Anyone figure this out yet? grumble grumble grumble...

[cdgoin]

I have used everything from CADPipe, to Quickpen, InteliCAD, Bentley/Microstation, etc.. etc.. and of course my favorite AutoCAD MEP with the East Coast Cad Package.. and no matter what new program they threw at me I no time and dealt with the quirks.

Revit seems to be so different and so unfriendly, I do not even understand why it exists.. At least in the MEP Field anyway.

For 4 years I have had to use Revit off and on (mainly off thank god). Seems I have a new project, they throw training at us, we get into the project, the engineers model is a wreck, nothing fits, nothing is close to constructable. We try to use Revit, and then towards the end we either give up and go back to MEP or CadPipe or whatever we have.

Duct and Pipe just seems to take forever to do well or do easily and most off all accurately. Things broken in 2009 version are still missing or broken in 2014 (although they promised they would be fixed in the "next release").

Just had to get that off my chest the last week has been frustrating as it gets.

What I would like to know actually though is does anyone have a trick for being able to work IN 3D.. this working in 2D garbage with a million windows and cross sections, makes it real hard to weave in and out of a CUP.. and to be honest its really slowing me down.

This is one of the reasons I hate Revit, it seriously has to over complicate the easiest of things... That and the duct doesnt draw properly, nor the pipe, etc.. etc.. (Seriously how hard is it for them to fix the pipe families and make them based off the standard pipe fitters book, you know the standard pipe and pipe fitting used by the field since the 1900s..? Instead we get .75R elbows as standard.. Why isnt the way the pipe and duct are done in MEP taken to account in REVIT. MEP does a MUCH better job, It allows you to go through many options when you want to conenct two object, and most make sense (unlike Revit) and if the program is being fussy you can at least cheat here or there to get a good representation of what your trying to do.

Snaps dont work all the time and are wonderfully hit or miss.. and I can't command it to pick a end or a center or a mid.. if it wants to ignore such a thing exists.. This REALLY slows me down..

Not only that for that matter how about weldolets and other taps instead of drawing tees.. When is that feature going to finally work for Pipe.. ?

I understand Revit and see that its a great DESIGN tool.. and I imagine it must work well for how Architects think about the design process. But as a detail tool for construction I dont get why I am even using it.. AutoCAD MEP has all the catalogs and everything works there and I can work with my model in a real 3d enviroment.. and never have to jmp around to a million sections to actually get anything to work.

3 weeks to do what it takes me 3 days and what I do in MEP looks 10x better... someone tell me this is just learning curve stuff and be honest.. 70% of the stuff the sales guys sold the bosses, has proven to be flat out lies or at minimum loaded with a lot of asterisks.. and foot notes to the sales pitch.

I am at my wits end trying to get a good looking set of drawings out that actually are function and can be built. I am starting to think it would be faster for me to go to the field and build it myself instead of trying to detail with Revit.

[tfullerpipes]

In the meantime, there is SysQue. SysQue does what I've been wanting Revit to do since I started using Revit.

[neightyeight]

It's the learning curve, not (completely) the inability of the software to do what you want. I spent the first few projects just as frustrated as you appear to be. My bosses tasked me with customizing Revit to my heart's content and developing all our content and workflow procedures. I can honestly say that our last project was a huge success. Not just getting documents out the door but coordinating and designing a very complex building. And doing so profitably I should add.

Here's the thing with Revit: It's about a change in design process, not just a change in how to create working documents. It's all about the BIM process. I absolutely understand why architects love this software. When they use it properly (ie. work in an integrative way, link all the models together, don't just turn off stuff they don't want to see like a duct below ceiling, etc. etc.) they have so much more control over the final product - the building. That can really wreak havoc with an engineer's perspective who is much more focused on systems and performance as opposed to building aesthetics (and let's be honest, sometimes construct-ability). The worst thing I've ever seen on our documents is the phrase "drawings are diagrammatic by nature".

But here's the really sweet part. The engineer (or BIM manager - that's me) can use the software to force the architect into making decisions they wouldn't otherwise make, or validating our design decisions rather than always being the fall guy. A few examples: Our design team went into a "live" coordination meeting with our client a few months ago where both our models are on large screens side-by-side and we're actively working through coordination issues. It was a lot of fun to watch the architect shift walls, move ceilings, and otherwise fit our design instead of having to fight tooth and nail for those adjustments. And this from a usually difficult to please client. But when they saw how much we've coordinated our argument for needing those adjustments becomes much more compelling. I saw how Revit, when used properly, does exactly what Autodesk has been preaching - bring people out of their 'silos' and integrated design. Or how about this one: 3 days before 100% CD documents the structural engineer increases the depth of a beam by several inches. Unfortunately the interstitial space affected was already unreasonably shallow forcing us to use a 28x6 duct to get the amount of air needed to maintain LEED requirements. Not that great of a design to begin with but not many options either. With the structural change that duct would have gone down to 4" in height. Really? And you know when that was found in the field and a ceiling has to be lowered which would have absolutely killed the aesthetics for that corridor the mechanical engineer takes the hit for "not coordinating". Because we had a clean interference check a week before the project went out we could quickly see the structural change when I ran the check again. In the end the structural engineer had to fatten the beam to give us the space we needed. How to quantify that? Time required to coordinate the model < time required to fix issues in the field.

You mentioned several issue in not being able to model things the way you want, especially in reference to piping. I ended up spending a significant amount of time creating a complete set of custom fittings that work just the way we want them to. It was tedious, but now we can produce exactly what we want. Now we're seeing a lot of value in that initial investment.

Sorry for the already long post, but I could go on and on. There's so many design assist methodologies and tools I've developed for Revit that projects are fun to work on now. For the new user there is a steep learning curve. More so, for the engineer it takes a lot to figure out how to use the BIM design process to their advantage. Once you get there it works great.

[cdgoin]

In the meantime, there is SysQue. SysQue does what I've been wanting Revit to do since I started using Revit.

Funny you should mention SysQue.. we have it too and why we are going to Revit.. but I cant get it to build the right custom fittings, and seems I have to draw with Revit before the SysQue kicks in.. So far its been as useless as teats on a bull as well.

Speaking of which.. I have a custom duct fitting.. Eccentric on 2 sides.. I try to draw ANYTHING from the one end and it "cant find a solution" and this includes just a striaght piece of duct. Make a piece of duct and try to attach it.. NOPE. try anything and it breaks.. In MEP I would have been literaaly done with this in 2-3 hours.. going on 3 days.. to do 2 duct mains..

[cdgoin]

I think you hit it on the head..

Architects its a great program..

Engineers its a great design tool.. (The whole diagramic thing)

For contractors such as ourselves.. its a hot pile of dung. We have to be accurate within a 1/2" a tolerance not seen by anyone in the design phase.

The program is not setup for that.. as for custom families, thats great an all.. but ductwork by its nature is parametric and not bound to fittings. Like pipe.

Thats one other thing.. why do you have to build custom libraries, and families.. ? No-Hub Pipe, Copper pipe, Standard schedule 40 and 80 weld pipe and most PVC, have used the same standardized fitting sizes and shapes, the contracting side of the house has been building the same thing the same way for years before BIM. So why does a program come with inaccurate fittings and make you build a custom library.. it should be DESIGNED with real world dimensions and fittings from the start..

UGH.. anyway back to working on the same two fittings and duct trunks and getting them to intertwine.

I have two duct runs that have to fit together like a chinese wood puzzle to get through a utility plant.. 3 days working on something in ANY other program would have taken 2-3 hours. I Dont care that you can do a million work arounds to get it to work.. when other programs ALREADY DO WORK.. and ARE AUTODESK PRODUCTS.. so they know how to do it.

[cdgoin]

One other thing the design process..

For Architects.. they start at A and end at Z so the work flow is linear

For Engineers.. they start at A and end at Z so the work flow is linear

So for both it works great..

For Contractors we get Z and have to go through and fix, reengineer things to actually fit.. (That whole tolerance thing) we don't work in a linear fashion. We don't want to redraft the whole project. We want it to work.

OFTEN in a Central Plant, the Revit model is using inaccurate fittings from the engineer and when we go back over it we have to virtually relayout the whole thing to build it. We also ind out selves fitting bound and having to move a lot of things.. So far I have yet to find a work process that works well for Revit. Even SysQue is only so good. We were told it would just "convert" the engineers model and we would only have a small amount of work to do, that was complete BS. First off if the engineer used "custom fittings" SysQue cant convert them. We we have to redraft anyway..

I am just curious if ANY contractors have had any luck with the program.. working from an engineers revit file to finished shop and spool drawings.

If so what was the trick or would you still oprefer to use the older programs..?

[tfullerpipes]

If you are using SysQue for a double offset transition, draw the duct, change size, draw the other duct. Go back after the process has ran and then change your offset to be FOT and FOL or however you need it. This was my first Revit gripe and and my first desire to see how SysQue handles it. So, that's my method for doing it. At least it's not 2" long.

[moliva]

Speaking of which.. I have a custom duct fitting.. Eccentric on 2 sides.. I try to draw ANYTHING from the one end and it "cant find a solution" and this includes just a striaght piece of duct. Make a piece of duct and try to attach it.. NOPE. try anything and it breaks.. In MEP I would have been literaaly done with this in 2-3 hours.. going on 3 days.. to do 2 duct mains..

Totally agree with this and your next couple of statements. I'm working on the same thing and Revit falls all over itself with something that should be EASY. It makes it real discouraging to want to pursue to the degree that neightyeight might be working on when something that simple is a chore.

The coordination models I see from the contractors are very well made for the most part and seemingly done in shorter periods of time. If as engineers we wanted to really be effective and efficient with providing 3D detailed design documents, we should be using the same tools. The sysque looks interesting but can someone help me understand why we need to push having the contractors deliver in Revit when the models they currently produce are much better?

[tfullerpipes]

Is this the desired effect?

[neightyeight]

I can definitely understand where the frustration is coming from as a contractor. Especially, when you were sold on the idea that you wouldn't have to do much re-work to make the engineer's model usable. To have a successful project a BIM Implementation plan is a must. In such a plan the extent of coordination should be clearly stated. And if the engineer doesn't hold up to that document then I would argue that is less of a software problem and more so a problem of quality of work. I've worked in Autodesk products for the last 15 years and am always finding ways to move data from one software package to another without losing what you want. This is never a fool-proof process. So being told that it would just "convert" is almost never the truth. There's always a process involved.

For your ductwork question - the reason it is breaking is because the ductwork is trying to re-introduce the default fitting set in your routing preferences. It's supposed to work that way. A quick solution is to drag the fitting using the connector to the end of the ductwork rather than drawing the ductwork off the end of the fitting. 95% of the time I want Revit to default to the fittings set in my preferences. The remaining 5% of the time I may have to use this other process I just mentioned to get what I want.