best practices for multiple phases of demolition with MEP objects

[dtiemeyer]

I knew that when you set the 'Phase Demolished' of an object it would disconnect every element along the chain of ducts/pipes. But I was surprised that if, say, you have 4 phases, and you set a duct to be demolished in Phase 4, that it will become disconnected in Phases 1-3 as well. That's kind of a huge flaw, because those ducts could still need to be manipulated in Phases 1-3.

How does everyone deal with this?

I'd like to avoid some convoluted 'Filters' solution, and use the Phasing technology native to Revit, but there are serious drawbacks. Just wondering how others have approached this issue.

Thanks!

Dustin

[d.henk]

Hello

I get your problem, however I do understand it too that it needs to be disconnected when demolished. Technically it is one model, phasing is just another filter showing and hiding elements through time, and if one end isn't disconnected then it also cannot be connected to something else later on.

I only used the demolish option with renovation projects, so elements from the very first phase were getting demolished, and that the original system related properties weren't there anymore were also not an issue. If phase 3 is also an important part from a system point of view then I would make one model up until phase 3, and would start the next phase in a new model where phase 1 is the merging of everything up until 3 from the previous one. May raise a few eyebrows, and I know those 3 phases have to be completely ready/closed and remain untouched after begining the next phase, but right now I would do it like that in the given situation

Hope it helps

[jonathanroy8676]

@dtiemeyer Unfortunately, years later and the problem is still there and this type of flaw is still probably regarded as a "wishlist" item and not a programming flaw! We're still working on workarounds like Demolition Worksets, Duplicate Models for Demo, etc... When ever we have phasing, and we seem to be the only two firms to use them, we're still stuck with theses problems! Still hoping... 

@Martin__Schmid is there a secret to this workflow that your departement has developped over the years to solve this problem? What do others do with this? 

@patrick.emin Avez vous des solutions de votre côté pour les phasages qui ont de la démolition?

Thanks,

Jonathan

[Martin__Schmid]

@jonathanroy8676 - this was implemented as it is intentionally, as at the time of development, the decision was made that if elements are being demolished, they shouldn't be part of the system from an analytical standpoint... and since all the system characteristics feed the analytics, there was no way separate that from something being in a system only for visibility control.  there's nothing we've done since to significantly change this behavior, so the work around to visibility control suggested by others is, unfortunately, the state of the art.

There are a couple of wish list threads to contribute to and vote on..  I believe this is the main/consolidated one. I'd invite you and others to add any additional thoughts/comments you'd ave around how we should deal with flow and pressure drop tabulations as elements are added/demolished at different stages/phases.

Thanks!

[jonathanroy8676]

@Martin__Schmid This might have been intentional and worked fine with Revit Architecture and Structure that came out before MEP.  Since there are are no intelligent connectors which transmit engineering data, but the logic no longer applies to any MEP system. This was even brought up during AU 2015 EP meeting. No solutions mentionned anywhere by Autodesk even addresses the classic phasing problems encountered with demolition , just like @dtiemeyer problem, in the past years. Workarounds shouldn't be permanent solutions!

"the decision was made that if elements are being demolished, they shouldn't be part of the system from an analytical standpoint... and since all the system characteristics feed the analytics, there was no way separate that from something being in a system only for visibility control."

I probably don't understand the full extent of the programming restrictions but the programming should take the Phasing into consideration. If it's demolished it Phase 4 it shouldn't be disconnected from Phase 1-3. WE NEED IT TO WORK THIS WAY!!!! 

[RobDraw]

In other words, "Thank you very much for the detailed response. I will go ahead and make my voice be heard in the appropriate forum."

[Anonymous]

@Martin__SchmidAs the Revit MEP product manager, you should be ashamed of this response.

[RobDraw]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

As the Revit MEP product manager, you should be ashamed of this response.

---

There is no shame in stating facts.

[Anonymous]

The fact is the software is flawed , the product manager knows about and no actions are being taken.

[RobDraw]

 there was no statement of the product being flawed. In fact, it works as designed and he explained why what you want won't work.

[Anonymous]

He explained that the workarounds are still 'state of the art'.

Using worksets and view filters for phasing is not a an acceptable workflow nor nor should it be considered 'best practice' and it makes collaboration a giant pain.

[RobDraw]

I'm sorry that Revit doesn't work the way that you think it should. That doesn't mean it is flawed or gives you the right to belittle people when they state facts.

[Anonymous]

Tell that to the people who suffer from this major bug. There`s not much of a need for Revit apologists around here.

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/all-system-ed-elements-maintain-their-connection-after-be...

[RobDraw]

Really? You came here bashing an AutoDesk employee for offering an explanation as to why what you want won't work. I guess you can't handle the facts.

BTW, that idea you linked doesn't have much support, does it? I guess there are a lot more people who actually understand why it won't work.

[Anonymous]

Not a lot of support? It is Idea #5 in both the Mechanical, Plumbing and Piping. There is no separate idea forum for MEP Revit issues. It also has the most comments of the top voted MEP issues, by far.

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/idb-p/302/tab/most-kudoed/label-name/mechanical

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/idb-p/302/tab/most-kudoed/label-name/piping

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/idb-p/302/tab/most-kudoed/label-name/plumbing

If the Product Owner has so little care and initiative to fix the TOP 5 problems that have been filling forums and the ideas forum, then he does deserve a wake up call. What is the point of the Ideas forum if Top 5 ideas are ignored for over 2 years? What is the point of a product owner who does not take ownership of the product and listen to the customers? Why should MEP not be able to work with Phasing like all the other disciplines?

[RobDraw]

Compared to the number of people who understand and have done numerous successful projects MEP in Revit, it's a mere drop in the bucket. BTW, Revit is not owned by any single person. AutoDesk is a publicly owned company.

Even if you disagree, it still isn't right for you to go on a personal attack at an employee offering facts.

[Anonymous]

Please help me understand how Revit MEP can use phases properly without having to resort to Worksets and Graphic Filters for phasing.

[RobDraw]

Oooo, changing the subject, are we?

According to you and just over 100 other people, it can't.

[Anonymous]

Regarding the personal attack. A product manager's job is to give a direction to a product based on customer`s needs. If the Product manager is ignoring the customers demands then he/she is not doing a good job at all. In this case, it seems pretty blatant.

I'm not attacking him personally, I am attacking his work as a product manager.

[RobDraw]

You're out of line.

He explained why it is the way it is and invited people to offer suggestions. There was nothing even close to what you are saying.