Create Similar

[jfjacques]

Can anyone explain why the create similar function does not reprise all the instance parameters of a wall? 

I am using it to duplicate a wall, the base grade is right but the top grade is wrong and not indicated as a selection in the tool's ribbon either. 

Is this just a an omission by this terrible software or am I missing something? 

[syman2000]

Normally Revit takes the current level and attach it to closest level to the current level. This is why when you have intermediate floor between Level 1 & 2, the create similar will always constraint to the intermediate level. Often I would set unconnected height and then create similar. This will respect the previous wall setting. I agree Revit should fix the create similar which match the level constraint from another wall.

[RobDraw]

---

@jfjacques wrote:

Is this just a an omission by this terrible software or am I missing something? 

---

Yes.

[martijn_pater]

No idea, perhaps you are looking for match (MA) function?

[RobDraw]

The command is called "Create Similar". It's just like creating an instance in what it does. Yes, it is confusing when you've got instance parameters set and the new element has the defaults. Even the assigned workset does not get copied. It goes to the current one, just like when you create an instance.

[jfjacques]

Well I guess they should fix it.  "Fix" being the operative word here. 99% of cases would benefit from instance parameters being copied.  The point of the tool is to save time, best achieved by copying type and instance parameters. Even worst, in the case of a wall, some parameters are copied over and others aren't. It's not about the "defaults", which in this case is a moving target that we have to puzzle out of Revit.    I don't buy that this tool was really meant to operate this way. @syman2000  's answer hits the nail on the head - it's incomplete.  I also don't buy it because there is no tool that simply allows me to select a wall and keep drawing with it, without adjusting instance or type parameters. This is supposed to be that basic tool present in every other piece of 3d modelling software, instead it decides to be  Revit tool. 

[martijn_pater]

ah now I understand what you meant, yes that's a bit of a shame really. I'd say instance parameters are a similarity anyway. Usually I just copy the wall/element and reposition it, but if you have to do a whole bunch that's not really the best workflow ofcourse.

[jfjacques]

Yes that's what I end up doing as well all the time.  It's crazy. This is the most basic tool you can imagine and Rob tries to pass its omission off as "user error". 

[RobDraw]

---

@jfjacques wrote:

This is the most basic tool you can imagine and Rob tries to pass its omission off as "user error". 

---

I never said anything about "user error". If that's the way you interpret my statements, that's on you but I won't disagree with that interpretation if it helps you understand the tool.

I was just saying that it isn't designed to copy instance parameters. If you can show me some documentation that proves create similar is supposed to copy instance parameters, I'll eat my hat. 

Until then, good luck!

[justin.e.kyle]

I think the issue at heart here is that we would like Revit to work seamlessly and for the program to be able to adapt to a natural workflow. Revit, is stubbornly not that program. Yes, it would make sense that if you use Create Similar, that you as the user are telling the program:

"I want a copy of this window, at the same sill height, on the same level, just in this wall over here"

With Create Similar, Revit responds: "Great, you can have the same window, but we will mount it on a level and a sill height so that you can't actually see what you are making because we are using instance values for that window that will change arbitrarily depending on which way the wind is blowing"

In the end, it is best to be broken by the program and to just use Copy/Paste. You will just need to memorize a series of inconsistent rules on what things can be copied and pasted and to where. 

[RobDraw]

Either that or maybe this really is about knowing which tool to use for the job at hand. When I want a copy of something I almost always use a copy command in some fashion. I see the create similar in the way that it works. Maybe it's because I had good training or it's just that experience has taught me how to use it. I think of it as a shortcut to the command that creates a new element of the same type. I don't have to hit the button on the ribbon and possibly select the desired type.

Or maybe you need a third type of parameter, something between instance and type. It could be called a similar parameter and the programmers can add that as another option for family parameters for that region between instance and type.

On a side note, I'm having a hard time getting my head around the fact that even after you were told how it has always worked as designed, you are still trying to say that it's supposed to do something else. It's like saying, "Oh, this screw driver won't drive nails. It seems to me that it should."

[Karol_Piroska]

because they can't be bothered to improve or fix certain tools unless you post it to ideas and get zillions of likes, such as the create similar tool. Just try to change a structural wall  from bearing to structural combined or shear wall. And then try to use the create similar tool. No, you will not get a structural wall. You will get an architectural wall - in my opinion not similar at all.

[RobDraw]

---

@Karol_Piroska wrote:

they can't be bothered to improve or fix certain tools unless you post it to ideas and get zillions of likes,

---

Even that doesn't mean an idea will be implemented. 

And then there is the actual definition of similar, which some of you have conveniently ignored. Please note that identical and exact copy are not mentioned.

[martijn_pater]

I suppose you could say all your replies have a similar connotation, although they have become more convinced of their own right. Point is, certain similarities would make sense to copy using this functionality, ie. when you draw a wall with 'depth' set, now if you use create similar on a wall with an unconnected height of 3m suddenly the wall you're drawing goes down 3m to its respected level? Just not exactly what you expect to happen. It is about a user experience that is apparently not in line with intuïtive use and Autodesk should not ignore this type of feedback which you can provide here btw:

https://www.autodesk.com/company/contact-us/product-feedback and/or https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/idb-p/302

note: you can use Match (MA) function aswell to match certain settings...

[Karol_Piroska]

@RobDraw 

a structural wall is not similar to architectural wall. That is like to say all cars are similar. 

Using the create similar tool in structural plan for walls other than bearing will result in these walls not being visible as they become non-structural walls. Does it makes sense that the create similar tool would create a structral wall out of structural wall? yes, it does. If you say no, you must be an architect ha

[RobDraw]

I'm not an architect and I don't do walls but I do use the tool for many other things. You all are using walls (system families) that might be an exception to what the tool should be doing but I'm not so sure that you aren't expecting too much. All this speculation saying that the tool does not work as designed and is incomplete because of this unexpected behavior is over the top.

Instead of playing the blame game, why aren't you looking for a solution that works? Crying about it here and demanding a change is like giving up and this guy that wants Revit to read our minds is way over the top and kind of invalidates any argument that the tool does not function properly.

[justin.e.kyle]

The Match Type Properties tool will only pick up Type properties, not instance properties. So you make a window, set it at a sill height, change it materials. Oh, and now you want this other pre-existing window to look exactly the same. It would be nice if you could say "Make this exactly like that." The problem is that some of the properties are fixed (Type Properties) and others are variable (Instance).

Now, if you have been broken by Revit and think it its unique "logic" and have also memorized the patchwork quilt of exceptions and contradictions, then and only then will you be prepared for issues like this. The problem is that you are not thinking like Revit. To be fair, Revit does sign post this with the tool being labeled "Match TYPE Properties". I think there would be slightly less confusion if the Create Similar tool was labeled "Create Similar TYPE"

It would be lovely if Revit acquiesced and had a sister tool for Create Similar and Match Properties that also picked up the Instance data. Unluckily that is not the case, and probably won't ever be given the track record of how the program has developed. So, you can choose to use a different software, or become broken by Revit. 

[martijn_pater]

---

@Karol_Piroska wrote:

If you say no, you must be an architect ha

---

I don't see the logic in some sort of general deduction based on ones profession... @RobDraw lowering expectations is key ^^ very much enjoy your retorts (always) ^^ @justin.e.kyle Renaming the tool to reflect what it actually does might be an elegant simple solution, or perhaps preferably a checkbox to include those instance parameters or not. Unfortunately focus for development tends to move to 'big' features that are marketable but not nescessarily useful...

[justin.e.kyle]

@martijn_pater No joke about Revit focusing development on new features vs making the program work better. I am still waiting on the day we can make new fill patterns without editing a cryptic .pat file OR through a series of workarounds and additional programs (CAD). Why oh why is this still the method of making patterns? The answer to that question is: "Because that is the way it has been"

[martijn_pater]

@justin.e.kyleit's just my personal opinion on some things, in no way a general truth. Developments are often meant to drive innovation I think, but you're right the thing with innovations is that it's not (nescessarily) the same as improvements.