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.

[Anonymous]

I wish I could vote for this a million times. This is far and beyond the biggest limitation in Revit for me.

[Anonymous]

@Martin__Schmid This seems like to biggest error to fix in Revit MEP for both mechanical and electrical. Your last reply on this topic was in 2017. It seems like you are not giving any attention to this problem. If you ask any Revit engineer, it seems clear that this is the biggest problem.

Could you be more proactive responsive to these huge problems that your customers are experiencing please? At least tell us that you will look into it. Seeing that you are aware of this and have not participated in this conversation in two years paint a really negative picture of how Autodesk treats the concerns of its customers. It seems like you are not looking to actively fix the product or listening to customers.

[Anonymous]

Please note, it seems like the development team has been aware of this problem since 2011...

''Revit MEP Systems and Phasing are not coordinated enough yet as you both are experiencing. The development team is aware of it but I'm not aware of any public mention of when we might see improvement on this.''

http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?125671-Phasing-in-Revit-without-disconnecting-systems

[Anonymous]

@Anonymous We Feel Your Pain! I can imagine that others in your office are asking you what is the resolution to this issue and you as well as others have persistently asked Autodesk for one but with no avail. 

It is disheartening to be so passionate about our work and the software we use then to be ignored by the company that is supposed to support it. @Martin__Schmid if you are not the one to speak to this, can you please please have someone else address the issue? @anyone.autodesk

[Anonymous]

It would be funny, if it was not so sad.

@Martin__Schmid is the Product Manager for Revit MEP. Without his involvement, this will go nowhere.

[Anonymous]

"It seems like you are not looking to actively fix the product or listening to customers."

I think that it seems like this because this truly is the reality of the situation. Autodesk has a monopoly on the drafting software used in our industry, and they have absolutely no reason to feel compelled to look into actively fixing these sorts of issues or to even listen to us when we bring them up, because we're going to continue to buy and use their software either way. 

Instead of wasting their time and resources verbally addressing these issues that the are not going to fix (and probably can't realistically fix anyways) they choose to put their time and resources towards tasks that will look nicer in bullet-point form when it comes time to promote the next release. 

[Anonymous]

I want to give @Martin__Schmid the benefit of the doubt, but yeah, I think they dropped the ball repeatedly over many years on this one. If someone at Autodesk is paid to listen to customers and implement what they need, they should probably be replaced at this point. Whoever is responsible for this has been whatever the opposite of proactive is.

The only thing that will expose this mess is more comments and votes. If we suffer in silence, you can bet Autodesk will keep doing nothing for many years to come. There are still users that blind themselves into saying this is not a problem: https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-mep-forum/best-practices-for-multiple-phases-of-demolition-with...

If users are quiet, no one will know the pain this problem causes. I'm not seeing an appropriate amount of noise on this, considering how crucial it is to the industry to have MEP models work with phases like every other model does.

[Anonymous]

How many years have we been giving @Martin__Schmid the benefit of the doubt for? And how many years has it been since he's even graced this community with as much as a response, or a public acknowledgement of this issue? How many more years do you have to wait for that next response from him before you revoke that "benefit of the doubt"?

And your second point there I think speaks to the point that I was trying to make: nobody at Autodesk is paid to "listen to customers and implement what they need," at least when what the customers need is for 10+ year problems to be fixed that aren't keeping an entire industry from continuing to purchase their products. It's not us that they care about; we're already giving them our money and we're going to continue giving them their money because we really don't have any other choice so long as this monopoly is able to remain intact. What Autodesk does have is people who are paid to bring in new customers, to bring in fresh cash from pockets that they aren't already pulling from, or to bring in more cash from the pockets they're already in, and unfortunately for us there simply aren't people standing around and waiting to give their cash to Autodesk if they'd just fix this single issue that's been plaguing the Revit MEP program for 10+ years. 

I'm not sure what the magic bullet is in compelling Autodesk to address this issue beyond the extremely unrealistic proposition of simply choosing not to use their software, but I think it's safe to say at this point that giving them the benefit of the doubt on this (and similar issues) or adding it to their list is proving to result in nothing more than gestural placation out of Autodesk up to this point. 

[Anonymous]

Trust me, if I could just call his supervisor and tell him that he is not listening to his customers, I would do it right now!

The job to 'listen to customers and implement what they need,' is the job description of a Product Manager. Hence, I would say that Martin has been doing absolutely nothing proactive on this and that he has been completely aloof of what his customers want. Still, I need to maintain a thin veneer or respect towards him, as I cannot just scream at him, despite my true feelings.

What Autodesk needs right now, is to notice this problem. If we do no make continuous noise, they will be able to ignore the problem. Clearly, they have not noticed it so far, or are actively ignoring it considering Martin has been pinged 10+ times of this and is still ignoring it.

[Anonymous]

Trust me, @Martin__Schmid is most certainly not aloof of what his customers want. 

I suppose I should've qualified my previous statements with this story. I used to work for an Autodesk reseller, and at a past AU (2014 I believe?) myself and a couple other members of my company at the time had the opportunity to sit down and discuss these very issues with whoever was in charge of Revit MEP at that time, which I'm nearly positive was Martin. Throughout this discussion words were not minced in this Autodesk Revit MEP Product Manager explaining to us that Autodesk neither has the interest nor the resources to go back and fix these things. Further, it was also made abundantly clear that while his job definitely did entail aspects of "listening to customers" the higher priority of within his job was simply to make more money, and when "implementing what [the customers] need" was in conflict with making more money and NOT implementing such measures wouldn't interfere with their first priority of making more money they simply did not feel especially compelled to implement such measures. Instead they choose to rely upon third-party solutions to go back and patch these holes. 

One great example of this, and one thing that came up during this meeting, is the MEP Family Library that comes with Revit. They know that it's essentially worthless, is grossly inaccurate and inadequate, they know that we the consumers know that, and they have no plans to ever go back and address it because of the reasons outlined above. 

In conclusion, I'd disagree that what Autodesk needs right now is to notice the problem, because they have noticed it and have been aware of it for 10+ years. What we need from Autodesk is for them to care about it, or at least care about it enough to actually take appreciable action on it. Instead they are indeed actively ignoring it. 

I wish I knew what the answer was, but clearly what we have been doing as a community and as Autodesk consumers simply is not working. 

[Anonymous]

Trust me, @Martin__Schmid is most certainly not aloof of what his customers want. 

I suppose I should've qualified my previous statements with this story. I used to work for an Autodesk reseller, and at a past AU (2014 I believe?) myself and a couple other members of my company at the time had the opportunity to sit down and discuss these very issues with whoever was in charge of Revit MEP at that time, which I'm nearly positive was Martin. Throughout this discussion words were not minced in this Autodesk Revit MEP Product Manager explaining to us that Autodesk neither has the interest nor the resources to go back and fix these things. Further, it was also made abundantly clear that while his job definitely did entail aspects of "listening to customers" the higher priority of within his job was simply to make more money, and when "implementing what [the customers] need" was in conflict with making more money and NOT implementing such measures wouldn't interfere with their first priority of making more money they simply did not feel especially compelled to implement such measures. Instead they choose to rely upon third-party solutions to go back and patch these holes. 

[Anonymous]

One great example of this, and one thing that came up during this meeting, is the MEP Family Library that comes with Revit. They know that it's essentially worthless, is grossly inaccurate and inadequate, they know that we the consumers know that, and they have no plans to ever go back and address it because of the reasons outlined above. 

In conclusion, I'd disagree that what Autodesk needs right now is to notice the problem, because they have noticed it and have been aware of it for 10+ years. What we need from Autodesk is for them to care about it, or at least care about it enough to actually take appreciable action on it. Instead they are indeed actively ignoring it. 

I wish I knew what the answer was, but clearly what we have been doing as a community and as Autodesk consumers simply is not working. 

[Anonymous]

Yikes! Once again, this would be funny it it was not so sad.

[Anonymous]

Agreed. All of this really is the unfortunate result of our industry being victim to a monopoly. 

[Anonymous]

one of the biggest issues with this is differentiating between mechanical piping and plumbing piping.  without systems that we typically use for filtering some other method is required to include/exclude content from demo drawings.

[skylord73]

I'm with you...

Phasing in MEP is a must, if you want to have coordination between MEP and Arch.

[Anonymous]

Just adding my vote that this needs to be included.  Obviously this is causing much frustration for users and the community.  This type of response from a company can be enough to spawn competition!

Autodesk, are you out there!?!

[Salem24]

Currently, when you demolish something it removes it from the system that it belonged to and basically becomes garbage. Once the information is demolished it is hard to move, so you either have to copy it or redraw it to make it part of a system again.  It would be nice if there was a way to keep all the demolished information together as a system so that it can be easily moved or added to or removed from. 

[Anonymous]

When you say "system" are you relating this to MEP elements? If so then I agree, I have heard that demo'ing elements then adding new ones don't work properly....but I'm not MEP so I could be totally wrong and that it is possible.

[Salem24]

Yes, when You are working with say plumbing systems and you need to demolish a pipe you better be certain that is what you want to do because it takes it from that system and turns it into basic garbage. If you try to move demolition any of the piping at all you have a hard time moving it because everything is in pieces. There has to be a better way to show demolition. I have created a demolition system however I cannot connect it to existing or new piping I can only align to it. However, it does allow me to keep the demolition piping together and I can edit it a lot easier.