Line based Family - Reporting level?

[Keith_Wilkinson]

Quick question.

I have a line based family that depicts kids lockers in a school.  I'm using this to track the total number of lockers which is working fine, but I'd like to know upon which level each block of lockers resides.  Currently in my schedule the Level column remains blank.

Is there something I'm doing wrong when buidling the family or is this just something that a line based family simply won't report.

I have it categorised under Speciality Equipment although I don't think this will make any difference.

Cheers

K.

[rosskirby]

Line-based families don't report the level they're hosted on.  You could add a custom parameter to the family called "Host Level" and manually input it.  That would show up in a schedule.  Still manual, but better than nothing.

[Alfredo_Medina · Accepted solution]

Yes, that kind of family does not report Level. But they do report the Room information. With the room number, you can guess the Level number.

[cbcarch]

Just a suggestion:

Create a simple Generic Model or Specialty Equip. Family ( a rectangular solid which represents the footprint and height of the locker) and use it instead of a line-based family.) Or better yet, use a Family which is very close to the real locker in detail. ( Like having a toe-kick base and a sloped top.)

Then Schedule it; Levels will be indicated in the schedule.

No reason "Not to model it"--in fact, there is a great deal of benefit FROM modeling it -vs- using "lines".

In the really old days, when computer power was a factor, we would actually consider much more carefully what items to "model" and what "not to model", but now with powerful PCs performance is really not as big a concern. Just be careful to keep the families clean (purged) and watch their file size if they will be populated in great quantities on several Levels.

[Keith_Wilkinson]

Thanks for the replies.  It's good to know I've not done anything wrong and that it is a limitation of the family type.

For what we are doing the Line based family is ideal - all that is required is a simple graphic to indicate locker locations and as we were drawing them in it seemed sensible to use a schedule to do a quick tally of overall numbers to make sure we hit the clients requirements.  The Level info would have been useful but far from essential.

Should it become a necessity we would of course go down the modelled route.

[cbcarch]

Just my 2 c worth:

In the time it took to create the Line Based Family, you could have created a Specialty Equipment simple "box" family and had the advantage of scheduling. So if the "ideal" idea was to "just use lines"--it was actually not the best solution. This same philosophy applies in many other areas

in BIM.

Add in the time it took trying to resolve the problem, posting on forums, etc. and you can see that using a 3D family of the correct type for the situation is the best route. It takes time, trial and error, and experience to determine which route is best for the specific situation.

[Keith_Wilkinson]

Hi Clif,

Yes I could have done this and may still do at a later date.  Presently I'm doing some work with families of different types to better understand how and when I can best use them.

I'm not sure I'd completely agree that creating a model based family would have been just as quick as I'd still have had to draw in the linework that was requested to be seen on the plans (which agan could easily have been done).

As it stands my line based family gives me everything I need just now in terms of scheduling with the exception of the level which was wa nice to have rather than a requirement.  Ultimately the lockers will be supplied by a speciality sub contractor so our family will like get swapped out at at later date.  All I need is to see the elements in plan and be able to calculate the total number.

I thnk both approaches, given the circumstances, are equally valid.

[cbcarch]

Keith,

Sure--it can be done either way--or perhaps with other techniques.

But, just for fun--ask yourself, would we ever use lines for doors? windows? roofs? walls? etc. Seems we happily go about our business using 3D

schedulable items for these categories by default--but then when it comes to lockers, auditorium seating, furniture, etc--for some reason a lot of users

tend to assume that "modelling these items" is not a good idea, and revert to lines or other 2d representations as we might have using blocks in Autocad in the past.

I have seen this happen over and over ever since first adopting Revit many years ago. I find it quite amusing that certain things are "OK" to model,

and others are "Not OK" to model--or, as you explained-- get "modeled later" as if doing it in early phases has a negative impact, but later it's OK.

To each his own!

[Keith_Wilkinson]

In this instance it was largely a question of time.

Sometimes what we'd 'like' to do isn't premitted by the timescales available.  I needed a family that a member of staff, fairly new to Revit could use easily and stop them from really thinking in the old CAD mentality and just drawing it as pure linework was how it was going! ;o)

On the subject of computing power, even today we need to be sensible about what we model and the level of detail we go into.  Computer power is certainly much cheaper but it's still an expense and as always the people with the purse strings need conviincing it's money well spent!

I think with any modelled item consideration needs to be given to it's purpose within the project.  Just because we can do everything in 3D doesn't mean we need to.

But as you say, to each his own.

[cbcarch]

Keith--

You seem to be resisting and missing the point.

Try to answer this--why is it "OK" to model doors, windows, roofs, plumbing fixtures, etc.--but not lockers? 

It literally takes 30 seconds to model a simple rectangular Genric Model Family or Specialty Equipment Family. Draw 4 lines in Plan. Extrude to correct height. Save, Load into Project. Copy/Array. Schedule. Done. Enjoy full benefits of BIM. Elevations are done. Place a camera and you have 3D view showing something other than the "floor plan representation". Cut a Section--and you might discover you need a soffit, or sloped tops on the lockers, and a toe kick, etc. Building it in 3D has these other benefits that a 2D plan representation actually "ignores"--and this will catch up with you at some point--where you will then "model them later". Why wait? Just embrace it early and you will be further down the road much faster.

You have a misperception that modeling something such as a simple locker takes too much time. In fact, as I stated earlier--it is quite the opposite.

The value added is well worth it. Plus, your "newbie" staff may actually learn a new skill building families along the way.

Try to embrace BIM fully, not "partially". You will end up way ahead. Your competitors are already ahead.

Just my advice after 25 years in the business, coming from hand-drawing, to 2D Cadd, to Object-based 3D Cadd, to Revit--and training many users along the way. I'm just trying to help point you in the right direction, based on many trials and tribulations in just these circumstances and in many others along the way.

[Keith_Wilkinson]

Clif,

I fully understand what you are saying.  I just don't fully agree that it's a black and white as you are painting it.

The reason I am 'resisting' is because I don't want others to think that there is only one way to do things and the other ways, in certain circumstances, are just as acceptable.

My 'newbie' staff are getting trained and are learning about how to use families.  But at the end of the day when we have drawing issue deadlines to meet sometimes it's necessary to take a line of lesser resistance.

I am FULLY aware of what is involved in modelling a locker and how long it would take me to do it.  I weighed the situation up based on various factors and made a decision based on that.  This is not about embracing BIM fully or partially it about understanding the situation that exists and dealing with it accordingly.

In answer to your question about why model doors windows etc in 3D - well the answer to that is simple, these are items that are built into the fabric of the building and have an impact on construction - I need to see them in elevation and section and I also need them in place for clash detection.  The lockers are a loose item and as I explained already, wont' be specified by us, their inclusion at this stage is purely indicative and to ensure we have sufficient allowed for.  Whether we model them or not at some point in proceedings they will be swapped out for the subcontractors model.

If I have a dining hall for 2000 student are you suggesting I should spend my time modelling every piece of furniture that goes in there given again that it will be specified by someone else and our info is indicative only? 

Another scenario for you - what do you do when you are modelling your families and you don't have fully spec details?  I'd imagine you build it in as much detail as you can and put it in your model.  then when more information becomes available you update the family as required - whether that be more parameters, changes to the form or whatever.  The point being that these things evolve as the project develops.  You don't just go from concept to a fully detailed building.

FWIW I've been embracing digital design since first using AutoCAD back in 1993 - so not quite as long as you but good enough I think to be able to make an informed decision.

To get back to the original question which was if a Line Based family could report level info.  Had I used the line based family and modelled my locker the family still wouldn't have reported which Level it was on so I would still have the same issue.

[cbcarch]

Keith,

Fair enough.

However, I still think beginning with a simple, 3D Generic Model or Specialty Equip. Family would be the best route, as it is fast, easy to create,

introduces staff to family editing under deadlines, schedules, provides geometry in plan, elevation, section, and 3D.

For a large Dining Hall or Auditorium, we would model the furniture ONCE, then copy/array as required by the layout. So it is not "modeling every single piece of furniture" which sounds time consuming.

For large Hotel projects ( one recent job was 22 stories ) -- we modeled all Guestroom furniture for each Room Type, created Groups, then populated the tower with Groups at each Level.

I just think of Revit families as we once did with blocks in cad. Except families are far superior.

As far as computer performance, with 64 bit machines, lots of RAM, fast processors--the hardware can now keep up with very large models, and many linked files. The key to good performance is keeping the model and families clean--purged, no cad imports/links, resolve warnings, etc.

[Keith_Wilkinson]

Clif,

there is no question about the superiority of families.  I would say though it would be helpful if Autodesk took the time to outline the features of each family type - many are self explanitory whilst others, well, not so much.  

With time the guys here will be able to do what is required but people don't become experts overnight, and some have a more natural aptitude than others so learning times vary as I'm sure you know only too well.  Even with the route we've gone down in this instance though the user in question has learnt about using arrays in families, shared parameters and scheduling - all things that are extremely useful in the world of families.

Out of curiousity did you model ALL the furniture - TV, Phone, trouser press etc?  Again we would expect this to come from the fitout guys rather than modelling it ourselves but I guess projects vary in how they are run.  Andy sorry, my inference was wrong - I meant would you place every single piece of furniture in your model, which it seems you do.

the only problem we have with computers still is cost - whilst the 'bang for your buck' has definitely improved greatly there isn't a bottomless pit of cash especially when you have to consider licensing costs as well which Autodesk leverage as much as they can by refusing to offer backwards compatibility - but that's for another day!  Out of curiosity what spec of machines are you guys using in your office (generally)?

[David_W_Koch]

One additional observation for others reading this thread:  a line-based Family is not restricted to having just 2D linework.  We have line-based families that are used to quickly add the "massing" of counters and cabinets, with the ease of selecting two points defining the line along which the casework is to be added.  These generate both plan, elevation and 3D graphics and are quite handy for quickly adding casework in the early stages before anyone has even thought about actual cabinet sizes and configurations.

[Alisder.Brown]

Keith is 100% correct in this case.

This mentality of "BIM is all about the 3D" is totally wrong and is something i come up against constantly unfortunately.

Your 3D model is ONE part of BIM but not the most important. Information, Information, Information

A simple detail family is enough to specify this, much quicker, easier and most importantly SMALLER FILE SIZE. The only real benifit of modeling a component such as this in 3D is that it will cast a shadow. 

There are certain components that do require and are benificial to model in 3D, as Cliff stated Doors, windows etc, as they are extremely important to the construction of the building.

A 3D locker vs a 2D locker family, if its not my job to specify the locker and there are going to be ALOT fo them, then i will go with the 2D family every time. They both have the EXACT same amount of meta-data applied to them, which is what a BIM project is all about, the INFORMATION! And 300 2D locker families will be much easier on the file size than same amount of 3D lockers.

[Keith_Wilkinson]

Very generous but I wouldn't say 100% right. 

I think it comes down to the situation and what is required.  For example if ceiling height was potentially an issue I might want to know if I can stack my lockers 3 high and still have room to access my ceiling tiles.  In this instance a simple box model would be valuable as it would allow for analysis in section and also clash detection if necessary.

At the end of the day you need to make a decision for yourself.  It *might* be the wrong decision but you will learn from that and be more informed the next time a similar scenario comes up.  In my case, the family is doing everything it needs to with the exception of telling me the level it's on (which I can live without) and this is the main learning point I'm taking away from this exercise.

[Keith_Wilkinson]

Thought some might find this useful as an example as much as anything.  I'm not saying these families are perfect by any stretch of the imagination but they do what's needed.

1) 2D only Generic Line Based family

2) 3D Generic Line Based family

3) 3D Metric Speciality Equipment Family

They are built using a nested 'base locker' family (I find this a cleaner approach when working with arrays) 

I still fine the line based families much easier to insert but as pointed out throughout this thread they won't report the level.  The Speciality Equipment one will but the length of run has to be controlled using the required number of lockers.

Feel free to use and abuse as you need.

[priscillia_champagne]

From the room informations, you can also select the option "Room : level" - at least in Revit 2020 🙂

[ToanDN]

.