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?
> )