Anuncios
Welcome to the Revit Ideas Board! Before posting, please read the helpful tips here. Thank you for your Ideas!
cancelar
Mostrando los resultados de 
Mostrar  solo  | Buscar en lugar de 
Quiere decir: 

Revit Mechanical "AttachesTo" Fittings/Accessorie that read the size of the Main

Revit Mechanical "AttachesTo" Fittings/Accessorie that read the size of the Main

What I am suggesting should not be considered within too narrow of a scope. It is actually a large swath of MEP elements that would become possible with this one simple option available.

 

Capture.PNG

In this CADmep fitting, the tap connection point adapts to the size of the pipe that it is coming off of.

I'm fairly certain that Revit does not allow this at draw time with attaches to (or similar) fittings. Those that can read the main size also split it. I've looked far and wide. You can make a manually entered dimension that reads this, but this is a big deviation from the Revit philosophy. We need a way to read the size of the main for fittings like the one above.

 

But like I said, it's not just good for that.

 

Here's something else that could benefit from it

Capture.PNG

 

The new hanger in this image works much the same way. It's attaches to, it does not split the system, and it needs to know the size of the pipe that it came off of. The difference is that it is rotated and is not a junction for branchline.

 

Now I have another element type that would benefit. I will just widen my screenshot

Capture.PNG

 

The connector. If you take a look around at all of the AddIns being developed for Revit and MEP purposes, you will find a common trend when it comes to connectors. They are union element types that split the duct/pipe at specification governed intervals.

 

While that is more familiar to CAD philosophy and and more closely resembles reality, let's consider this: In most cases, all that the MEP trades need connectors in their models for is to determine cut lengths. You could just as easily establish that with elements that attach to the single, long system family in an array. But the system family would maintain that Revit-specific benefit of being flexible and parametric, because it's still one element (with an arrayed family on it) as opposed to several pieces that will throw errors when nullified or otherwise.

 

I've come very close to accomplishing this connector that I describe. Some methods of building the family are a little sketchy, but the only thing truly stone walling the process is the inability to read a main without totally splitting it.

 

The bottom line is that attaching to a system without splitting it and still reading the system size is a common need for us. You wouldn't be doing it as an addition for those "rare instances". It would be used all the time. It would be a core function. Please consider this. Thank you.

 

5 Comentarios
Martin__Schmid
Autodesk

Thanks for the post.  Generally, what you've asked for is already done by nature of us having integrated the Fabrication technology from CADmep into Revit.  Have you tried using the MEP Fabrication parts within Revit?  There is functionality for Hangers, Optimizing segments (inserting couplings as defined by the purchased or fabrication length of duct/pipe), and the logic for Taps takes into consideration the main sizes.

 

I'm curious what you're trying to accomplish if your end goal is not to build/construct real-world elements based on what is in the model (thus, using Fabrication Parts)... and if that is your end goal, what do you find lacking in the Fabrication elements to accomplish what it is you are attempting to do?

 

 

Anonymous
No aplicable

Fabrication parts work well if you're trying to reach "where we were at in CAD", but I'm trying to take advantage of being in Revit and using what it has to offer over older platforms.

 

  • Everything in one application
  • Parameteric relationships and flexibility
  • Total control over geometry and data
  • Integrated into the base program for recipients of transmitted models

 

I have nothing against Fabrication parts and have used them to do what is needed before. But this is about the bigger picture

Martin__Schmid
Autodesk

Thanks for the response, Cyanstudios.. but I'm not sure I understand what it is that you're trying to do...  what is the bigger picture you're after?

 

* Everything in one application - this is a white unicorn.  Autodesk has a huge infrastructure of many products.  Some workflows lend themselves better to desktop authoring (such as Revit), some lend them selves better to Tablet based workflows such as point layout or status tracking, and some lend themselves to collaboration across stakeholders (Glue). 

* Parametric relationships and flexibility - Can you say more about that?  In some cases, Revit historically has been too restrictive in this way... e.g., even if you could build in the flexibility that a sheet metal fitting offers into a Revit family, to get a parametric solid duct fitting or segment in Revit out to CAM, there was various translations and mapping that may or may not match exactly what was in the shop, causing Re-work. for example, the length of a decoiled duct segment is driven (parametrically) by the type of connector (e.g., TDC or S&D), and further, what the tolerances for these are in the specific shop's equipment.   Integration of Fabrication ductwork in to Revit provides a direct path for Sheetmetal modeled in Revit to go to shop production.  Further on the flexibility route, having Pipe fittings that can bend to any angle, as Revit design content is intended to do, doesn't lend itself to real-world catalog items that be procured and prefabricated in the shop.

* Total control over geometry and data - this doesn't really sound like a goal (again, over-flexibility can be a bad thing... e.g., everyone naming parameters differently is certainly not conducive to automation nor rationalization of model data).  What is it that you're not able to accomplish?

* Integrated - what is it that you're trying to do?  A model produced in Revit can be sent to any other Revit user (well, as long as they're on the same version or later <grin>).  There are reasons users don't want all data transmitted (e.g., a contractor doesn't necessarily want all their cost and labor data transmitted to GCs or other Design Firms or indeed other Contractors that they may be collaborating with.)

 

we certainly need to understand the problems you're trying to resolve... the specific examples you've cited in your original post are solved, but I'm sure there are others where reading the main segment's size would be beneficial, so let's bring them to light so we are aware of them.

Anonymous
No aplicable

I appreciate your time Martin. I think you are misunderstanding the stage of development we are at in this process though, and how familiar we are already with the concepts you mention. We are much further along than I think you realize, and even still, knowing what we do, there is absolutely still value in what I suggest.

 

I'm happy that Fabrication Parts exists and all of our struggles with them are directly related to how new it is. But we are all sitting on much untapped potential in Vanilla Revit for MEP purposes and we've managed to coax a lot of that potential out.

 

The ability to read the size of the trunk is actually a fairly basic feature that should not be mutually exclusive to either fab parts of families, but both. You wouldn't suggest that having an offset on Fabrication Parts makes an offset on families useless would you? And if families were missing this capability, you would not say that the issue is solved because fab parts have it, correct?

 

Autodesk has to be careful not to over-promise what Fabrication Parts will bring us in the future. That's understandable, but a result of that is that we too find ourselves avoiding over-promising what it can deliver to our shop and management. I have demonstrated what families can do for us though. My original post outlines the fundamental weak spot in Revit families and RFA files. So that's why I suggest what I do.

 

I can discuss what we are doing in a more detailed fashion through a more direct messaging method if it is important I do that.

Martin__Schmid
Autodesk

Hi Cyanstudios-

 

Thanks for the thoughtful response... the answer is 'it depends'... Thinking with the end in mind (the project needs to be built-and-constructed), generally, a number of decisions about how/why we've went with the fabrication part capabilities is because a lot of problems that may be fundamental were already solved with that technology... vs. building up redundant capabilities on components not originally designed for that purpose. 

 

You can feel free to reach me directly at martin dot schmid * autodesk dot com to elaborate on what you are trying to accomplish specifically.  

 

 

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

Enviar idea  

Autodesk Design & Make Report