Duct Transition

[norcaljess]

How would one go about building this transition, (see attached) in Revit, or is there already one like this out there?

[tim.winnington]

You could take the existing square to round and add an additional extension.

[norcaljess]

Right.  How would I do that?  I don't even know where to start.  I have "Reviteer's Block".

[RandMan]

I think we all spend too much time over-modeling this stuff.  That is typically work we never get paid-for.  I threw together what you need in a few minutes.  You could make a custom blend if you want, but this looks decent in plan-view.  The most important thing here:  I built this as an Air Terminal.  You posted a photo of an "End-Boot".  Yes, technically, that is a square-to-round transition (duct fitting), but this one goes at the end of a duct run.  As far as revit is concerned, a duct fitting is an element that joins two or more connecting-elements (it has an "IN" and an "OUT" connector).  A Revit Air Terminal needs just one connector.

[Sandleaz]

I think we all spend too much time over-modeling this stuff. 

There's no such thing as over-modeling.  You're always going to be less accurate than the real thing.

That is typically work we never get paid-for.

What exactly do you get paid for? If you want to have a certain duct fitting, you should put it in.

[norcaljess]

I understand that "most" Revit users may not be using it for exact detailing, modeling, etc.  A lot of us are using it for construction documents.  I was doing this at my last place of employment.  However, where I'm at now, we are using Revit to its FULLEST capacity, detailing as much as we possibly can.  And we are constructing buildings from our model.  Therefore, as was stated, I can't really model too much and actually, I do get paid to model in detail.  There are just some tricks in Revit that I haven't quite figured out.  Building families that look good and have several different shapes in them is one of those tricks that I need to understand a little better.

Thanks,
Jess

[Sandleaz]

I understand that "most" Revit users may not be using it for exact detailing, modeling, etc.  A lot of us are using it for construction documents.  I was doing this at my last place of employment.  However, where I'm at now, we are using Revit to its FULLEST capacity, detailing as much as we possibly can.  And we are constructing buildings from our model.  Therefore, as was stated, I can't really model too much and actually, I do get paid to model in detail.  There are just some tricks in Revit that I haven't quite figured out.  Building families that look good and have several different shapes in them is one of those tricks that I need to understand a little better.

You might have misinterpretted what I said --- which is that your revit family, no matter how accurate and detailed it is, will not be as accurate as the real thing.  Therefore, you're never over-modelling because it's less accurate than the real thing.  How much detail you put into the revit family is usually up to you (or it might be whatever the client wants).  I do agree, families that look good and are accurate (sometimes not both at the same time ... looking good is always more important ) you are more confident in rather than creating some generic boxes that just have overall dimensions and noone can figure out what they are.  We're all probably paid to model to some level of  detail because it's part of our job. 

[norcaljess]

I wasn't responding to you, Sandleaz , as much as I was agreeing with you and offering (for others) more of an explanation as to why I needed to model with accuracy.  Not all of us are using Revit to create CD's, as I'm sure you are well aware.

Thanks,
Jess