Best practices for creating MEP Families?

[mdhutchinson]

This article is focused on Architectural. Could someone point out a good article that is MEP focused, and perhaps geared to an MEP Contractor.
https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/revit-products/learn-explore/caas/simplecontent/content/revit...

[Vinayv4v]

Hi,

I hope this helps:

https://www.augi.com/articles/detail/revit-mep-families-simplified

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/revit-products/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2015/EN...

[shaji.george]

Here is an example of a generic model family of fan coil unit connect with air diffusers and chilled water systems.

[mdhutchinson]

How about standard practices involving the following:

• Standard process for developing Families/Project Templates.
• Have a different folder network location for Families/Project Templates In-Developement
• Have a different folder for Tested and Approved content.
• Location for downloaded content.
• Network/User Permissions these folders.

Can I get some thoughts on these?

[RobDraw]

Looks good.

[robert.baillet]

I've been feeling my way through this over the past several years, and one of the best "best practices" I've found is to generally avoid using downloaded families.  It's tempting, especially when your firm is just starting with Revit, but it invariably leads to problems, such as: 

1. The manufacturers will model every nut, bolt, and logo nameplate on their equipment families, which bloats your model.  99% of the time, all an MEP engineer needs is a family that consists of boxes and cylinders.  All of that carefully modeled detail is going to look like a black blob when printed at 1/8" scale.

2. Very often, these downloaded families are made to look good but have little or no parametric control.  They'll use Types to control things like valve size, duct connection size, etc., i.e. things that could be controlled automatically by formula-driven instance parameters.  Now the user is forced to manually select a Type to control sizing, when it could have been automated.

3. The parameters that this mystery family is using will be different from the Shared Parameters that your firm is using in its schedules, and different from any parameters that your View Filters are using to control visibility in the model.  If your MEP firm is serious about scheduling in Revit, this reason alone should be enough to kill the idea of using outside families. 

4. Using downloaded families deprives you of an opportunity to learn how to create effective families.  When you get good at it, it takes about as long as creating a spreadsheet, especially when you're sticking to "boxes and cylinders" and focusing more on the parameters and formulas. 

It's not welcome advice, but the current reality is that every firm needs to develop their own content that works for them.  Each firm needs a "Family Guy" who puts in the time to develop a consistent set of families, and in the process build their family creation skills.  It would have been nice if there had been a set of industry-wide MEP shared parameters that we could all be using, but that ship has sailed.  I started developing my firms Revit Standards 7 years ago and adopting a new Shared Parameter standard would mean re-making hundreds of families and schedules.  (Not gonna happen!)

[robert.baillet]

I'll also add that we've been having success with using our Template as the central location to which "approved content" is loaded.  In this way, our Template acts as a "standards document", with examples of each family placed in the model, and corresponding schedules placed on the Schedule Sheets. 

This ensures that the Approved Content is pre-loaded and ready to go in every new project, and it gives me a "sandbox environment" where I can verify that the schedules and families are working correctly.

I know that a lot of users are fans of the "lean template" strategy, in which few families are pre-loaded in order to cut down on file size, but if your families themselves are "lean" (which mine are, because they mostly consist of simple boxes and cylinders), then having all of them loaded into the template doesn't affect file size that much.  Our Template file is a manageable 55MB with every standard mechanical, plumbing, electrical, and fire protection family loaded.

[kadmonkee]

that is an easy aproach that will prove to be succesfull in the long run.

keep your templates light and have the users go to the library resource to load what they need for a project.

the template should be smart to a point.

each project varies in size and scope so dont ad something in a tempate that will need to be deleted at some point.

define workflows for the users to follow.

try to avoid too many folders (where possible) things get misplaced.

manage permissions through group policy.

these locations are for Custom Company Standards not the OOTB content.

1. project templates, if you work on multiple building types you may create multiple templates 

2.families -with discipline sub folders

              downloaded for review families, when reviewed they get placed in general population for all to use.

3.seed files (Standard Details, schedules)

[robert.baillet]

"try to avoid too many folders (where possible) things get misplaced."

This is why I'm in favor of pre-loading everything into the Template.  As soon as users start browsing for content to load, there's a chance that they're going get it from somewhere other than the intended standard.  They're going to go to old projects, their own local "stash" of content, the internet, etc.  This also takes up their time.  By pre-loading the standard families into the Template, the standard also becomes the path of least resistance.  I also maintain a traditional network library of families, but the plan is for the Template to be the "one stop shop" for standard content.

My firm tends to do the same sort of projects over and over, so this works well for us.  The more we automate and standardize our output, the faster we can complete small projects with equally small fees.  For us, file size and performance haven't been much of a problem.  And if they do become a problem, you can always Purge Unused to bring the file size down.  It's just my two cents, but I think the concern over "Template Bloat" is unwarranted.  Even if my firm had a more diverse range of projects, I probably wouldn't change my approach.

[RobDraw]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I've been feeling my way through this over the past several years, and one of the best "best practices" I've found is to generally avoid using downloaded families.  It's tempting, especially when your firm is just starting with Revit, but it invariably leads to problems, such as: 

1. The manufacturers will model every nut, bolt, and logo nameplate on their equipment families, which bloats your model.  99% of the time, all an MEP engineer needs is a family that consists of boxes and cylinders.  All of that carefully modeled detail is going to look like a black blob when printed at 1/8" scale.

---

It's not like that so much anymore. Manufacturers that aren't just converting their old AutoCAD files to Revit have gotten a LOT less detailed in thier modeling. Some can even generate custom families from their selection software. Some even provide schedules.

So, don't dismiss manufacturers' families because of the older content that wasn't appropriate for Revit. Yes, there may be some work to make them suit your workflow but it is often much less than creating your own from scratch. 

[robert.baillet]

Perhaps.  All of my bad experiences with manufacturer families are from 5+ years ago and I haven't touched them since.  At this point I prefer to make every family we use because I enjoy it, I can make them quickly and I like to keep everything as consistent as possible.

[kadmonkee]

it has been my experience that Template bloat leads to project bloat.

users wont purge out unnecessary things for fear of the unknown (what if ineed it later) I dont know where to find it because it was always given to me.

users will always do what they are comfortable with.

give them everything they do less. (counter productive.) they dont understand a process if it is not explained to them.

training and set up fix some of these issues. 

time is always used as an excuse to not use a direction or a workflow.

it has never been used when a problem occurs. ( I dont have time for this now) in reality you have all the time it takes to fix the issue.

by purging to accomplish a task you tend to remove more than you expected or maybe realize.

try not to get hung up on the project size.

start small and grow the project cleaner and smarter

its good your families are created lean, it helps in the long run.

it is easier to modify less more quickly so start with less and go shopping for what you need as you need it.

create a one stop location for all your resources and point all users to that location.

using multiple files 

Templates

Families

Seed Files (Standard Details, Schedules, Legend Views) etc.

these seed files will be accessed as needed to populate your model when needed. 

lessens the clutter.