Autodesk Seek Families

[Beancud]

Hi fellow Reviters.

Since the introduction of Autodesk Seek families have been easier to obtain with the quick search tool bar.

http://seek.autodesk.com/

It is a great tool for quickly look for something you don't have, but has anyone found it that it is purely dependent on American market?

I found some great stuff there but ended up re jiging, or re modeling the family to suit my local manufacturer.

The product attribute for structural side is superb but MEP side seems still very much limited.

Any thoughts?

[schrodingerscat]

I mainly only use it for aesthetic reasons. Easier to delete all the 'parametrics' on a pre-made model and remake them to suit than to model one up and then figure out the parametric details.

[Simon.Whitbread]

It is a great tool for quickly look for something you don't have, but has anyone found it that it is purely dependent on American market?

Any thoughts?

Too many localized drafting standards, not many people want to invest in the new technology and want everything handed to them on a plate.

What happened when CAD arrived 25+ years ago?

Did Autodesk supply all the symbology then?

Revit MEP is in its second (real) release - If Autodesk are going to issue 'localised standards' for families, systems, functionality - GIVE THEM A CHANCE!

[Michael.c]

Too many localized drafting standards, not many people want to invest in the new technology and want everything handed to them on a plate.

What happened when CAD arrived 25+ years ago?

Did Autodesk supply all the symbology then?

Revit MEP is in its second (real) release - If Autodesk are going to issue 'localised standards' for families, systems, functionality - GIVE THEM A CHANCE!

Simon,
I guess if you call parting with six grand for this software "handed on a plate" (or whatever the $ sum is) then maybe you are correct. Not sure if I'd agree with you on that one, though.
Also, I don't think a comparison with the birth of CAD 25 years ago is quite comparing apples with apples. No, they didn't supply all the symbology then, they supplied a drafting tool. I don't think there was any pretence that it was anything but that. Revit is a totally different kettle of fish.

All the best,

Michael

[schrodingerscat]

The comparison between AutoCAD's release 25+ years ago (long before my time as a drafter... or my time as a person in fact) is fairly good really. AutoCAD requires the user to create blocks which are then used to represent what we need them to represent. Revit has families which are partly used for the same thing, but are also used for BIM purposes. Some of the dodgier companies will instead of using blocks just draw their symbols with lines. I would say the Revit equivalent is creating in place.

No, Revit is not AutoCAD, but for all purposes related to this thread, the comparison is sound.

[Simon.Whitbread]

No, they didn't supply all the symbology then, they supplied a drafting tool. I don't think there was any pretence that it was anything but that.

Yes, a drafting tool that was provided with a 'sample' library


Revit is a totally different kettle of fish.

And I'd totally agree with that statement, but it is also software that is provided with a 'sample' library.

Both you, and Randy have probably come across me during my time with AEC Systems. I'm about to leave them and join a consulting engineers based in Auckland.

Although my focus will be on their implementation and development, I'm also wanting to ensure that localised requirements are not passed over.

Autodesk have been a bit slow with localised content for Revit MEP, maybe they need a hand. And need a co-ordinated voice from industry and the resellers, on what is expected for our region (ANZ).

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. I'm not suggesting giving away any i.p. or company development. Just a working group to suggest improvements for local conditions

[Michael.c]

Both you, and Randy have probably come across me during my time with AEC Systems. I'm about to leave them and join a consulting engineers based in Auckland.
development. Just a working group to suggest improvements for local conditions

Hi Simon...

If you've come accross me then you probably know Brendan Upton too, who is sitting right next to me in our Sydney office here, and who tells me he's met you! If I have too, appologies, the old memory is not what it used to be...

Yes I agree, and I would suspect that most of us in this corner of the globe would also agree, that there needs to be more development of local needs for the Australia / NZ market. (Heck, I'm sure we've paid just as much for the software as they have!)
We have been developing our own library here but it's a mountain to climb and we're still in the foothills!

Finally, back on the AutoCAD / Revit comparison, I would just add that content is infinately more important in Revit than it is in AutoCAD

Good luck with your move to Auckland.

Michael

[Beancud]

Yes, a drafting tool that was provided with a 'sample' library



And I'd totally agree with that statement, but it is also software that is provided with a 'sample' library.

Both you, and Randy have probably come across me during my time with AEC Systems. I'm about to leave them and join a consulting engineers based in Auckland.

Although my focus will be on their implementation and development, I'm also wanting to ensure that localised requirements are not passed over.

Autodesk have been a bit slow with localised content for Revit MEP, maybe they need a hand. And need a co-ordinated voice from industry and the resellers, on what is expected for our region (ANZ).

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. I'm not suggesting giving away any i.p. or company development. Just a working group to suggest improvements for local conditions


Good luck with your move Simon, and welcome to the dark side!

I hope there are better news of AEC/Autodesk developing something for the Australian market.

I think in this corner of the world there are alot more pressure and expectation for techys in companies to produce more with little support.

[Michael.c]

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. I'm not suggesting giving away any i.p. or company development. Just a working group to suggest improvements for local conditions



Improvements for local conditions?
Um...I guess you could be talking about two things here:
1. The metric / imperial issue.
2. The variation between equipment accross the globe.

I would think the first issue would be the more important. I may be missing something but I struggle to comprehend why there cannot be a simple conversion process to enable a family that has been created in feet and inches to be successfully used in a metric project, and vise versa of course. Afterall, an axial fan looks pretty much the same the world over, why create it twice? Can someone enlighten me here??

There are still more questions than answers.
How much intricate detail is it necessary to put into a model?
How much point is there in going to great lengths in modelling a range of equipment, when chances are the equipment manufacturer will supersede the entire range with a new model before too long?
Should / will the manufacturer be producing models of his own equipment anyway?

My view is that models should be kept as simple as possible. Leave out the nuts and bolts. Just concentrate on the main dimensions. Afterall, we're really just concerned with space provision. The obvious advantages are:
a) you're not going to see the fine detail from the majority of views anyway.
b) we can produce them much faster
c) The simpler the model, the less specific it is to a particular manufacturer.
d) The simpler the model, the quicker the regeneration times.

[Beancud]

I don't know if I can answer this well but to my knowledge.


Improvements for local conditions?
Um...I guess you could be talking about two things here:
1. The metric / imperial issue.
2. The variation between equipment accross the globe.

I would think the first issue would be the more important. I may be missing something but I struggle to comprehend why there cannot be a simple conversion process to enable a family that has been created in feet and inches to be successfully used in a metric project, and vise versa of course. Afterall, an axial fan looks pretty much the same the world over, why create it twice? Can someone enlighten me here??



Axial fan is something that can be worked with but when you look at VAV boxes, FCU, AHU and many more things - the sizes, arrangements and parts are totally different. I don't think its too local in specific design since equipment approved in Australia will work for New Zealand, and rest of Oceania.




There are still more questions than answers.
How much intricate detail is it necessary to put into a model?
How much point is there in going to great lengths in modelling a range of equipment, when chances are the equipment manufacturer will supersede the entire range with a new model before too long?

Should / will the manufacturer be producing models of his own equipment anyway?

My view is that models should be kept as simple as possible. Leave out the nuts and bolts. Just concentrate on the main dimensions. Afterall, we're really just concerned with space provision. The obvious advantages are:
a) you're not going to see the fine detail from the majority of views anyway.
b) we can produce them much faster
c) The simpler the model, the less specific it is to a particular manufacturer.
d) The simpler the model, the quicker the regeneration times.

At detailed design level people want to see detailed objects here, I'm not saying little details like inlet and screws but an ideal replesentation of an object. If we modelled everything in square boxes it doesn't seem like its using full capabilities of Revit, and client, architect, and the boss want like that if we told them to use their imagination. .

Most mechanical equipments are not easily superseded here. Grills and fans are pretty consistent. There are couple of dominant manufacturer here who rule the market and their equipments are relatively similar.

Manufacturer here are behind in technology, most do not even recognise Revit.

[Michael.c]

I don't know if I can answer this well but to my knowledge.



Axial fan is something that can be worked with but when you look at VAV boxes, FCU, AHU and many more things - the sizes, arrangements and parts are totally different. I don't think its too local in specific design since equipment approved in Australia will work for New Zealand, and rest of Oceania.



At detailed design level people want to see detailed objects here, I'm not saying little details like inlet and screws but an ideal replesentation of an object. If we modelled everything in square boxes it doesn't seem like its using full capabilities of Revit, and client, architect, and the boss want like that if we told them to use their imagination. .

Most mechanical equipments are not easily superseded here. Grills and fans are pretty consistent. There are couple of dominant manufacturer here who rule the market and their equipments are relatively similar.

Manufacturer here are behind in technology, most do not even recognise Revit.

I agree, items like air diffusers and grilles are pretty standard and won't change.
With more detailed stuff, I'm not saying we should represent with a rectangular box...no, that's going too far the other way, but I cringe at the thought of having to produce a chiller that looks anything like something Carrier, York, Trane etc might produce, with all the various types and options they offer for pipe connections, and all the little pipes and tubes and wires and electrical connections and bits and pieces etc etc!! And then for someone to say: "sorry...we don't make that model anymore!"
Cooling towers? A bit simpler perhaps.
Pumps? Well there's a base mounted one in the content supplied which looks ok.
AHU's / fan coil units? These all come in infinately varying sizes / configurations.
Axial fans / centrifugal fans are pretty much the same worldwide.

[schrodingerscat]

Yes, a drafting tool that was provided with a 'sample' library



And I'd totally agree with that statement, but it is also software that is provided with a 'sample' library.

Both you, and Randy have probably come across me during my time with AEC Systems. I'm about to leave them and join a consulting engineers based in Auckland.

Although my focus will be on their implementation and development, I'm also wanting to ensure that localised requirements are not passed over.

Autodesk have been a bit slow with localised content for Revit MEP, maybe they need a hand. And need a co-ordinated voice from industry and the resellers, on what is expected for our region (ANZ).

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. I'm not suggesting giving away any i.p. or company development. Just a working group to suggest improvements for local conditions

Met you about 2 months ago while you were out at our Adelaide office.

[Simon.Whitbread]

Improvements for local conditions?
Um...I guess you could be talking about two things here:
1. The metric / imperial issue.
2. The variation between equipment accross the globe.




Thanks Michael,

I think what I'm really getting at is Symbolic content. That is, the representation of ANY object as a symbol in plan or elevation.

Electrical symbols are probably the most different, but also the representation of duct risers etc.

I would be good to get some feedback from Autodesk as to whether they are going to develop localised content for MEP and introduce the ability to have custom representation available under Mechanical / Electrical Settings.

I wouldn't have thought this would be hard to achieve from a programming point of view, afterall, the symbolic representation if a duct rising (programatically) isn't much different from a Level line with a custom Level Head.

[schrodingerscat]

As I've said: Autodesk really just need to develop the drafting (how things look on the hard copy output) areas of the program urgently (after they add conduits and cable trays of course).

The rest of the program is fairly good. We can model up our systems pretty well, and make a nice little model. Getting that model to display properly on paper however is a little more tricky.

I've reached the point where I can get my output to look the same as it would in AutoCAD, and it takes me only a little more time to model in Revit than to just draw up in AutoCAD, but a lot of the time I have to "cheat" to achieve this.

[Beancud]

As I've said: Autodesk really just need to develop the drafting (how things look on the hard copy output) areas of the program urgently (after they add conduits and cable trays of course).

The rest of the program is fairly good. We can model up our systems pretty well, and make a nice little model. Getting that model to display properly on paper however is a little more tricky.

I've reached the point where I can get my output to look the same as it would in AutoCAD, and it takes me only a little more time to model in Revit than to just draw up in AutoCAD, but a lot of the time I have to "cheat" to achieve this.


I have to say I'm on the same boat with this one. I have so many 2D symbolic line floating on top of my 3D duct just because the Symbolic detail looks all wrong.

[Michael.c]

Thanks Michael,

I think what I'm really getting at is Symbolic content. That is, the representation of ANY object as a symbol in plan or elevation.

Electrical symbols are probably the most different, but also the representation of duct risers etc.



My background is mechanical. There is far less drawing symbology involved in mechanical services than there is in other services. Generally an air diffuser can safely be drawn to scale without "losing" anything when the drawing is printed out at a normal scale.
So what you're getting at I guess, is if you try introducing an accurate model of a light switch or a power point into your model and print it out at 1:100 you're going to end up with a couple of tiny dots! Especially since generally those items are wall mounted. Similar Would apply to a thermostat / humidy sensor etc in mechanical services I suppose...Enter the need for symbology.

How can you have a 3d symbol though? Are you saying that the symbology would only apply in plans / sections / elevations, whereas in a 3d view the model should display? Am I a bit behind the 8 ball here???

[Simon.Whitbread]

How can you have a 3d symbol though? Are you saying that the symbology would only apply in plans / sections / elevations, whereas in a 3d view the model should display? Am I a bit behind the 8 ball here???

The symbology can be 2D - look at any electrical drawing (sockets, switches, phones) these are all symbolic, they are also scale dependent just like text.

If I sat down and spent the time to get all my 'symbols' the same as autocad, I might end up spending 3 or 4 days solid. Maybe this is why Autodesk isn't responding at the moment, especially when some of these 'standards' are company focussed, not a 'country' standard.