Line based Family - Reporting level?
Line-based families don't report the level they're hosted on. You could add a custom parameter to the family called "Host Level" and manually input it. That would show up in a schedule. Still manual, but better than nothing.
Principal
Dynamik Design
www.dynamikdesign.com
Just a suggestion:
Create a simple Generic Model or Specialty Equip. Family ( a rectangular solid which represents the footprint and height of the locker) and use it instead of a line-based family.) Or better yet, use a Family which is very close to the real locker in detail. ( Like having a toe-kick base and a sloped top.)
Then Schedule it; Levels will be indicated in the schedule.
No reason "Not to model it"--in fact, there is a great deal of benefit FROM modeling it -vs- using "lines".
In the really old days, when computer power was a factor, we would actually consider much more carefully what items to "model" and what "not to model", but now with powerful PCs performance is really not as big a concern. Just be careful to keep the families clean (purged) and watch their file size if they will be populated in great quantities on several Levels.
Registered Architect The Lamar Johnson Collaborative Architects-St. Louis, MO
Just my 2 c worth:
In the time it took to create the Line Based Family, you could have created a Specialty Equipment simple "box" family and had the advantage of scheduling. So if the "ideal" idea was to "just use lines"--it was actually not the best solution. This same philosophy applies in many other areas
in BIM.
Add in the time it took trying to resolve the problem, posting on forums, etc. and you can see that using a 3D family of the correct type for the situation is the best route. It takes time, trial and error, and experience to determine which route is best for the specific situation.
Registered Architect The Lamar Johnson Collaborative Architects-St. Louis, MO
Keith,
Sure--it can be done either way--or perhaps with other techniques.
But, just for fun--ask yourself, would we ever use lines for doors? windows? roofs? walls? etc. Seems we happily go about our business using 3D
schedulable items for these categories by default--but then when it comes to lockers, auditorium seating, furniture, etc--for some reason a lot of users
tend to assume that "modelling these items" is not a good idea, and revert to lines or other 2d representations as we might have using blocks in Autocad in the past.
I have seen this happen over and over ever since first adopting Revit many years ago. I find it quite amusing that certain things are "OK" to model,
and others are "Not OK" to model--or, as you explained-- get "modeled later" as if doing it in early phases has a negative impact, but later it's OK.
To each his own!
Registered Architect The Lamar Johnson Collaborative Architects-St. Louis, MO
Keith--
You seem to be resisting and missing the point.
Try to answer this--why is it "OK" to model doors, windows, roofs, plumbing fixtures, etc.--but not lockers?
It literally takes 30 seconds to model a simple rectangular Genric Model Family or Specialty Equipment Family. Draw 4 lines in Plan. Extrude to correct height. Save, Load into Project. Copy/Array. Schedule. Done. Enjoy full benefits of BIM. Elevations are done. Place a camera and you have 3D view showing something other than the "floor plan representation". Cut a Section--and you might discover you need a soffit, or sloped tops on the lockers, and a toe kick, etc. Building it in 3D has these other benefits that a 2D plan representation actually "ignores"--and this will catch up with you at some point--where you will then "model them later". Why wait? Just embrace it early and you will be further down the road much faster.
You have a misperception that modeling something such as a simple locker takes too much time. In fact, as I stated earlier--it is quite the opposite.
The value added is well worth it. Plus, your "newbie" staff may actually learn a new skill building families along the way.
Try to embrace BIM fully, not "partially". You will end up way ahead. Your competitors are already ahead.
Just my advice after 25 years in the business, coming from hand-drawing, to 2D Cadd, to Object-based 3D Cadd, to Revit--and training many users along the way. I'm just trying to help point you in the right direction, based on many trials and tribulations in just these circumstances and in many others along the way.
Registered Architect The Lamar Johnson Collaborative Architects-St. Louis, MO
Keith,
Fair enough.
However, I still think beginning with a simple, 3D Generic Model or Specialty Equip. Family would be the best route, as it is fast, easy to create,
introduces staff to family editing under deadlines, schedules, provides geometry in plan, elevation, section, and 3D.
For a large Dining Hall or Auditorium, we would model the furniture ONCE, then copy/array as required by the layout. So it is not "modeling every single piece of furniture" which sounds time consuming.
For large Hotel projects ( one recent job was 22 stories ) -- we modeled all Guestroom furniture for each Room Type, created Groups, then populated the tower with Groups at each Level.
I just think of Revit families as we once did with blocks in cad. Except families are far superior.
As far as computer performance, with 64 bit machines, lots of RAM, fast processors--the hardware can now keep up with very large models, and many linked files. The key to good performance is keeping the model and families clean--purged, no cad imports/links, resolve warnings, etc.
Registered Architect The Lamar Johnson Collaborative Architects-St. Louis, MO
One additional observation for others reading this thread: a line-based Family is not restricted to having just 2D linework. We have line-based families that are used to quickly add the "massing" of counters and cabinets, with the ease of selecting two points defining the line along which the casework is to be added. These generate both plan, elevation and 3D graphics and are quite handy for quickly adding casework in the early stages before anyone has even thought about actual cabinet sizes and configurations.
Keith is 100% correct in this case.
This mentality of "BIM is all about the 3D" is totally wrong and is something i come up against constantly unfortunately.
Your 3D model is ONE part of BIM but not the most important. Information, Information, Information
A simple detail family is enough to specify this, much quicker, easier and most importantly SMALLER FILE SIZE. The only real benifit of modeling a component such as this in 3D is that it will cast a shadow.
There are certain components that do require and are benificial to model in 3D, as Cliff stated Doors, windows etc, as they are extremely important to the construction of the building.
A 3D locker vs a 2D locker family, if its not my job to specify the locker and there are going to be ALOT fo them, then i will go with the 2D family every time. They both have the EXACT same amount of meta-data applied to them, which is what a BIM project is all about, the INFORMATION! And 300 2D locker families will be much easier on the file size than same amount of 3D lockers.
Senior BIM Coordinator
Scotland, UK
Very generous but I wouldn't say 100% right. 
I think it comes down to the situation and what is required. For example if ceiling height was potentially an issue I might want to know if I can stack my lockers 3 high and still have room to access my ceiling tiles. In this instance a simple box model would be valuable as it would allow for analysis in section and also clash detection if necessary.
At the end of the day you need to make a decision for yourself. It *might* be the wrong decision but you will learn from that and be more informed the next time a similar scenario comes up. In my case, the family is doing everything it needs to with the exception of telling me the level it's on (which I can live without) and this is the main learning point I'm taking away from this exercise.
