Best to host to levels or reference planes?

[SATX]

I am brand new to Revit MEP.  I am trying to set up templates so I can blow and go once I start a project.

I would like to host air devices to a plane set at the ceiling level rather than offset them from the floor.  That way, I can easily move the air devices up or down if necessary. 

For the 1st floor, should I create extra level and call it "1st Floor Ceiling", or should I create reference plane?  When placing an air device, if I am on Level 1 the default seems to be for the air device to be hosted to Level 1 with an offset of 0, and it wants me to specify an offset.  There is a field with a drop down box that allows me to specify the level that I am hosted to.  It looks like I would be able to create extra levels and have them appear in this dropdown.  I tried creating reference planes, but they do not appear in this dropdown.  Is there a way to get them to appear?

Assuming that I can get the reference planes to appear in the dropdown, would that be the preferred option compared to creating extra levels?

I also want to host duct and fan powered boxes in a similar fashion, but instead of at the ceiling plane I want to offset them above the ceiling.  Would I want to offset the duct above the plane established as the ceiling, or would I want to create another level for the duct?  If I hosted duct to the ceiling level with an offset, then I would be able to move air devices and ductwork up and down together.

[CoreyDaun]

Hi SATX, I hope this helps...

---

SATX wrote:

"I am brand new to Revit MEP.  I am trying to set up templates so I can blow and go once I start a project."

---

 Since you are just starting off with Revit, can I ask how much training have you had thus far? It's difficult (as I'm sure you're aware) to just dive into Revit. Are you working with other Revit Models? If so, are you familiar with Copy/Monitor? One of the vital colaborative steps is to Copy/Monitor the Levels from the Linked Model.

---

SATX wrote:

"I would like to host air devices to a plane set at the ceiling level rather than offset them from the floor.  That way, I can easily move the air devices up or down if necessary."

---

If you wish to host elements to a Reference Plane:

1. The Family(ies) must be "Work Plane-Based". if you open the Family for editing, go to 'Family Category and Parameters' located on the Create tab of the Ribbon. Toward the bottom of the dialog, you will see this check-box option. make sure that it's checked.

2. In the Project, create a Reference Plane in an Elevation or Section View. Select it and enter a value for "Name" under Properties, such as "1st Floor Ceiling". This will let you quickly locate and select it from a list.

3. While placing an instance of this Family, select "Place on Work Place" from the 'Placement' section of the Ribbon. Then, on the Options Bar (just below the Ribbon), use the 'Placement Plane:" pull-down to select the previously created Reference Plane.

---

SATX wrote:

"For the 1st floor, should I create extra level and call it "1st Floor Ceiling", or should I create reference plane?  When placing an air device, if I am on Level 1 the default seems to be for the air device to be hosted to Level 1 with an offset of 0, and it wants me to specify an offset.  There is a field with a drop down box that allows me to specify the level that I am hosted to.  It looks like I would be able to create extra levels and have them appear in this dropdown.  I tried creating reference planes, but they do not appear in this dropdown.  Is there a way to get them to appear?"

---

Here, we host Air Terminals to a named Reference Plane following the previously mentioned steps. Creating a dedicated Level for the ceiling could work as well, but there are pros and cons. On the plus side, you'll be able to move the Duct by moving this Level; System Families like Duct and Pipe cannot be hosted to a Reference Plane and must be based on a Level. On the negative side, you'll have an extra Level that may get in the way when you're creating Views and adjusting View Ranges, which isn't a big deal. I can't give you a definite "best answer" because it does hinge on your specific workflow.

---

SATX wrote:

Assuming that I can get the reference planes to appear in the dropdown, would that be the preferred option compared to creating extra levels?"

---

You will not be able to get Reference Planes to show up in the pull-down for 'Reference Level' under Properties. System families must be associated with a Level.

---

SATX wrote:

"I also want to host duct and fan powered boxes in a similar fashion, but instead of at the ceiling plane I want to offset them above the ceiling.  Would I want to offset the duct above the plane established as the ceiling, or would I want to create another level for the duct?  If I hosted duct to the ceiling level with an offset, then I would be able to move air devices and ductwork up and down together."

---

If the equipment is going to be based off of the same ceiling level, then you should use the same Reference Plane (or Level) to host them both. As I mentioned previously, Ducts must be associated with a Level, not a Reference Plane. However, they can be Constrained to the Reference Plane so they stay at a fixed distance from it. If you'd like to know more about Constraints, check out WikiHelp.

If you've any questions, don't hesitate to ask!

[SATX]

I took an online tutorial for Revit MEP.  I think this was better than the typical three day live course.  There was quite a bit of content, and since it was online I could review to my heart's content.  I also bought two books from Paul Aubin for Revit Architecture and Revit MEP.

I would love for all architects to use Revit, but I expect to work with architects who are still using AutoCad.  I will be linking 2D Cad files, but doing my mechanical work in Revit.  Although I am familiar with copy/monitor, I won't be doing it if I am linking a CAD background.

If you have any advice for someone doing Revit MEP with AutoCad backgrounds then that would be great.

I will play around with your instructions and let you know how it goes.

Thank you.

Jeff

[SATX]

And another thing.  I am a P.E. who has never done AutoCad.  I just went straight to Revit.

[CoreyDaun]

---

SATX wrote:

"I would love for all architects to use Revit, but I expect to work with architects who are still using AutoCad.  I will be linking 2D Cad files, but doing my mechanical work in Revit.  Although I am familiar with copy/monitor, I won't be doing it if I am linking a CAD background.

If you have any advice for someone doing Revit MEP with AutoCad backgrounds then that would be great."

---

Many of the benefits of modeling the MEP in Revit are nullified without an architectural model as a companion. Do you see any benefit in taking the time to model your MEP project accurately in 3D? Are you only concerned about the final drawings in a 2D perspective?

---

SATX wrote:

"And another thing.  I am a P.E. who has never done AutoCad.  I just went straight to Revit."

---

There are those who would see that as an advantage. Most that come from an AutoCAD background try to find common ground and it ends up causing more confusion. Revit and AutoCAD are completely different programs, regardless of the fact that they both belong to the same company.

[SATX]

I was told by a friend that I would learn Revit faster since I never learned AutoCad.  I don't know if that is true or not, but so far I like Revit pretty well.  I used to watch Cad techs draw ductwork one line at a time and it didn't look fun.

I hear what you are saying about losing some of the benefits of 3D modelling, but I can still "draw" (even though it isn't really drawing) my stuff a lot faster in Revit than Autocad.  The architects using 2D Cad files don't care as much about the coordination.  For these type of projects, I could put my air diffusers on the floor or 100 feet from the floor and it wouldn't matter.  What matters to me is that I can set up templates with my preferences, link a background, and put my mechanical stuff in quickly and plot good looking drawings.

It is all a matter of how long it will take to prep the backgrounds as to how well this works out.

[CoreyDaun]

If you're essentially just "drafting" in Revit, perhaps you should just create a Level for each Floor (not bothering with Ref Planes), and the place your elements with an 8' or so offset value. Well, I guess the best workflow if a matter of preference, really - try different methods and use whatever you find works best for your needs.

Also, when 2D AutoCAD files are linked into a Revit Model, they are associated with a Level so that parts easy. Keep in mind that there may be times that you may have to "clean up" an AutoCAD drawing before you're able to import it into Revit. For instance, if the architect has a bunch of random objects way off to the side of the building that they're fiddling with, it might exceed Revit 'overall distance' limits.

[SATX]

Can you give me a procedure for setting up AutoCad backgrounds?

Can I link architectural elevations into Revit elevation views?

I don't know if it is overkill, but I was thinking about setting up templates for one story, two story, three story, and more buidings.  Each template would have the number of floor levels, and a roof level.  I would set up a level for the ceiling for each floor.  I would adjust the offsets of each level when I find out what the floor to floor distances and ceiling heights are.  There might be some areas that have different ceiling levels than the majority of the floor, but this would be a good start.  If I am on Level 1, when I put an air device in, I would select Level 1 Ceiling in the drop down menu.  I would do the same with duct and piping.  That way, if the ceiling changes I can just move the ceiling level and the air devices, duct, and piping will all move together.  I guess if I am working with a 2D Cad background it really doesn't matter if my floor to floor heights are set correctly or not, but when I work with an architect who is using Revit the same templates would apply.

How could it hurt me to use levels for the ceilings?  I can't really see a downside to it.

What do you do for a living?  Are you with Autodesk?

[CoreyDaun]

---

SATX wrote:

"Can you give me a procedure for setting up AutoCad backgrounds?"

---

There's too much diversity for me to be able to give you a single, standard procedure. If you're going to be working for multiple clients, each of the will have their own standards that you may have to deal with in different ways. For instance, AutoCAD is not limited to 2D design - in fact the AutoCAD verticals (AutoCAD Architecture, AutoCAD MEP) are fully capable of BIM design (as is my understanding).

Your procedures will like differ if dealing with a 3D AutoCAD plan. I would suggest using the AutoCAD backgrounds for a multi-story floor plan as a test. You can first create a Revit Project and then create the Template based on that Project. (i.e. SaveAs > Template).

---

SATX wrote:

"Can I link architectural elevations into Revit elevation views?"

---

*Edited* Yes, you can link the 2D drawings into an Elevation View. There's a little bit of adjustment you'll have to make to align it to the proper wall or face, though.

---

SATX wrote:

"I don't know if it is overkill, but I was thinking about setting up templates for one story, two story, three story, and more buildings.  Each template would have the number of floor levels, and a roof level.  I would set up a level for the ceiling for each floor.  I would adjust the offsets of each level when I find out what the floor to floor distances and ceiling heights are.  There might be some areas that have different ceiling levels than the majority of the floor, but this would be a good start.  If I am on Level 1, when I put an air device in, I would select Level 1 Ceiling in the drop down menu.  I would do the same with duct and piping.  That way, if the ceiling changes I can just move the ceiling level and the air devices, duct, and piping will all move together.  I guess if I am working with a 2D Cad background it really doesn't matter if my floor to floor heights are set correctly or not, but when I work with an architect who is using Revit the same templates would apply."

---

You wouldn't need to create a template for every size building. Create more Levels than you need and you can simple delete them if not needed, and then correct the elevation of the Roof Level. It's really up to you to find the method/workflow that you prefer. Use an old AutoCAD project as a test for Revit.

---

SATX wrote:

How could it hurt me to use levels for the ceilings?  I can't really see a downside to it."

---

I don't think it can hurt unless you have others working with you that don't grasp the proper workflow, or something to that extent. It should work, and should you run into problems: hey! You've learned something!

---

SATX wrote:

"What do you do for a living?  Are you with Autodesk?"

---

I work at a small MEP firm of ~20 engineers, and here, I'm the one who pioneered us into Revit. I learned Revit with no aid, but I wish I has known about these forums when I started! Anyhow, I now use these forums as a means of training. It's an incredible resource to have an endless amount of real-world challenges to conquer and learn new techniques and tricks.

I'm not with Autodesk, but they did grant me the Expert Elite status. There a page explaining what that means somewhere on their website.