Manufactures Content

[cris8096]

I just downloaded Titus Revit Content.

I'm very glad they are on board with creating Revit content, but the third party firm (CADWorks) I think has this all wrong..
I tried inserting the popular PAS Diffusers and they are made out with a host. I need a ceiling of sort in order for me to make it work. Even the OTB Revit content has a air terminal that is not hosted.. I seen the other Content too and is not all that either, it may have the geometry and such but when I want to use it is a headache!!.

I wonder how Autodesk Seek allows us users deal with this type of struggles that some manufactures are putting out there.. Doesn't seem like a great Quality Control check before is made public...

[gabecottam428011]

The manufacturers don't know Revit and the Revit family builders don't seem to know how their families are going to be used. Very frustrating. Often hosted - and almost always over-modeled. Hope to see all the kinks worked out in the near future, but for now.... manufacturer content is a pain.

[sgermano]

The manufacturers don't know Revit and the Revit family builders don't seem to know how their families are going to be used. Very frustrating. Often hosted - and almost always over-modeled. Hope to see all the kinks worked out in the near future, but for now.... manufacturer content is a pain.

Yes it is. A lot of what is currently out there is not worth downloading and fixing it. The parameters are a mess, the correct templates aren't used, and most content is very high load bearing. Most content suppliers just don't understand the market.

[matt__w]

The manufacturers don't know Revit and the Revit family builders don't seem to know how their families are going to be used. Very frustrating. Often hosted - and almost always over-modeled.

...and typically created by inserting DWGs/Solidworks models. And then they claim it's a Revit family. Well, technically, yes it is, but functionally... not so much.

[Mcgregage]

I just downloaded Titus Revit Content.

I'm very glad they are on board with creating Revit content, but the third party firm (CADWorks) I think has this all wrong..
I tried inserting the popular PAS Diffusers and they are made out with a host. I need a ceiling of sort in order for me to make it work. Even the OTB Revit content has a air terminal that is not hosted.. I seen the other Content too and is not all that either, it may have the geometry and such but when I want to use it is a headache!!.

I wonder how Autodesk Seek allows us users deal with this type of struggles that some manufactures are putting out there.. Doesn't seem like a great Quality Control check before is made public...

As a solution to the problem identified, we would suggest simply adding a reference plane where the ceiling is to be located, and then you can place the diffusers using the Place on Work Plane option. Content is built assuming a standard project, it is overwhelming if we also must accommodate deficiencies such as no ceiling within the Revit model. If content was created such as out of the box content without being face based, the user would always have to place the diffusers and then adjust the height, as opposed to using the face based models which will easily place on the ceiling. It seems that either way, for the scenario with no ceiling in the Revit project you must either add the reference plane for the ceiling or adjust the elevation of a non-face based family so we feel that keeping them face based not only works in the situation with no ceiling, but works well for the intended application when there is a ceiling in the project.

Ian McGaw
CADworks

[gabecottam428011]

accommodate deficiencies such as no ceiling within the Revit model.

MEP firms don't create the ceilings - Architects do. This isn't a deficiency in the MEP model - this is how the industry has worked for at least the last15 yrs.

...so we feel that keeping them face based...

You can feel however you'd like, but you're missing the point. The people who actually have to use these families don't want it done that way. They're not going to use your stuff just because you feel they should.

...works well for the intended application ...

How it was "intended" to be applied by programmers that have never had to put out a job is irrelevant (and often comical). Listen to the end users and incorporate what they're asking for. They are the real experts - they are the ones who have to figure out how to work around the misguided "intentions" of Autodesk.

[JoelLondenberg]

...so we feel that keeping them face based not only works in the situation with no ceiling, but works well for the intended application when there is a ceiling in the project...

... Listen to the end users and incorporate what they're asking for...

I'm an end user - and I agree with Mcgregage. Face hosted objects are what I create for my own use. The biggest argument in favor of this is that I leads toward the goal of parametric project changes. When the Arch moves a ceiling, the air terminal goes too. It's clear that this doesn't alway work - the Arch isn't alway cooperative, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to give up my goal, especially when the workaround (reference plane host) is still easier that inserting and moving each one.

[jseck]

I'm an end user - and I agree with Mcgregage. Face hosted objects are what I create for my own use. The biggest argument in favor of this is that I leads toward the goal of parametric project changes. When the Arch moves a ceiling, the air terminal goes too. It's clear that this doesn't alway work - the Arch isn't alway cooperative, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to give up my goal, especially when the workaround (reference plane host) is still easier that inserting and moving each one.

I agree also. I prefer to use face hosted families because I think the pros outweigh the cons compared to non-hosted families. Each type has its purpose. Sure, if the architect blows away a ceiling and puts a new one in its place, you'll have to re-host your lights and diffusers. The key is to try and educate the architect and other team members and explain how their actions affect the rest of the project team. I know it is easier said than done, but Revit is a collaboration tool,and therefore, should force team members to collaborate as well.

[RPOY]

Create both. Some architectural files are a complete mess; full of many workarounds. Making a family face hosted eliminates the MEP designer’s ability to work around such work arounds (and can't you just select all the elements after you place them and set the heights together, pretty quick). Some arch models are great, and you can run with a face based family. This being said; manufactures should be following proper family generation rules outlined by Autodesk. This means using reference planes to control how the family ‘flexes’ and using the parameters and format outlined in the Revit model content style guide (Autodesk). If manufacturers continue to build families to their own idea of what is correct the quality of their Revit content will not get better.

[mjdanowski]

Moving to families forum