MEP Connector Visibility YES/NO

[ViviNyehuusAndersen]

Please make it possible to add Yes/No parameters to MEP connectors.

Take a radiator as an example, normally this has 6 connections, but we only use the tow of them.

But as it is now, we need to have a family for each connection type but this its still the same radiator, witch is confusing fore the contractor and the quantities.

Please se attached picture.

[tetsuya.hishida]

Hi everyone, I am Tetsuya the Product Owner for MEP Design.

We are conducting a number of interviews to get a better broad understanding of the issues raised throughout this thread. If you are interested in providing your direct feedback and contributing to this research, please submit this brief survey. There are limited spots available. Please submit the survey by the end of the day, March 8, 2022.

https://autodeskfeedback.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_1He7u9Kko0YEk9E

[bwoolmer]

Hi tetsuya,

Thank you for commenting on this thread. Please note that it would be much easier for you to provide a roadmap for changes to be that are being made to MEP design. If there is one already, my apologies, please could you direct me to it.

Attached to this thread is 4 pages of feedback since 2016 detailing very well what the issue is.

Rather than providing a survey to sign us up for a sprint demo of in-progress work, can we instead have confirmation that this issue is being addressed and will be changed.

Many thanks,

BW

[ryan.saluzzi]

@bwoolmer totally agree, this needs to be addressed and confirmation of this fix would go a long way.

[tetsuya.hishida]

Thanks to those who have expressed interest in providing additional detail on the variety of challenges that you hope this request will address. If you have not yet signed up, you still have time. We have extended our deadline to the end of day Thursday, March 10.

@bwoolmer  - The roadmap is available here: https://trello.com/b/ldRXK9Gw/revit-public-roadmap ; note specifically the Systems Engineering column. There are also a variety of improvements from the platform that will make specific MEP workflows easier (There are general improvements which have a lot of value for MEP, for example, the new displace elements in 2D views capability. Which You can use in where MEP elements overlap)

@ryan.saluzzi - We are researching to understand different perspectives in more depth and evaluate how we might address the variety of underlying needs here. There are opinions about having an Active/Inactive" Checkbox or letting the connector follow the host elements even in this thread. This is just one example of diverse thought, and we would rather discuss this under a customer research agreement.

So again, if you have not yet signed up, you still have time. We have extended our deadline to the end of day Thursday, March 10.

[bwoolmer]

Hi Tetsya,

Thank you for your response. With regards to the 2D displacement. I am glad that this is finally being introduced. 

"There are opinions about having an Active/Inactive" Checkbox or letting the connector follow the host elements even in this thread. This is just one example of diverse thought, and we would rather discuss this under a customer research agreement."

This is not a discussion of "active/inactive" this is a discussion of visibility "yes/no". In the same way that you can turn your light sources off in visibility parameters. We are simply asking for a visibility yes/no option on the actual connector so that we can associate this to a parameter dependant on type. I.e Type 1 use element 1 with connector 1. Type 2 use element 2 with connector 2...

I'm not sure what other opinion there is on this. Visibility's are defaulted to "yes" so if they didn't want to use it they don't have to. 

What is a customer research agreement? 

Thanks,

Ben

[NateBrush]

I had never heard of a "customer research agreement" either. I looked it up and the 1st result--and only one on the first page of results-- was the Autodesk Customer Research Agreement.

https://damassets.autodesk.net/content/dam/autodesk/www/corporate/customer-research-agreement/Usabil...

[Nurlan-A.]

The good news, the developers have published this card https://trello.com/c/PhKzX6Mv on their public board.

[bwoolmer]

Hooray!

[bwoolmer]

@Nurlan-A. 

Please could you review the following now since this has also been a long outstanding need. 

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/concatenation-of-parameters-within-families/idc-p/1110380...

[Nurlan-A.]

@bwoolmer I'd love to, but I'm not an Autodesk employee ). My nickname probably misled you, I'll change it.

[nikola.markovic.termovent]

Bump

[GAB.]

Just adding to the hopeful list here. I too make a lot of MEP families that are very similar in geometry but require different connectors. An example is the inline duct fan below.

The body can be rectangular or circular (bodies swapped out with a visibility parameter), but I if I want it to connect to either round or rectangular duct (without ridiculous transitions) I have to add both round and rectangular duct connectors. 

If I add both, there are connectors on top of e/o that are near impossible to sort out by the end user. If I use just rectangular connectors, this situation arises...

I missed the research opp but I'll see yall at AU.

[anna.dunn282X2]

I need this feature badly. 

Example - rectangular break tank with 1 connection on either Front, Back, Left or Right face of the tank. you can hide the little extrusions, but not the pipe connectors

[brandon.l.sharp]

We need this! Please add visibility option to connectors. There is no way to create a clean nested family of roof top unit with different cabinet sizes because the duct connectors need to be on different hosts for each nested cabinet size. The nested family updates, but all duct connectors remain even with the host in-visible. @sasha.grbic @Anonymous 

[azhar.alikoya]

I have an electrical manhole family, which has several conduit connectors. Number of conduit connections will vary according to the condition. Literally i'm  making around 20 types of same manhole family for a small project in order to match the no.of connectors in each condition.

[nikola.markovic.termovent]

BUMP

Its more convenient sometimes to create types or instances.

I don't want to create 2 same families with different number of connectors...

As an example:

22ADP-154 | Duct Sensors (Air) | Sensors / Meters | Belimo Switzerland Official Site

22ADP-154D | Duct Sensors (Air) | Sensors / Meters | Belimo Switzerland Official Site

these are almost identical, the difference is that the first has 1 power and one "duct" connector,

and the second has 2 power connectors and 4 "duct" connectors.

[twellins]

9 years on and no movement on this.....*sigh*

[Uriga]

@twellins Technically not true. Two years ago we had a 2 hour long teams meeting with ADSK to discuss this very forum thread and THEN then did nothing.

[AE_RevoBIM]

I'm late to the party, but have just encountered a need for the ability to turn on and off system connectors. Hopefully we will see this on the radar of their Revit roadmap soon

[vitalij.marcukov2BP2F]

In my opinion, Autodesk needs to reconsider how they choose which ideas to implement. The idea @ViviNyehuusAndersen offered is definitely one of those that must be implemented asap. And I think whoever creates MEP families would agree as well. 

Does anyone know how Autodesk choose which ideas to implement? If they choose judging by the votes count then that's a bad approach. They simply miss thousands and thousands of Revit users.