Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
Allows to rotate the cable trays in a horizontal section, so we can place horizontal cable trays with the bottom facing a wall. Placing channel cable trays upside down is also desirable, I have seen some constructions using this positioning, mainly for small size ones.
We have customers that require all their tray installed vertically. We currently have a separate model that is rotated to accomplish this.... Being able to run tray vertical would save us hundreds of hours.
Of course. But in talking about the design stage and still I don't like to place one by one fabrication parts. When we'll have a tracement similar to cadmep then I'll start to think about that. For now I think we have to develop better what we have for the design stage including the possibility to have bacs and trunking family system instead of use duct for this.
As of now, Revit has been amazing when it comes to laying out a cable tray path. The only problem that we come into is when we are retrofitting a plant, or dealing with tight spaces.
Revit offers no easy solution to running cable tray pieces horizontally along the wall (meaning that as you face the wall, the rungs of the ladder-style cable tray would be running vertically). After doing a work around, we got a section of tray to run along the wall, but any alterations to it will flip it so that the cable tray is now facing upwards, rather than facing into the interior of the building. I am trying to add a left-side reducer to the tray pictured below, and Revit is incapable of adding it horizontally.
How is this not even possible? Its a basic function that has been completely overlooked. Its about time that software companies allow the designer to put equipment were they like and not where the software wants to put it.
Its only a small function but it is so frustrating as a designer when the software lets you down and you have to explain to the client why your design looks wrong!!!!! ITS EMBARRISING
Hi @cesare.caoduro-- have you played around with the cable tray, bus bars, or trunking in the 2018 release, where you no longer have to place them one-by-one? I'd be interested to see your objective assessment of their ability to meet (or not) your modeling needs.
Folks - Unfortunately, as mentioned in this thread, cable trays are coded in such a way that the 'top' is enforced to be 'up'.
However, the content that comes with the fabrication elements do not have this restriction. Here's a quick demo of doing what you are asking for, possible since Revit 2016, and as of 2018, includes the ability to route.
The main objection we have regarding the fabrication elements is that you need CADmep, ESTmep, or CAMduct to build/manage the associated content. That's one reason why on the Revit Roadmap, you see 'Fabrication Database Management via Forge' to enable alternative ways that this content to be built and managed... however, for the time being, CADmep is included as part of the AEC Collection, where you can manage/modify the content.
Yes, I understand that these are different... the trade off is to continue to wait a non-determinant amount of time for this fundamental assumption in Revit regarding the 'up vector' to be resolved for Cable Tray, or use these trays today from Fabrication, which is possible now.
I'd be interested to hear more from those that have tried out these fabrication tray objects to understand how we could improve them from the perspective of a design / engineering user.
Hi Martin, This is a common complaint from my electrical colleagues. We could, I agree, employ fabrication parts in this scenario. However, as consultants working during early design stages we haven't implemented fabrication parts. You promote ITM content as being for 'detailing mech, elec and plumbing systems to LOD 400 specification'? In particular we wouldn't want to implement it for duct and pipe systems due to the lack of design capability. So do we partially implement fabrication parts to plug some gaps in the generic provision? That becomes a bit confusing for our users? Personally, I'd rather see the generic content improved.
Please finally add the ability to model cable tray so the opening can be in any direction. This is a big problem for MEP modellers and one that has been ignored for years by Autodesk. The current advice is to model using Fabrication parts however they do not currently contain Cable Trays, are less user friendly and don't allow for the full level of customisation that the standard Cable Tray tool does. This issue has been around for a long time and resolving it is overdue.
You probably won't have to wait very long for somebody from Autodesk to come along and be amazed that anybody would want to mount tray sideways, on a wall, like some kind of deviant.
I guess they have never heard of dado trunking that is always installed with the open face pointing into the room...
You have now twice suggested 'use fabrication parts'
Please stop suggesting this, as you clearly have little experience in using the tool your company makes.
Using fabrication parts during design, design coordination, redesign for construction, construction coordination is not workable and is far too much effort for the returns.
The Revit engine can be tricked (at unnecessary pains) to display tray as required. It would make the tool much more tenable to be able to model tray 'as commonly constructed'.
As this has been requested for 10 years, is it safe to assume that Autodesk are not interested in fixing commonly reported issues?
Fabrication Parts now have a Route & Fill function that makes them behave like 'normal' Tray so don't be so quick to discount them. I think Fab Parts are the way Autodesk are wanting us to go, I think they would be great with a few tweaks to the way they work when in 3D. It's not like 'normal' Tray is any good. Also, that's really rude...
A couple of things I would like to see from the Fab Parts:
1. Hangers are not wide enough for the ladder to fit between the drop rods, the rods clash with the sides of the ladder
2. Hangers don't seem to come in width increments so they are all sorts of sizes when we would wan to buy them at a fixed number of sizes with an identical increment between each size, say 50mm or 100mm to reduce the number of different types required
3. Fab parts tagging is awful, I can't tag the width parameter and the Tags can only be used when they are aligned running parallel with the Part, I want them to be at 90 degrees to the Part like a normal tag would be on a Landscape piece of paper
4. Where is Conduit? I don't mean the USA style with big square boxes instead of UK style round conduit boxes
5. When I change the height upwards for one length of basket in Section the whole lot it is connected to moves up as well, this is a constant source of intense frustration as it messes up whole floors of content at a time. This needs to be changed for 'standard' tray and fab parts and should NEVER happen.
6. It would be nice if we could interact with the edge of fab parts, at the moment I can only dim to the centre and corners of ladders for example. Snapping and Aligning similarly don't work at edges.
@scott_dakin2 I agree, it is pretty rude. Rebutting my comments with "use this new tool, except where is doesn't work"? 1, 2, 3,4 & 6 are all pretty much deal breakers, and 5 sound pretty much Revit as usual.
It is also particularly rude that autodesk expect us to swallow the next "latest and greatest" tool, when we know from experience that it won't be ready, and will be superseded by the next tool before it works properly.
And if you are so dismissive of 10 years worth of waiting for a tool to be 'fixed' good luck with getting any useful changes to the tool you are asking to be improved.
I would like to thank you for reviewing the fabrication parts tool though, you have saved me a lot of heartache.
