Electrical Conduit WISHLIST

[Anonymous]

We need (not just want) electrical conduit.

It needs to be not part of the piping/plumbing system. No workarounds, no 'just draw piping and "make" it show on the electrical plan.

It needs to physically connect to panelboards, main distribution panels, large motor starters, motor control centers, transformers, run above ceilings, on the site in manholes and hand holes, up above ceiling and through fire rated walls, incoming/underground with conduit sleeves, to generators, up through floors from electrical room to electrical room above, from communications room to communications room, connecting to junction boxes and pull boxes at every 270 degrees (3 turns).

EMT, (Electrical Metallic Tubing), IMC (Intermediate Metal Conduit), RMC Rigid Metal Conduit. LB Fittings (or connectors?), Conduits run underfloor from in-floor receptacle boxes, to name a few. How on earth can we expect to do an enlarged electrical substation room and NOT show the main building feeders? This is a major electrical item to exclude, especially for interference detection.

Just how does interference detection work properly if we are faking in plumbing runs and making them show? I think this item should be at the top of the MEP list electrically.

[Anonymous]

AMEN.. Don't get me started if you can creat a pipe creat some electrical conduit how hard can it be like the OP listed EMT, RMS, Rigid Non-Metallic, Etc. these are all common conduit types the code book even list the types conduit fill in tables and this stuff is stuff that does not ever change, all you would have to do is some kind of internal look-up table for cross references I would assume the 3 turn rule is more of a degree you cannot exceed 360 degrees before you need a pull box not necessarly three turns you could have multiple 30 or 60 degree turns and not be 360 degrees but be more than three turns, as for fittings pick up an appleton catalog, or even a crouse hinds LB's, LL's are pretty standart fittings, I know Autodesk is not in the business of making content and is probally banking on the manufacturers creating this for them but you have to start somewhere you cannot just release a software program with little to no content. or can you?

[RedMan77]

Couldnt have stated it better and agree more. Very nicely put.

[Anonymous]

I am pretty sure it is anything more than 270 degrees. But I digress...

[embolisim]

Just adding my vote.

[RedMan77]

I personally will scream if I hear one more Architect who was convinced by a Autodesk/reseller to force MEP into a "Revit-only" project. Especially when that Autodesk rep/reseller knows of the glarring deficiencies of Revit MEP in regards to the utter abscence of conduit. I agree with the first, this isnt some luxary but a sincere need. And if we really want too start using the word "BIM" in its truest sense, include conduit.

[Anonymous]

Con-du-it, Con-du-it, Con-du-it, It would also be nice if you could know what wire is in the conduit. Maybe you could in one view show the conduit and in another view you could show it as arc wire. So that way you can draw it once and get them both done at the same time. Well i think there is many possibilities with conduit and if Autodesk really wants the "E" in Revit MEP to take off they are going to have to add this to the mix.

[dennis]

Maybe 2011, but not 2010

[Anonymous]

Bummer...

[dennis]

We on the dealer end are very much aware of this and have been right there with you on the WishList boards and requests to Autodesk. In my particular case, when I present RMEP, I am very long winded on pointing out the benefits as well as the deficiencies. So please keep in mind that we on the dealer side are (should be anyway) on your side. Honestly speaking, we want the product robust so that we can sell it and not spend time in apology mode.

[RedMan77]

Not sure you read the entire post before writting. I understand your point and stand behind every word posted. I said what I said having been on that side of the aisle before (where you sit). There has been very little done since the first version, at least on the Electrical side. Watch several of the webcasts on the Arch side of Autodesk where they speak of BIM projects and how they should get the subs (MEP) to start leveraging BIM princaples throught Revit, even though there is little there to do that. I have heard the responses from Architects "our reseller says this", "our reseller says that" and it is often not entirely correct. If you are representing the MEP side (which was part of the resellers I wasnt talking about in the post), then I am sure you are being far more truthful as to its deficiencies. Now I understand that conduit will not be included in 2010, which is very disappointing but I guess it will one day. If customer demand is truly the factor that determines what features are included then you have to assume that something like conduit would already have been included.

[Anonymous]

Along the lines of Autodesk ignoring electrical, I think you guys may find this amusing. I asked the question to Autodesk if one could modify the conduit in (MEP 2009) the content editor to put in conduit with a physical OD value but still list as a standard pipe. Through some back in fourth emails here is their response...

"Thank you for using Autodesk Product Support. Your case about having a nominal diameter and a outside diameter on conduit has now been assigned to me.

Our conduit has been a feature of AutoCAD MEP since the first few versions and has not had an update since. Our pipes have since then, passed up conduits in evolution. Our conduits do not have the capability to have nominal diameter at this time. There is just diameter. To modify conduit to have a nominal diameter would require an overhaul by our development team.

There is an existing wish request to make conduit have a nominal diameter and to also make the conduit fittings have more realistic radius of curvature. It has been a common wish request and so it stands a strong chance of being implemented down the road.

So we looked up the existing wish request and linked your case to the list of cases attached to the wish. The wish request is now in the hands of the development team, for consideration in a future release. So the next step will be to close this support request. We want to make sure you are comfortable with what we have accomplished.

If there is more we may do for you, please reopen this request at any time simply by replying to this email. Our goal is to provide a satisfactory resolution. Following the closure of this support request you may receive a 5 question survey, asking for feedback about the quality of support provided.

Please let me know how I have performed..."

And we all know how well the wishlist has been working out for us...... Edited by: sthorensen on Apr 3, 2009 9:24 PM

[RedMan77]

Typical, Oh so typical.

[Anonymous]

" It has been a common wish request and so it stands a strong chance of being implemented down the road. "

I think you were answered by a politician, not an engineer.

[asommer]

We have to be careful, here. I would love conduit as everyone else here, but it still needs to be optional. If I have a large project, I don't want to have to conduit-up every single fixture, just the large feeders. We could have many hundreds of fixtures on our future revit projects (not to mention receptacles, switches, and low voltage items) and could be "required" to route everything by the revit. OPTIONAL conduit is what I need. I think the electrical connectors could be modified easily to accommodate a physical conduit connection.

After speaking to some of our electrical engineers, What I want is the capability to run a conduit from a panel into the area served, terminate the physical conduit at a J-box, and have just the wire symbology wiring up to the J-box. If I have that flexibility, it would be more functional for us.