Announcements
Welcome to the Revit Ideas Board! Before posting, please read the helpful tips here. Thank you for your Ideas!
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Eliminate ROOMS and use SPACES

Eliminate ROOMS and use SPACES

Spaces could replace rooms

 

Some categories are still lingering in rooms:

  • DOORS
  • ???

Should be easy enough to build tables of DOORS VS. SPACES.

 

Since Revit is back to one flavor, doors (and other components) could be associated with SPACES allowing for KEY schedules to specify occupancies, heat loads, people counts, and everything managed though spaces.

 

Combine this with shared parameters in key schedules and we can leverage data in really big ways!

 

ps- dump the north/south/east/west text fields for finishes... We'd rather use material parameters for primary, secondary and tertiary colors for finishes! : )

Thnx!

8 Comments
filipefrancisco
Collaborator

Excellent Ideia

sburca
Advocate

And... why not eliminate spaces and keep rooms? From the architectural perspective, this option makes more sense to us.

WM_Ron_Allen
Collaborator

@sburca There are parameters associated with Spaced for HVAC and loading not present in rooms.

 

Eliminating ONE of these largely redundant categories would prove beneficial in unifying the data... whether we add the HVAC parameters to rooms and eliminate spaces, or eliminate rooms and make spaces door-aware these should be unified : )

 

And the 'material' text boxes are useless- especially when we use schemas typically consisting of primary and accent colors associated with the space - these would be better handled with Material parameters... having the capacity to use shared parameters in key schedules would be the trifecta!

 

WM_Ron_Allen
Collaborator

Or at least allow DOORS and WINDOWS to associate with Areas and spaces!

casquatch
Collaborator

I actually disagree with this, BUT I don't disagree that there are issues concerning Rooms and Spaces. The two different tools were created for different reasons / groups of people. Rooms for Architects and Spaces for the MEP folks. To me, all the folks supporting this Idea post (that I'm commenting on right now) are on the architecture side of things.

 

The main issue is that they are still heavily connected and they should not be. MEP will use an arch's rooms for tagging the names / numbers, that might be about it. Otherwise, they want to use spaces to calculate things much differently than what an architect might have rooms setup to be. In order to tag the rooms from the link, it's Room Bounding option must be turned on, which means everything room bounding also becomes "Space" bounding. Which causes issues. I've had an Idea post to split this up and make them each more useful on their own.

 

Check it out, maybe I can sway you all 😉 

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/divide-the-links-between-spaces-and-rooms/idi-p/7220154 

WM_Ron_Allen
Collaborator

@casquatch Connected how? 

 

Rooms are still accessible "under" the areas - the proposal 5 years ago lol : )  Now we have key schedules associated with share parameters which knocks that part out.

 

They could eliminate areas, rooms and spaces if they could manage calculations rules per view, and group rooms into areas; easily done via added parameter for summations over zones. Rooms by and large overlap so much with spaces with the exception of the zone or larger areas and all the MAP parameters associated with volumes and loads.

 

Or is there some part of spaces I am missing?

casquatch
Collaborator

Main connection is that Room bounding elements and Room Separators are = to Space Separators. So if someone in the MEP file linked in an arch model and it was set to Room Bounding (which is normal operating procedure and necessary to tag rooms) then wanted to lay out their spaces differently than architecture folks did, they will have issues. Lets say architecture has an open office layout, but they split things up within it to show an "area" for reception, open office, etc., etc. As far as MEP is concerned for their spaces, it's all one open space, so it shouldn't be split up. They have no way of doing this.

 

Maybe it isn't a split or a combine, but an overhaul for both sides that solves all the issues. I guess I don't care, but using them as they are now is obviously problematic for all folks using Rooms and/or Spaces.

WM_Ron_Allen
Collaborator

@casquatch  https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/divide-the-links-between-spaces-and-rooms/idi-p/7220154  is a good idea as well. 

 

I hope to find a way so that we are all using the exact same data with minor adaptations in a myriad of ways in lieu of the overlaps we deal with now.

-- Update from message--

@casquatch  - what if those rooms could be associated together? Or are there instances where spaces need to be split in the middle of an enclosure?(Which could be separate rooms with room separation lines)

 

 

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Submit Idea  

Rail Community


Autodesk Design & Make Report