Doors, Door- Openings, Component, Passage Opening-Cased

[payingtoomuch]

I'm not following the logic behind how Revit categorizes Doors, Openings, Cased Openings and such.

My thinking would be (maybe) that any sort of opening that starts at floor height would fall under the category of "Door". That way all openings whether they are doors, cased openings or just a generic full height opening would be accessible from the door dropdown.

As it stands right now (In my library) this is not the case.

The big hiccup for me is that the only cased opening I have available is under the component category. AND even when I load it from the family library, it still places it in the "component" drop down.

I think I can figure out a way to edit the family so that it defaults to the door category but wondering if there is some logic behind being set up this way?

The bigger hiccup is that I don't see any case openings that are hollow metal frames like the doors.

Would like to have a family that is a cased opening with adjustable jamb depth as it relates the the thickness of the "cmu" walls. So, say in a 12" cmu wall you could change jamb depth to 8" so the frame doesn't wrap.

I suppose I could take one of the hm door families and modify the frame for this but I'm not 100% certain how to approach. I can play with it but hoping maybe there is a rvt ootb family that has already done this. Or at least a good door family to start with.

How does everyone approach their different door/ opening/ cased opening categorization?

[GHASEM_ARIYANI · Accepted solution]

Hi! Great question.

Revit uses categories like Doors or Generic Models not just for organizing families, but for controlling how they behave — like showing up in schedules, allowing tagging, and being hosted by walls.

If your cased opening needs to behave like a door (hosted in walls, show up in door schedules), then it should be a Door category family, even if it has no panel.

✅ Quick solution:

• Open an existing door family

• Remove the panel

• Keep the frame and add a Jamb Depth parameter

• Save it as your custom “Cased Opening”

You can also switch the category of any family to "Doors" via Family Category and Parameters.

Let me know if you need help with a sample family!

[payingtoomuch]

Thanks Ghasem for the interest and the link. Your suggestions help a lot actually. A lot of work went into that!

I've been working on this and I'm just about there actually! Progress. Learned a lot editing that family.

So here's a detail I could use some help with....

I don't like the distance from the rough opening to the inside face of the knock down frame and would like to edit this.

But revit doesn't like what I'm doing. I think it might have something to do with the masonry frame requirements which are also a part of the family.

If I try to move the jamb profile I get an error message.

If I try to change the "rough width" I get an error message.

So I looked at the constraints. There is a greyed back blue 3/4" constraint which I think is what might be causing this issue but I can't figure out what it's constrained or how to unconstrain this particular dim so I can potentially change the opening size.

Thought there might also be an opening created in the wall that the frame is sitting in (first time editing a door family to any extent) but not able to select an opening per se and don't know if that's how the opening is created anyway..... so kind of lost at this point.

This is the masonry frame component and it's working properly. Ignore incorrect frame depth because that is adjustable but I think I want that to be an instance parameter.

Another side issue is that I was able to delete all of the door parameter information except for thickness and I don't know what is holding me up there.

Wondering if it might make more sense just to have a masonry frame with "all" instance parameters and a separate drywall frame. Main reason for this is if I can't get the large distance at the jamb to rough opening to go away....

All help appreciated.

[ToanDN]

Check the family and see if the rough opening dimensions have a formula driven by the door opening dimensions. 

[payingtoomuch]

I'm betting this is what you're talking about.

Now I just need to figure out how all that relates back to what I'm stuck on. I can see that it might.

I don't know much about the whole formula thing yet. Maybe it's time to learn....

[payingtoomuch]

got this far. Found the dim for the rough width has the label that also shows up in the family types editor. Looks like I can just edit the formula in the editor. What I'm not following is where the "MF Opening" is defined. I mean I get that that is probably the masonry frame opening but I don't see that dimensioned anywhere specifically.

If I can get this sorted out then am I going to need to setup a separate rough width with it's own distinct formula to differentiate the clearances that show up on the masonry opening vs the knock down opening?

If that's the case then I'm back to whether or not it makes more sense to just have separate families for the masonry vs knock down openings.

[payingtoomuch]

I note that there is also a masking region at the jame between the frame and the rough opening that is constrained. Not sure what the function of this is but guessing it has something to do with trying to have both knock down and masonry openings combined in one family. Anybody know the purpose?

[SteveKStafford]

The underlying reason for doors and openings being assigned to different categories, thus an opening not being among the available doors to place with the door command, is that an opening in a wall is not a door, what most people regard as a door, whether in this profession or not. Also, many firms do not want to include openings in their door schedule.

The door command also does not recognize a curtain wall door because a panel must be exchanged for a curtain wall door panel family and doing that does not fit within the scope of the door tool's code. They did however configure schedules to recognize a curtain wall door panel as a door because most firms do want to include such doors in a door schedule.

I have encountered some people and firms that do include openings with doors (schedules) and it is necessary to reconfigure their content to permit that.

[payingtoomuch]

Steve- Ok. Thanks for your insight. Cased openings vs openings are where the big rub is for me. I think I want my cased openings with my doors. And I definitely think I don't want any door, or opening, or window entities in the "component" category. Does that make sense?

[SteveKStafford]

If you want cased openings included in a door schedule then your cased opening families should be assigned to the door category in the family editor. You could build out your door families with nested panels and include a <none> panel that has nothing in it. This way any of your door families could potentially be a cased opening using the same frame assembly as a door...just no panel installed. For openings that are cased with finish millwork that would likely require a different family approach (still door category) but the millwork frame wouldn't necessary be the same as for other door openings.

There is no Component category...what did you mean by that?

If you don't want openings that are not cased to stay out of door schedules then those opening families should belong to the Generic Model category and an Opening Schedule would be filtered to make sure it only includes Generic Model families whose Family Name or Type Name include the word "Opening".

[GHASEM_ARIYANI]

In Revit, certain built-in parameters are tied to specific categories, and they are often referred to as "hard constraints" or non-editable system parameters.

These parameters cannot be deleted or modified, and there's a good reason for that:
They are deeply integrated into Revit's core functionality, especially in areas like scheduling, tagging, filtering, and project-wide automation.

For example, parameters like Width, Height, Rough Width, or Fire Rating in the Door category are used by default in door schedules, tags, and quantity takeoffs — which is why Revit locks them to ensure consistency and data reliability.

If you need custom control, you can always create shared or project parameters, but the built-in ones will remain part of the family structure.

[Sleepingfish_Kuo]

Whenever possible, lock all parameters (that need to be constrained) to reference planes, and then align the geometry to those reference planes. Also, the wall's interior and exterior faces can be treated as reference planes, but be cautious—if the wall is too thick or too thin, it may result in negative dimensions.