Autodesk Revit Architecture

[#1]

Is there a good reason why you cannot *only* schedule the Generic Model
Category in RVT 2010?
(not sure if this has been fixed in 2011?)

The way I see it,
the only way to Schedule Generic Model objects is to create a Multi-Category
Schedule,
and then hopefully you have a nifty way to filter that Schedule down to only
the items that you need.

Is this purposeful? or an oversight?

[#2]

Not sure, but in general I try to avoid creating anything that is left
categorized as a "Generic Model". Even if I have to use a Generic Model
template to get the family to behave the way I want, I always categorize it
as something explicit right off the bat. Leaving it as a Generic Model to me
is comparable to drawing on the layer zero in AutoCAD, except worse, because
the only way to "fix" it is to edit the family again.

What kind of object is it that you've created as a Generic Model that you
want to schedule? Perhaps you can categorize it as something else - if
necessary putting it on a subcategory.

"caLayton" wrote in message
news:6382298@discussion.autodesk.com...
> Is there a good reason why you cannot *only* schedule the Generic Model
> Category in RVT 2010?
> (not sure if this has been fixed in 2011?)
>
> The way I see it,
> the only way to Schedule Generic Model objects is to create a
> Multi-Category
> Schedule,
> and then hopefully you have a nifty way to filter that Schedule down to
> only
> the items that you need.
>
> Is this purposeful? or an oversight?

[#3]

"Matt Dillon" wrote in message
news:6382332@discussion.autodesk.com...
> What kind of object is it that you've created as a Generic Model that you
> want to schedule?

actually, Matt,
the item is question wouldn't normally be scheduled (except maybe for
costing?);
I just happened to decide to schedule it to error check a Family I'm making
that
includes a single instance of a nested Family or an Array of that Family
(thanks to the no single instance array rule in RVT)

I was getting an error message about identical instances on top of
eachother,
and wanted to verify that the not Visible single instance (coincident with
Visible Array instance #1...)
wouldn't really schedule, even though RVT warned that it would.
(It doesn't)

[#4]

"Matt Dillon" wrote in message
news:6382332@discussion.autodesk.com...
> Not sure, but in general I try to avoid creating anything that is left
> categorized as a "Generic Model". Even if I have to use a Generic Model
> template to get the family to behave the way I want, I always categorize
> it
> as something explicit right off the bat. Leaving it as a Generic Model to
> me
> is comparable to drawing on the layer zero in AutoCAD, except worse,
> because
> the only way to "fix" it is to edit the family again.

and not to pick a fight,
but these kind of flip, non-answers regarding perceived "holes" in in the
software,
are what really turn-off new or potential users seriously looking at RVT,
FYI.

Just don’t use Generic Models?
Is that really how to solve the issue?
If "Generic Models" Category is useless, why include it in the software at
all?

But please don’t take offense, though, Matt?
I really value your help.
I don’t mean to single-out your post, in particular.
It's just that occasionally, these oddities arise, and for some reason
moreso with RVT Users than any other software I use or have used;
the issues are willfully avoided rather than discussed/tackled.
I've never understood why?
(maybe I didn’t get the proper dosage of Kool-Aid with my installation dics?
)

[#5]

On 4/28/2010 5:18 PM, caLayton wrote:
> (maybe I didn’t get the proper dosage of Kool-Aid with my installation dics?
> )

You have to request that separately through Subscription Center,
otherwise they don't ship it to you.

--
Brian Winterscheidt
LWPB Architecture
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

[#6]

It wasn't meant to be a flip non-answer.

In my opinion, the generic model templates are there to provide a workaround
when the standard template won't work.

For example, Let's say I want to model a door handle to be used as a nested
family in a door family. I certainly don't want to use the default Door.rft
template, because then it will want to be hosted by a wall.

So instead, I use the Generic Model - Face Based.rft template so that it can
be hosted by the door panel itself, but I don't want it categorized as a
Generic Model, so I categorize it as a Door, and then define a "Hardware"
subcategory to put it on.



"caLayton" wrote in message
news:6382382@discussion.autodesk.com...
> "Matt Dillon" wrote in message
> news:6382332@discussion.autodesk.com...
>> Not sure, but in general I try to avoid creating anything that is left
>> categorized as a "Generic Model". Even if I have to use a Generic Model
>> template to get the family to behave the way I want, I always categorize
>> it
>> as something explicit right off the bat. Leaving it as a Generic Model to
>> me
>> is comparable to drawing on the layer zero in AutoCAD, except worse,
>> because
>> the only way to "fix" it is to edit the family again.
>
> and not to pick a fight,
> but these kind of flip, non-answers regarding perceived "holes" in in the
> software,
> are what really turn-off new or potential users seriously looking at RVT,
> FYI.
>
> Just don’t use Generic Models?
> Is that really how to solve the issue?
> If "Generic Models" Category is useless, why include it in the software at
> all?
>
> But please don’t take offense, though, Matt?
> I really value your help.
> I don’t mean to single-out your post, in particular.
> It's just that occasionally, these oddities arise, and for some reason
> moreso with RVT Users than any other software I use or have used;
> the issues are willfully avoided rather than discussed/tackled.
> I've never understood why?
> (maybe I didn’t get the proper dosage of Kool-Aid with my installation
> dics?
> )

[#7]

BTW - if I wanted to give you a flip-non answer, it would have been more
along the lines of

"That's the way it is, STFU and deal with it."

But I didn't do that, did I? :-)

"caLayton" wrote in message
news:6382382@discussion.autodesk.com...
> "Matt Dillon" wrote in message
> news:6382332@discussion.autodesk.com...
>> Not sure, but in general I try to avoid creating anything that is left
>> categorized as a "Generic Model". Even if I have to use a Generic Model
>> template to get the family to behave the way I want, I always categorize
>> it
>> as something explicit right off the bat. Leaving it as a Generic Model to
>> me
>> is comparable to drawing on the layer zero in AutoCAD, except worse,
>> because
>> the only way to "fix" it is to edit the family again.
>
> and not to pick a fight,
> but these kind of flip, non-answers regarding perceived "holes" in in the
> software,
> are what really turn-off new or potential users seriously looking at RVT,
> FYI.
>
> Just don’t use Generic Models?
> Is that really how to solve the issue?
> If "Generic Models" Category is useless, why include it in the software at
> all?
>
> But please don’t take offense, though, Matt?
> I really value your help.
> I don’t mean to single-out your post, in particular.
> It's just that occasionally, these oddities arise, and for some reason
> moreso with RVT Users than any other software I use or have used;
> the issues are willfully avoided rather than discussed/tackled.
> I've never understood why?
> (maybe I didn’t get the proper dosage of Kool-Aid with my installation
> dics?
> )

[#8]

Dear All,

You can schedule Generic Model Category.

See attached image for more details.

Hope this help.

Parveen Sharma
Eigen Technical Services (P) Ltd.

[#9]

"parveensharma2130" wrote in message news:6382587@discussion.autodesk.com...
> You can schedule Generic Model Category.

Material Takeoff, yes.
Schedule/Quantities, no.

[#10]

"Matt Dillon" wrote in message
news:6382410@discussion.autodesk.com...
> But I didn't do that, did I? :-)

no.

thank you for not saying that. :-)