a room enclosure that has a typical 4 5/8" gyp board finish on either side of the wall, I tell the wall to be that type, with those materials. Why doesn't the Room Construction grab that data from the model? Or does it and I am just missing something major? I understand the furthering of collaboration on a project but this is almost expecting the MEP folks to do a bit much...

Thank you for any thoughts you have on this!

[mjdanowski]

Also, shouldn't the Room Construction data and the Building Construction data be filled out by the Architects?

Theoretically, though I don't think we are quite to that point yet so don't expect much.

[SkiSouth]

Because the Building Construction Data is not in Revit Architecture? ( I don't think - isn't this kind of a form to fill out in MEP? Really liked the online demo of MEP) Been using Revit for a few years- it'd be nice to have a complete building with systems. My engineers all use Acad.

[chodosh]

The biggest conceptual hurdle we have found so far working with Revit MEP is the reality that the parametric data you are testing in the IES VE must actually be in your Revit MEP model, that linking the architect's model does not mean you can read data from the link.

I need some more information about how the workflow between the Architects and the Engineers is really supposed to work. In the IES VE, there are so many multi-disciplinary things that are definable in the tool out of the box that I am a little confused how to suggest the Architects and Engineers interface together to use it. Is copy-monitor the path forward? Where do the U-values come from? How do you define glass in curtainwall from glass in a punched window without doing it room by room?

[Tyveka]

For us, the copy/monitor tool really doesn't do any good. The only time I can see it being useful is for linking Revit Structure to the Revit Architecture model. But in MEP, we need to be able to actually attach a fixture to a wall, ceiling, what have you. And when that changes, the fixture needs to change with it. We tried using the copy monitor tool for Revit Systems and it just wasn't working.

Still, my question is really unanswered... our MEP guy usually has the architect do that room construction data. So why isn't the "parametric, intelligent" model filling out all that information in the IES Heating and Cooling Load analysis tool, especially with that data already being there? It means the work has to be done twice - once by the architect and then again by the MEP engineer and architect together (since theoretically, the MEP guy has no clue what kind of construction was intended).

My other question - how can we change the default room types? Classrooms, Office, Open-Office, etc... these are all pre-canned, hard coded into the software, apparently. Am I still missing something? We need to be able to modify the occupency density or the sensible heat gain on a per project basis but we don't seem to be able to. Where can I change this data?

And where can I create the new building construction types? Is this greyed out for anyone else?

Folks, what am I missing here? This seems like it COULD be a great tool but it is only partially implemented, which makes it almost useless. Still looking for help on this...

[Mottiqua]

Are you copy/monitoring your rooms only? If you CM your rooms, the data the archies put into their model should transfer to yours.
AS a practice we only CM rooms, levels, and grids....walls and floors are not to be CM'd
we place components by face...
As far as being able to change the IES building type....I don't know for sure. But I do know
that you can change it in the full blown version of IES. I think the version of IES that is in MEP is simply to help do prelim calcs, etc.
The link into the full version of IES is what you might need to get specific.

[chodosh]

...the work has to be done twice - once by the architect and then again by the MEP engineer and architect together...


Lots of questions!

Good point about potential duplication of effort, I have to admit I am slightly concerned as well. I have been stirring up conversation in my office as to how to proceed now that we've opened the box with the VE and to my chagrin I am being told to wait until we've felt it out more to discuss how we'll interface all the departments using the same tool. I would like to believe there is an intended way for how we should use it successfully between all of the disciplines. So, while ignoring good advice to be more patient, I am way too curious not to ask what everyone else is thinking?

Is Copy Monitor is going to cure every ill since it requires duplication inherently? We're wondering if we can work with a process where we create detached from central copies of architectural models that can then be opened and modified in Revit MEP, but it seems that is only a one-way solution for a one-liner study scenario. I would like to see a more dynamic relationship. Is worksharing between disciplines possible with one single database? Can we all share co-located, combined parametric information accesing the same database through the filters of RMEP and RA or RS? Are there best-practices for using CM that make this idea unnecessary?

Anyone out there have answers, ideas, suggestions?

[mjdanowski]

Lots of questions!

Good point about potential duplication of effort, I have to admit I am slightly concerned as well. I have been stirring up conversation in my office as to how to proceed now that we've opened the box with the VE and to my chagrin I am being told to wait until we've felt it out more to discuss how we'll interface all the departments using the same tool. I would like to believe there is an intended way for how we should use it successfully between all of the disciplines. So, while ignoring good advice to be more patient, I am way too curious not to ask what everyone else is thinking?

Is Copy Monitor is going to cure every ill since it requires duplication inherently? We're wondering if we can work with a process where we create detached from central copies of architectural models that can then be opened and modified in Revit MEP, but it seems that is only a one-way solution for a one-liner study scenario. I would like to see a more dynamic relationship. Is worksharing between disciplines possible with one single database? Can we all share co-located, combined parametric information accesing the same database through the filters of RMEP and RA or RS? Are there best-practices for using CM that make this idea unnecessary?

Anyone out there have answers, ideas, suggestions?

Ultimately what I think will happen is the C/M tool will become obsolete, and the functionality given with it will be put straight into the interface with the link. Right now you copy over things which quite frankly you don't care about; walls, architectural elements, etc. These things are the responsibility of the architect, not the engineer. In 2008, one big functionality that I noticed is that you can now constrain off of linked files. In the future I see this being expanded upon to hosting right off the linked files (for walls etc). Instead of doing a complete "copy" like you do now, in the future I predict that you will only copy over the "MEP" versions of things you need (like rooms etc) which can be linked back to the architectural version.
For example:
Architect makes the room in the arch file, puts his architectural data in and then saves it there. Then we copy it into the MEP file. All the arch data is still "attainable," but not changeable. When we copy it into the MEP file though, the MEP parameters are added where we have full control over them. This keeps everyone doing their specific job and there is no "crossing" of tasks.

This is all my speculation of course, but it seems like the logical path that would be followed.

[chodosh]

Hosting off the linked file would seem appropriate if we maintain the industry standard of the linear handoff from the architects to the engineers. That would require a kind of merge into master process as the model changes. It still remains a one-way process. Is that good enough?