All system-ed elements maintain their connection after being demolished

[casquatch]

I created an idea already for this and piping, but forgot that is is not just piping.

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/pipe-duct-demolition-keeps-system-designation-and-stays/id...

All elements should keep the connection to their original system, or somehow maintain the relationship to the original system designation.

Within electrical if you demolish something that element is removed from the panel. If you have multiple phases and show elements on the panels at an early phase, you can't do this. So you have to just work around the phasing for those elements. NOT ideal.

If this was handled a bit differently then we could still use the native Revit systems and the native Revit phasing tools.

If a wall can infil after a door is demolished, I'd think something could be done about the phasing on the MEP side of things.

[MarkK_EEA]

@Martin__Schmid, can we get any update? Anything we can do to push this item along? It really is an impediment to productivity.

[pencilbox]

As it still stands in Revit, moving pipes to a demo phase "breaks' them into individual parts and they loose all connectivity and system info. Later if the design needs to be revised (e.g. less is being demo'd) you need to either redraw or reconnect them all.  All that would be needed is the ability to put in something that would split a pipe and then pick the side of items changing phase.  To put them back you'd only have to change the phase of the selected system back and reconnect one pipe.

[Anonymous]

@Martin__Schmid  Any update.... can we get this on the road map? This is a known issue that needs a resolution.

---

[Anonymous]

Maybe we should comment on this post once a week to get the attention of Autodesk. Do not let the comments gap months as they may interpret that as this is not a pressing issue.  I know it is more related to users getting tired of asking for these issues to be resolved more than anything.

[Anonymous]

In addition, the 91 votes for this item should be weighted with a multiplier of  2 or 3. MEP combined does not out weigh Architecture. 91 votes should be the equivalent of 273 votes. At 91 votes the "gathering support" status should have been changed by now.  

Search the board and you will find very few ideas if any that are MEP specific that are higher than this!

[Anonymous]

Here is the list....

Allow to Schedule Loss method, Loss Method Setting, and specific coefficient   126 votes  (under review)

Allow to draw duct and pipe placeholder in detail view   116 votes (under review)

Offset of Cable Trays and Ducts  116 votes (gathering support)

Revit Fabrication Parts: Changing the Reference for Top and Bottom Elevation 95 votes (gathering support)

All system-ed elements maintain their connection after being demolished  92 votes (gathering support)  

8th page with approx. 140 ideas ahead.  Although this in the top 5  MEP  ideas, @ 5 ideas implemented per year it will take 28 years to get this resolved. That would be only if the ideas board was frozen and no new ideas leaped it.

[aaron.jonesSAP83]

@Martin__Schmid, any update on whether this is going anywhere?  This is still "Gathering Support," but I would say it's already gotten a good bit of support.

[jonathanroy8676]

Because this problem still hasn't been resolved, we still have to use Worksets for phasing, even for multimillion dollar projects!!!!!

Can you believe it! 2018 and we're still not able to use the OOTB phasing properlyf or MEP!

@Martin__Schmid, how many more years until we're taken seriously??? Maybe changing the Revit logo is more fun (and easier to program), but it doesn't help us do better buisness and serve our customers better.

Thanks,

An unsatisfied customer/team/company

[Anonymous]

@Martin__Schmid Please provide an update on this issue.

[bocarlson]

I agree this is an issue the must be fixed.

When using worksets as a work around how do has the phase graphic overrides been dealt with?  When a object to be demo'd in move to a special work set the phasing graphic override will make it appear existing.  Our solution was a demo phase would be the new phase.  The idea works until you have multiple phases of demolition.

It in infuriating to say the least.

[Anonymous]

@Martin__SchmidOur engineers are modelling everything on a separate workset in order to get around this major MEP limitation. This is pathetic and shameful!! You know about the problem and just tell people to vote on the topic...

When promoting Revit, we have to be able to present it as a working product. You MEP product is clearly not working an people are using tedious workarounds that make everyone`s work harder. Can you guys fix this already? This is totally unacceptable and gives Revit a bad name.

Are you going to let this linger for another 5 to 10 years before you decide to listen to your customers?

[jonathanroy8676]

Revit phasing is only controling Architectural and Structural model graphics and we put everything on New Construction phase and manually deal with visibility with Worksets per discipline/per phase.

• Plumbing - Existing
• Plumbing - Phase 1 -Demo
• Plumbing - Phase 1 - New
• Plumbing - Phase 2- Demo
• Plumbing - Phase 2 - New
• etc...

On behalf of our dissatisfied MEP department.

[casquatch]

I have to agree with @Anonymous. This isn't an "Idea" it is a bug, issue, oversight; whatever you want to call it, it makes the software less than intuitive. There are many things half implemented in the MEP world in Revit, and it IS embarrassing.

Just because this isn't a top voted Idea, doesn't mean that it should be ignored. Many ideas in the MEP world don't get a ton of love, but I think that is because the MEP folks are so used to the workarounds they don't even consider that the software could just work correctly for them without jumping through the hoops that they have just learned and basically make it part of the software in their minds. I'm tired of teaching folks how to use the software and then jumping off on tangents to help them jump through the hoops to make something just work.

[Anonymous]

It is a Top 5 MEP idea and needs resolution.
The users that have dealt with this and other issues since the inception of Revit will be in a decision-making position in the near future. I foresee an exodus from Autodesk product. All it will take is 2 or 3 large companies.

[NateBrush]

I think @casquatch is right. This is a bug. I think it is a deeper system issue in the software because of the broad set of odd behaviors associated with phasing. I think a lot of the problem is there needs to be an intermediate step between each model phase. Existing pipes, circuits etc. all connect. In Phase 1, I flag pipes as demo. Those are no longer connected in the existing phase. Logically, existing objects still exist, but existing systems no longer exist.

The software logic needs to reflect object logic over time and system logic over time. First, an existing system. Existing system to be partially removed. Phase 1 new things added to remaining portion of existing system. That middle step is not happening. This could be addressed by fixing phasing (which affects lots of issues across all trades) or by creating logic for sub-systems. If I draw an existing domestic water system and want to remove one fixture, I should have existing domestic water system with sub-system of demolished fixture and branch piping. Then in phase one, the existing system iterates and throws a warning or error that the system is no longer connected.

[aaron.jonesSAP83]

@Anonymous, this issue just came up again in our office.  One of our plumbing designers is working on a phased project (with a phase 1, phase 2, and a completion phase) with temporary piping, and he realized (thankfully early on) that he cannot use Revit's systems for this job at all.  The lack of ability to have temporary systems is forcing us to go through different routes that prevent us from being able to take full advantage of Revit's capabilities.  Has there been any progress on studying whether this can be implemented?

[Anonymous]

You tagged the wrong Martin Schmid.

[aaron.jonesSAP83]

@Martin__Schmid

[Anonymous]

We are running into this same issue over here in my office. We were exploring using a Parameter-based or Workset-based workaround, but ultimately it looks like we are choosing to stick with the ootb phasing mechanism simply because our "existing" elements still retain the "existing" shading when they are demoed, which does not fit our company standards. 

Has anybody found a way to address this particular issue when implementing such a workaround?

[d_smith]

Try to use design options or selection sets instead of work sets. All MEP needs to be on one work set to do complete analysis anyway. So if you have a Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing workset, you may want to look for other methods.