Sure wish groups worked...

[petervanko]

I am detailing like crazy and trying to use detail groups. No two instances are alike (slight variations in each) and I have no idea how that is possible. I want ACAD-like blocks...at least they didn't move geometry on you.

Anyone know how to make them all alike????????????????????????????

[aaronrumple]

Eh? As long as you are placing the same group - it should look exactly the same. Do you have anything in the group constrained? Are you using 2008?

[petervanko]

Attached images are two instances of the same group! "Right" is the original one I made; "Wrong" is another instance of it, but notice the piece that has flown off to the far left.

[hand471037]

I am detailing like crazy and trying to use detail groups. No two instances are alike (slight variations in each) and I have no idea how that is possible. I want ACAD-like blocks...at least they didn't move geometry on you.

Not that it's a 100% solution, but if 'static' blocks is what you want for detailing, that's what Detail Components are for. Might not work for you here, but in the past I've at times made very large Detail Components (out of lines and smaller Detail Components) to describe some common condition within a building that I want to show in multiple places. Then I can just update that one Detail Components Family, and have them all change... don't know if this helps...

[petervanko]

I was hoping to stay away from that as I have had to do the same before, but you lose the automatic updating of nested detail components.

[petervanko]

Aaron...back to your question about constraints: none whatsoever.

[petervanko]

Figured it out...

DO NOT USE "CREATE INSTANCE" from the project browser. Rather, copy and paste the thing around and it does not screw up.

I understand why Revit needs this: it is allowing each instance to vary slightly, most noatbly--in my experience--for unit plans, etc (think about wall cleanup conditions).

[patricks]

We had a similar situation with model groups in 9.1. We had a small piece of in-place casework that was a model group, and several instances of the group had a piece thrown several thousand feet outside the building. This made the building very small when I opened a 3D view, and screwed up the center of rotation when rotating the 3D model.

I remember fixing it once or twice, and it came back, but I think the last time I fixed it, I copied another correct instance over and it has been fine ever since. I'm not sure if they were originally created using "Create Instance" or not.

[ron.sanpedro]

I am detailing like crazy and trying to use detail groups. No two instances are alike (slight variations in each) and I have no idea how that is possible. I want ACAD-like blocks...at least they didn't move geometry on you.

Anyone know how to make them all alike????????????????????????????

I have come to this Matrix, updated for 2008. It translates Architectural and AutoCAD langage into Revitish.

"I want AutoCAD style blocks" means "I want families" in Revitish.
"I want unit plans, unit floors or modularized building systems." means "I need to use RAC 2008 groups."
"I want AutoCAD style groups" means "I didn't understand groups in AutoCAD, and I still don't understand them in Revit."
"I have standard details in DWG that I want to reuse" means "I need to take the actual meaningful bits from the DWG detail library, and make Detail Components, and use them in live Revit style details."

In general, I tell my users, if you are about to draw a line outside the Family Editor or make a model or detail group (that isn't associated with "unit" or "modular" something), there is a very good chance that some other solution is better.

This seems to work about 99% of the time.

Gordon

[Scott D Davis]

Figured it out...

DO NOT USE "CREATE INSTANCE" from the project browser. Rather, copy and paste the thing around and it does not screw up.

I understand why Revit needs this: it is allowing each instance to vary slightly, most noatbly--in my experience--for unit plans, etc (think about wall cleanup conditions).
Peter, are you using Revit 2008?

[petervanko]

Scott,

No I am not...we are waiting for our reseller to get us going with the new build. I am sensing groups have been fixed?

[Scott D Davis]

The only thing that remains the same about groups is the name. Here's some differences:


New Group Edit mode, all tools in Revit are available for use while in edit mode. Drawing window gets a light yellow background, and all non-group members turn halftone.
Groups saved out as RVT file format, no more RVG file format. This means ANY file can be loaded as a group, and groups can be opened and edited independenlty from the project.
Groups can be turned into Links, and Links can be "bound" into a project becoming groups. Using linked instances helps performance because a linked file when copied around the project uses the resources of only the original link. Conversely, multiple group instances in a project count against resources for each copy.
Demand editing of Groups. Right-click on Group name in browser, and select Edit. Group opens in a new session of Revit, which then can be saved for other projects as an RVT file, and then loaded back into the current project much like Families can be reloaded.
Demand editing of Linked files. Linked files appear in the project browser, where they have right-click options such as "Unload and Open", Reload, Reload From, etc.
Nested Links are now allowed. Links can be set to Overlay or Attach (like Acads xrefs).
Exclude from Group function. This allows an instance of a group to have a "special" occurance, rather than duplicating and defining a special group. For instance, a group for a repeating housing unit has walls on both sides....place the next group side by side, and two walls will overlap. Tab select through the group to one of the walls, and right-click to "exclude from the group". The overlapping walls will be corrected and the "definition" of the group still contains the wall, so the next instance placed will display it.
Move to Project function: Takes an object in a group, and Excludes it from the group and creates a copy of the object in the Project so it can be repositioned wherever you'd like.
Copy-n-paste objects from Groups or Links into the project.
I think thats a good summary...there is some more but thats what I remember off the top of my head!

[petervanko]

Thanks for setting the record straight on Revit's handling of groups in the 2008 build...very exciting!

[s.messing]

The only thing that remains the same about groups is the name.

I think thats a good summary...there is some more but thats what I remember off the top of my head!
Scott, just in case no one has mentioned this recently, You are the man! Thanks for this clear, concise, well organized description of the exciting improvements to groups. I am teaching a class on Wednesday to our users about the changes to groups and I have learned more by reading your post in 2 minutes than I did in 20 minutes of playing around in 2008.

I am interested in hearing your (and other's) opinions about how groups might potentially change the way we work in Revit. No one seems to be addressing this in detail yet, but I am wondering whether people will start to use groups like families. Will groups function in place of links? Are groups more efficient (in terms of size and performance optimization) than nested families? How else will people use groups that might fundamentally change what we do today?

Anyway, thanks for your post. Feel free to do it again whenever you are bored about any subject. I will read it and pass it on to everyone I know.

Cheers,
Stephen

post script: For those of you who have not upgraded to 2008, here's a thread (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=59062&highlight=2008+groups)about how much everyone loves them in the new release.

[aaronrumple]

I am interested in hearing your (and other's) opinions about how groups might potentially change the way we work in Revit. No one seems to be addressing this in detail yet, but I am wondering whether people will start to use groups like families.
Groups and families are very different animals. There isn't the same parameter functionality in groups as there is with families. And families can't contain system objects, where groups can. Groups should probably be renamed "Assemblies".

[s.messing]

Groups and families are very different animals. There isn't the same parameter functionality in groups as there is with families. And families can't contain system objects, where groups can. Groups should probably be renamed "Assemblies".
These are excellent points! Thank you Aaron. Does anyone else have further information/ opinions about how and when to use groups versus families?

Thanks,
Stephen

post script: changing the title of this post might make people more inclined to read it. If it were called Improvements to Groups in Architecture 2008, it might be more accurate.

[Architeria]

And since "Assemblies" seems much easier for me to understand than "Groups", Aaron, what would you rename "Families" if you had the opportunity?

Thanks

[clog boy]

These are excellent points! Thank you Aaron. Does anyone else have further information/ opinions about how and when to use groups versus families?

Thanks,
Stephen

post script: changing the title of this post might make people more inclined to read it. If it were called Improvements to Groups in Architecture 2008, it might be more accurate.
Reviving this thread...
The attached information has proven very usefull for us. We use groups in stead of Design Options, since groups can be combined and altered much quicker. You also avoid the possibility of one view not updating if that is set to the wrong design option.
We combine with groups a lot - if not possibly always - and we really can't work without them. Thanks Autodesk for improving groups.

I also second all praises to Saint Scott. (really if McCauly is the Revit pope then Scott Davis should be a saint)

[davidcobi]

I am interested in hearing your (and other's) opinions about how groups might potentially change the way we work in Revit. No one seems to be addressing this in detail yet, but I am wondering whether people will start to use groups like families. Will groups function in place of links? Are groups more efficient (in terms of size and performance optimization) than nested families? How else will people use groups that might fundamentally change what we do today?

You could also group and then pin the as-built model after it is completed. Anyone can demo elements from the group but can't accidentally delete or move elements of the as-built model without ungrouping or editing the as-built group. Just instruct them not to touch the as-built group.

[clog boy]

Good grief, I like that thought, pin rather than constrain.