Schematic Design - Casework as a Profile in Wall?

[lhanyok]

I have a user who attended a half day seminar about Revit from one our local resellers. The instructor had a suggestion for casework in SD's and DD's, in which you created a new wall type and added profiles into the wall so that when you cut a section view, you had the profile of a base cabinet and wall cabinet.

I personally don't think this is a good approach. I think by the time you're starting DD's, you've already established multiple wall types to show general thicknesses or other conditions, so to add an additional wall type for each of those would be a bit cumbersome. I also am not a big fan of faking components - I think that if you draw a wall it should be a wall in order to keep a clean model.

Does anyone have any other insights on this?

[patricks]

I think that is a horrible idea. To do that, you would have to have multiple versions of both interior and exterior wall types - wherever casework occurs. You might need some types with the profile on one side, some with it on both sides, etc. If the casework is on an exterior wall, then you would have to break your exterior wall, and change that short segment to a duplicate type that had the casework profile. Then you would have 3 pieces of wall on the exterior where normally you would only need one segment.

Sounds very cumbersome and prone to problems if you ask me.

We just drop countertop elements in plan where casework is supposed to be, then go back and add in the cabinets when we start detailing, doing interior elevations, etc. It's never been a problem before.

If you need to see the cabinet in section or elevation before you start CD's, well then go ahead and drop some in there. The cabinets can easily be changed to different sizes later on if needed.

[Justin Marchiel]

i wonder if the reseller was a big adt user. This was an approach that was very popular in adt (and worked fairly well). for them to suggest this seems to say they are trying to make a solution for 1 software work for the other.

In DD an SD we use countertops, same as patricks

Justin

Justin

[ron.sanpedro]

i wonder if the reseller was a big adt user. This was an approach that was very popular in adt (and worked fairly well). for them to suggest this seems to say they are trying to make a solution for 1 software work for the other.

In DD an SD we use countertops, same as patricks

Justin

Justin

What if the casework alone is the extra wall type? So you have four walls of wall type A, and then 2' inside that, on only two walls, you have a few segments of wall type Casework? Seems like it might actually have some potential. But if the OP means there is a wall type A, and a wall type A w/ Casework, then I think the idea falls apart.

Gordon

[Justin Marchiel]

i could see it working for revit (making seperate wall families) but i think they would be harder to manage then casework families. in adt there where clean up styles where walls on the same clean up would clean up. this allowed casework to clean only with casework. in revit you might get some weird results if you where not careful.

I like the countertop idea because you can constrain the counter top to the wall without worries (as opposed to walls constrained to wall). althought the wall idea would work, it might be a litte more cumbersome (but might work well for some).

Justin

[david.kingham]

Here's my solution, very simple 2 Pick Family. Category is Generic Models so you can use Join Geometry at corners

[Calvn_Swing]

David's solution works well unless you're sending it downstream to have it estimated/scheduled using another BIM application. Then, that category is SO important. Just FYI...

[dbaldacchino]

Hmmm, it's weird how when you join geometry, the linework in plan changes....

[david.kingham]

Hmmm, it's weird how when you join geometry, the linework in plan changes....
Yeah that has aggravated me to no end, I've given up and tell people to use the linework tool if you use join geometry

[lhanyok]

i wonder if the reseller was a big adt user. This was an approach that was very popular in adt (and worked fairly well). for them to suggest this seems to say they are trying to make a solution for 1 software work for the other.

I think this might be the case. Since I'm not familiar with ADT, I don't recognize when people try and bring solutions over. At any rate, thanks for all the replies, now I have some more information to take back to the user. I'm going to take a look at the 2 pick family. Thanks!

[dhurtubise]

One thing that i consider critical is using the right family type at the beginning. So later on when you move on with your design you only need to either swap the family or edit the family. No need to redraw anything.

[cphubb]

We have a linear casework family with counter and bksp. We also have a wall cabinet as well. The original predates the line family but all paramters are open so we drop and resize to get the length of casework we want. When we print elevations they are blank allowing us to sketch in the cabinets when meeting with the clients and replacing the generic with actual cabinets and comparing to see how we did. Category is important for scheduling though stay away from generic models.

[Steve_Stafford]

Fwiw, try using a railing for schematic cabinets, this assumes that you don't need any detail on their front face. When it comes time to place real cabinets you can toss the railing or just add design detail in the form of linework or cabinet front detail components. You can also assign different assembly codes to railing families so they can be easily scheduled as "casework" or "millwork". A railing can deal with nearly any path you throw at it and no join geometry is required. Just don't include the upper cabinets in the lower cabinet profiles or you won't get the Linework Tool to work on them. I don't really like distoring reality but it works too well to ignore.