Ok, this one is very odd. I am an electrical engineer working on a new high school project. Also on this job, there is a technology consultant. We're both using Revit for this job. I need to show electrical rough-in locations on my drawings for the devices laid out by the technology consultant. Months ago when we began discussing the work flow for this process, it was decided that I would simply link in the technology consultant's Revit model. Well this process is working for the most part, but sporadically some of the technology devices don't show up properly. I've attached two image filed. The one called "Tech File" is a screen shot of the technology consultant's Revit model. As you can see there are two voice/data rough-ins shown - one on the north (curved) block wall and one on the west gyp. wall. Both devices are the exact same family at the exact same elevation. Both are properly hosted to the architect's building model. Now see attached "MEP File". This is a screen shot of my Revit model. As you can see, the device on the gyp wall appears as expected, but the one on the north wall only show the "back box" - the associated annotation symbol is gone. This eliminates any visibility issues. Also, if I hover my mouse pointer over the device on the north wall and press the tab key until the device is highlighted, and then select the device by pressing my left mouse key, it shows the elevation of the device as -100'. This behavior is not witnessed with the device on the west wall. Throughout the project this seems to only be happening on curved walls. Any ideas?
Solved! Go to Solution.
What version of Revit are you working in? Assuming it's 2012 or 2013, can you try Copy/Monitoring the devices from the link? What happens?
Copy/Monitor worked to an extent. There are several instance parameters the other consultant uses that controls the device's visability. This, then, requires me to edit each of the copied devices to get them to "look" correct. I was ultimately trying to avoid this.
In the end, I will go with the copy/monitor solution, but this seems to be an odd issue that shouldn't happen. Thanks,
Thanks for the update. This is currently something that the development team is investigating, but Copy/Monitor is the suggested workaround. I'm sorry that process forces you to do some manual steps to make it work.
Please let us know if you have any other questions or if there is anything else we can do to help.