Copy/Monitor Opening, WRONG SIZE? I think so...

[scowsert]

I think I just found a pretty big bug with Revit. I'm running the latest Revit Structural 2008. I have copy monitored this Architectural wall and opening. In the attached views their model is linked into my model.

It looks to me like the window openings that are passed along (in the copy/monitor process) go to the extents of the window trim and not the framing. If I go into the Architectural model and turn off the window the opening is indeed a different size. Its the same size as the white boundary in my seconds screen shot.

I have done a coordination review on this and nothing comes up. They are both being monitored.

[scowsert]

I've attached a Sample.RVT file. Here's what I did.

1 Start with a new project
2 Link in sample.rvt.
3 Start copy/Monitor, map walls to same wall type
4 Pick the wall with (copy openings selected)

I end up with the attached JPG which is wrong. (Red is the Arch. Black is mine at the trim)

[scowsert]

Ok I just edited the window family and removed the trim. When I reloaded it the Coordination Review popped up and it adjusted the opening to the correct size.

So is the trim in this window family build incorrectly? Or is Revit just messed up?

Help!

Thanks Sage

[scowsert]

Ok I just tested it with a default window from Revit. It's not the window it's Revit.

[Dwane Lindsey]

You are correct; it's a bug in the Copy/Monitor Tool. The Copy/Monitor for some reason looks for the extent of the geometry in the family instead of the opening in the family. I have a customer that has ADA clearances in their door families with symbolic lines and the opening was the size of the symbolic lines, not the opening. I've submitted the problem to Autodesk and I got the usual response..."Your Support Request has been documented and sent to our development team for investigation."

Hopefully they fix this soon.

[scowsert]

Within the window you can enter in rough opening. I'd be happy with that dimension or better yet the same thing I get with turning the windows visibility graphics off. This is a big problem as if Copy/Monitor needed more problems.


You are correct; it's a bug in the Copy/Monitor Tool. The Copy/Monitor for some reason looks for the extent of the geometry in the family instead of the opening in the family. I have a customer that has ADA clearances in their door families with symbolic lines and the opening was the size of the symbolic lines, not the opening. I've submitted the problem to Autodesk and I got the usual response..."Your Support Request has been documented and sent to our development team for investigation."

Hopefully they fix this soon.

[Dwane Lindsey]

Here's an update from Autodesk Support on the issue...

"The development team has confirmed that the current design of the Copy/Monitor tool determines the opening size by the bounding box of the family. They are now deciding what the next steps should be."

I'm taking the "bounding box" is the extents of the geometry drawn in the family...but not the host wall in the family. All it really needs to do is use the opening that is created in the host in the family. This is what folks want to monitor and show on the views.

[scowsert]

Yep you can see in the screen shots above it does exactly as you say. I'd like it to appear exactly the same as if I went into the Visibility graphics box and unchecked the window toggle.

or...

Use the rough opening size in the dialog box. I'm structural I think that 'might' be better. That's what we'd cut in the wall right?

Btw... Thanks for pursuing this.


Here's an update from Autodesk Support on the issue...

"The development team has confirmed that the current design of the Copy/Monitor tool determines the opening size by the bounding box of the family. They are now deciding what the next steps should be."

I'm taking the "bounding box" is the extents of the geometry drawn in the family...but not the host wall in the family. All it really needs to do is use the opening that is created in the host in the family. This is what folks want to monitor and show on the views.

[Dwane Lindsey]

Yep you can see in the screen shots above it does exactly as you say. I'd like it to appear exactly the same as if I went into the Visibility graphics box and unchecked the window toggle.

or...

Use the rough opening size in the dialog box. I'm structural I think that 'might' be better. That's what we'd cut in the wall right?

Btw... Thanks for pursuing this.


Yes, show exactly the opening that's cutting the wall. The one thing about the rough opening is that not everyone uses those parameter in their families. So that would force everyone to make sure those parameters are filled out...correctly. That's why I mentioned using the openig that's created in the host. It's size is controled by really any parameter you want.

And your welcome. I submitted the problem over a week ago when a client of mine ran into it on a project. If I get anymore of a solution from Adesk, I'll update the post.

[CeeVee]

Wow! This is the most valuable thread!

I have been perplexed with this problem for some time, but wasn't sure whether it was the way the door family had been created or not..

So how can one get around it? Up till now I've simply been re-adjusting the opening sizes afterwards, but as the projects get bigger this is going to be a real pain...

Perhaps look forward to a fix in 2009?

[scowsert]

FYI... This bug still exists with the web update 2 service pack.

[JH75]

Hi,
I have a similar problem with doors and openings when I use copy/monitor. When I c/m a wall from the Arch model that has doors - the openings in my wall that has been c/m are not the same size as the orignal Arch door.
Do i need ot create all the possible opening sizes in my model before I c/m a wall from the Arch model?

Thanks,
J

[Dwane Lindsey]

J,

You'll be better off drawing in your own walls and placing your own openings at the size you want rather than using the Copy/Monitor tool. The openings still do not act like everyone thinks they should or would like them to.

Actually, you can use the Monitor feature once you've placed the new walls. Take a look at this blog post (http://revitoped.blogspot.com/2008/09/copymonitor-walls.html) by Steve Stafford that has some comments from Autodesk on Monitoring the walls.

[dbaldacchino]

I'm by no means a fan of the Copy/Monitor feature as it stands. I acknowledge that there are cases where it's useful, but use with great care. One of the most valuable uses (if it worked correctly) is to replace a portion of a wall with the structural counterpart. For example a load-bearing CMU wall with some kind of masonry veneer. Engineers don't show finishes, but the issues with location line and openings outlined in this post constitute a huge barrier to using this tool successfully.

Here's another blog post about the problems encountered:

http://malleristicrevitation.blogspot.com/2008/10/copy-monitor-how-i-love-thee-but-how-i.html

[JH75]

Thanks David and Dwane. I have had look through those articles – intresting reading (isn’t all Revit articles intresting )
We have started a bigger project in Revit and what I have done initially is c/m most of the struct walls and columns from the arch model. So fare I think using the C/M feature has been working OK (except with regards to the openings) and we get the core of the model pretty quick.
We will properly end up stop monitoring some of the walls and columns further down the track if we find it being to much of a hassle. But it would be great if we could keep monitoring the opening in the walls though as this is a Precast job.
Will be interesting to see if c/m has been improved in Revit2010
Cheers,
J

[bpayne.126173]

Just adding in my 2 cents. I have also experienced this issue before, and it does put a slight damper on using the copy monitor tools for openings. A work around I have messed with is going into the door or window families in the Arch file and deleting the extra information that is causing the issue (ada clearances, >90 degree plan swings in doors, etc..) If the file only has a few families, just multiple sizes/types it doesn't take as long as you might think. I reload this into Arch file, save it, and copy/monitor based off that.

Your openings should come in correctly at that point. In the future, if you save out those modified families, you can reload them into the next Arch file you receive, that way you don't have to consistantly modify the family.

[scowsert]

I tend to use the C/M wall tool as a starting point. Bring over the walls that I require. Perhaps turn off the monitor. Then go back and manually adjust the openings to the correct size. Yes its a pain but at least this way I don't have to pull up an elevation and try to figure out exactly how high the wall is and I think its easier to adjust the existing incorrect opening size then to place it and adjust it. It's a tougher job if you are doing wood buildings with non-typical floor to floor heights. Then a steel or masonry building IMHO.

I do like the concept of going through the arch model and cleaning up the doors and windows first. It might make a better initial go through. If you do that and wanted to follow through the c/m process wouldn't you need to clean up the door and window families every time you get a new model? That wouldn't be ideal (to say the least).

I'm hoping that 2010 offers better c/m tools. Chasing down the Architectural changes is the toughest job that I have. It can be brutal in a 3d + phasing + design options work that I do. A Bim Model shouldn't require that I spend so much time looking for whats changed. If Revit could live up to the marketing that would be awesome.

Sage

[greg.mcdowell]

@David

How do you work with RS and RM if not with Copy/Monitor? You doing it old-school (i.e., eyeballs and phonecalls)?

I'm finally starting to work with engineers and looking for lessons learned and the like.

Thanks

[twiceroadsfool]

I personally love the notion behind the tool.... It just needs some practicality changes in the way it works.

Copy Monitor is one of those tools i would LOVE LOVE LOVE to personally sit with development about, and go over how we would use it IN THE FIELD, if it was built slightly differently.

I think i would even volunteer on my own time and drive to Waltham for such a meeting...

[dbaldacchino]

Go knock on their doors Aaron...stretch that muscle car's legs!
If you have all or most disciplines in-house, then it's not practical to change door families etc. because you'll have to link in a standalone project file. Which kills the benefit of linking a live project and seeingchanges as they occur when you reload. I personally would not go down that road. It's more acceptable if you receive files at weekly intervals perhaps, but then again...if families change in how they're built, how do you know your rough opening is correct? I wouldn't want to take that kind of responsibility/liability. I'd rather adust the openings manually. The excercise of doing so also forces you to check your work.

Greg, yep, old school ;) As long as we have an understanding on who's driving decision-making, then we're fine. These coordination issues can be monitored through automation that works all the time as expected, but if not, 100% traditional communication is the way to go. If I start coming against so many variables (wall location line problems, opening issues, no warning when new grids are added, etc), then why use the tool on top of all the manual coordination that has to happen to circumvent those problems? Just manually coordinate and communicate! Now you know exactly what needs to happen.

We're not constantly calling each other when we're moving a door/opening in a loadbearing wall. By simply linking the project, when a change happens, you see it. A courtesy call/email to explain the changes goes a long way in some special cases. If it cannot be done due to some structural issue, then the group communitcates that to the Arch group. Fairly simple. I think the concept of the tool is great, but it fails too many times for my comfort. When I was just starting to use Revit and studied the tool, the only reason I could really find to justify its use is in having total control over the visibility of grids (ex: extents, grid bubble position, etc). Since there are other ways to get the look we want (and that means not having 2 or 3 separate groups repeating the effort), then I find no real reason to use it. But I'm just one little fish in a huge sea of opinions ;)

[greg.mcdowell]

Have you tried Navisworks for this sort of coordination?

I haven't yet but I'm thinking that, since NW is supposed to be able to do automatic detection of changes in a model, we could load in both models and let NW tell us where things have, or have not, changed.

[twiceroadsfool]

Go knock on their doors Aaron...stretch that muscle car's legs!


Wrong time of the year for that kind of a road trip... Its sleeping in the garage.

But if it meant with certainty, getting something like Copy Monitor re-evaluated with an in depth focus, id probably even venture out that way in my Subaru, LOL...

I still hold steadfast that Copy Monitor ***COULD*** be one of the most power tools in the program, if the way it worked afforded us some more confidence, and a few more options for WHAT and HOW we can copy.

FWIW, a lot of issues that came up in the AU unconferences about consultant collaboration, Arch/Interiors, File Linking vs file grouping, etc, could be addressed if CM worked a little differently here and there...