Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
Adding the Revit model category Material Handling Equipment (MHE)
Material handling equipment is prob 80-90% of all the families in our facilities and we have hundreds. I can think a many other very large companies that would utilize this categorization.
I typically see this equipment listed under Entourage, such as tractor trailers. I know MHE typically means forklifts and other smaller equipment inside the building but that's the category our archs have decided to use.
We really just need to be able to make our own categories and customize how they work in the model (can they be cut, do they show above the plan cut plane, etc). Revit has way too many things that are locked in place and can't be added to, removed, or modified.
Yes ideally you could create you own categories but then again don't we have a similar problem already between consultants with everyone creating their own parameters? No standardising of what is actually required.
If everyone creates their own categories you will just end up with AutoCad layers.
I'm also thinking more along the lines of how many more tick boxes do I really want to ignore in the visibility graphics dialogue?
There is the IFC class system which is more granular and standardised so I think systems such as that should be better integrated into Revit functionality in terms of filtering and isolating in view by that etc. rather than having to set up visibility filters using ifc parameters etc. The Revit category system was initially created based on ideologies such as a Wall not having the same functionality as a Floor etc. (building component function based). I think in the end we need things that act in a similar way in Revit grouped and then to classify those things with IFC etc. It is kind of strange though we have these industry systems but they are not really integrated into Revit beyond just being the value in a parameter.
If we had an alternative to VG that was tailored to IFC in parallel to the existing Revit category VG then I doubt a lot of these debates would occur. In the end whoever you send your model to needs to understand the language of your model and you don't get that via creating your own system in isolation.
All the different categories have different hard-coded features (like an ies file for light fixtures). It would be a huge mess if new categories wouldn't be centrally controlled by Autodesk. You also have to create tag, schedules for that category.
You could create a sub-category for entourage and control visibility that way. but really, those fork lifts etc. aren't really part of the building. they are more filler for context, like placing people. So Revit won't focus too much of making those more perfect.
I realize the categories are hard coded, this is what I am requesting to be added, an additional category. Revit categories were updated with last years release to our surprise not including MHE. IFC supports this categorization and although I agree with you, there are a lot of checkboxes under VG, there are also a lot of different building types and Revit serves a large audience. I am aware of 3 very large consultants that have decided not to go with Revit due to their lack of acknowledgement for Material Handling Equipment (not forklifts).
All material handling equipment in our facilities are all permanent structures, belts that move packages, chutes from one floor to another. Industrial facilities that deal with packages, supply chain, 80-90% of permanent structures are MHE. Since Autodesk doesn't really acknowledge this type of building component, we have to use the railing tool to design these items in Revit.
It is very simple, evolve with the times and cater to a huge customer base and just add the category. Amazon, UPS, FedEX, are all chalked full of MHE lines, is Autodesk trying to exclude these customers from using their product with any kind of integration? I would go so far as to say there should be a Family type (line based) for MHE.
It has always seemed a bit strange that we classify things after the fact rather than having families with these kind of things predefined. Obviously you can have the parameter set in the family to start with but there is no UI functionality for dealing with what IFC class it is in Revit e.g. isolating, finding things by IFC etc.
If we just say add one category at a time based on someone's opinion as to what the important categories are then we just end up replicating parts of IFC anyway. I don't mention the other classification systems because I think IFC is more tailored to how software such as Revit works i.e. the classes have a system of inheritance.
I don't know enough about IFC other than it is a standard and used throughout the industry. I will have to learn more about it as I am not familiar. I am all about Revit following whatever standard IFC has established. Whatever it is, it just needs to be consistent. I will educate myself more on IFC.
Yes but IFC also isn't perfect anyway, IfcConveyorSegment is actually part of the so called IfcPortsAndWaterwaysDomain. So it seems they had a request perhaps from that sector where they load items onto and off of ships and have therefore placed it there rather than putting it under a more generalised area e.g. Industrial. This is what tends to happen with standards though, they grow in the way people demand of them then other people look at them in isolation and think differently about it.
People probably think of IFC as an exchange format but technically it is a specification for an exchange format. As such I think it needs better integration with Revit so that people can visually understand more about what they are exporting (before they export it).
There is another area that could be improved in terms of IFC integration with Revit and that is how the property sets are extracted from parameters but that is probably a separate idea.