How can I Un-Host families from linked models?

[dhelling]

I want to un-host all my electrical families from the linked models so I don't have to track down rogue devices being thrown around.  I think doing this may be very helpful for projects going into construction since I am not as active in the model as I would be during design.   I have thought about this a fair amount, but I haven't tried much as it could be time consuming and I don't want to do something I regret.  I don't want to loose V/G link settings or loose family associations with tags, circuiting, and etc..  Has anyone tried this or have any good ideas to do this?  

Obviously this would mean elements would be "orphaned" or "<not associated>".  I don't recall issues leaving them in these un-hosted states, but I have seen many posts debating this for possible performance issues due to so many un-hosted elements.  I have seen projects with over a thousand elements "orphaned" and no real performance issues were obvious.  So since I haven't experienced major issues in the past 10 years and I haven't heard anyone else experiencing significant issues, I assume its no big deal.  Although please share any issues you have had with this as well.

[RobDraw]

If you don't want to host to linked elements, you need non-hosted families. Deliberately creating errors is illogical.

[dhelling]

Hello again!

So like your previous post comments, when you say "I need non-hosted families", I assume you mean to say level based families.  In which case, this is not a valid solution since that requires recreating my company's 500+ families.  Also this method also would likely require reworking several typical manufacture families that we sometimes use on projects.  Also this method doesn't allow me to remain hosted to walls/etc for most, if not all through design as I intend to.  So hopefully you see that will not work.

I am hoping someone can share information, experiences, or solutions that I don't know already.  I haven't yet experienced any issues personally with leaving un-hosted "errors" unresolved.  To clarify further, I ask you and whomever can answer, what is wrong with leaving the elements "orphaned" or "<not associated>"?  Also are both those things considered "errors"?  Fyi, "<not associated>" elements do not show in the "Reconcile Hosting" list but "orphaned" elements do.  So just curious how anyone tracks down "<not associated>" elements to re-establish those elements hosts.  Does only the "orphaned" elements constitute an "error" for this reason?  Fyi, I remember you saying "small errors can add up to a big one".  That sounds theoretically logical but it is not illogical to at least search for some proof to the theory.  

Just a plug to the original question, how can I either "orphan" or "<not associated>" devices from linked model hosts without messing up the V/G link settings and without messing up the family's association with tags and circuiting?

[RobDraw]

---

@dhelling wrote:

I want to un-host all my electrical families from the linked models

---

Your opening statement.

Let's leave out the theoretical possible ramifications that having a lot of errors can affect performance. There are so many other reasons some of which may be unknown to anyone but elite top notch users to NOT do this, performance may be a nonissue. Errors have a way of compounding in unexpected ways and sometimes show their ugly heads at the most inopportune times.

This workflow by itself is just bad on so many levels. Revit (or any other program) does not like errors. Ignoring errors is not a good workflow, period. Yeah, in the interest of time, sometimes we need to prioritize how we handle known errors sometimes even choosing to temporarily ignore them but I'm pretty sure deliberately creating them is really bad CAD and would be frowned upon in any decent firm.

You need to make a choice. Use the content that you have available as it was intended to be used or find (or make content) that suits your needs. I don't think you can find it for free. It's going to cost time and/or money.

IMVHO, I think the road that you are going down is problematic and lazy.

[dhelling]

I am sorry but you are not helping me.  I will wait and/or search for someone else to help/share.

I appreciate your efforts.  For what its worth, I can tell you are not lazy.

[RobDraw]

I'm sorry that you cannot see the error in your ways. Using elements in a way that they were not intended to be used is just asking for trouble. Sure you might be able to get away with it but I wouldn't expect people to openly discuss how they would rather ignore and even create errors. Any such experiences would be highly suspect just by the nature of the workflow. 

Why do you want shared experiences from people who deliberately create errors because they've been doing it without any problems? I know there are people out there that do it and some even convince themselves that it is okay but how much merit can you give to what they say? I mean, really, that just doesn't make sense.

[dhelling]

I neither fully agree or disagree with you.  I simply don't have to use the program as it was intended if it works for what I need.  You have repeated that I would be deliberately accumulating errors that could potentially be bad.  Maybe so.  Although I have already seen several hundreds to a couple thousand "errors" on many projects not become an issue.  So I am asking who has personal experience with maybe more un-hosted devices and who knows the best way to un-host all electrical devices with hopefully minor affects.  Your responses to me are that this is an illogical risk and that I am lazy for considering it.  Well I plan on testing any good ideas that are presented and maybe even sharing my results for those who care (just to be nice).  You questioned the ramifications yourself a few years ago and the new guy fixed it for you.  Maybe I don't have a new guy and I don't have time to deal with extra ridiculous work because I work a lot as it is.  Perhaps I am searching for a way that works regardless if errors accumulate or not.  I simply wonder if anyone else has tried this before I try it myself.  You haven't tried it and so I don't expect you to know the answer.  I have no problem listening to people who see it work for themselves even if it goes against the grain a little.  I listen and determine for myself whether its worth it.

[RobDraw]

No, you're lazy for not using content that suits your needs. 

I asked about the ramifications of large numbers of orphaned elements because I knew that it could be a problem and needed to be addressed at some point. So did the new guy who made an extra effort to correct a situation he did not create. 

If you want to use the program in a way that it was not intended to be used, that is a choice with risks. You just have to keep in mind that any accounts of such a workflow need to scrutinized carefully but I guess that if you are looking for such information, scrutiny is not one of your strong suits.

[dhelling]

You are such a class act!  I can't tell you how much you have not really helped me.  I hope you find someone else to pick on (I mean) help out today.  I wish you good luck!

[RobDraw]

Thanks. 

Sorry I can't help but there's no way I can condone such practices and would be remiss in not advising against what you are asking.

[dhelling]

You are not sorry.  You are rude.  You wanted me to switch to a different post.  So I did to hopefully get a different perspective that could leave you from the hassle of getting more emails/question from me.  I tried not to bother you but you commented on my new post.  I thought well lets see if this goes somewhere different.  Instead you tell me the same thing you said in the other post, but this time you insult me in multiple ways.  You say I am lazy, illogical, and not good at critical thinking.  You don't know me and I don't know you.  So I try not to insult you but you sure make it hard for me to refrain.  I don't need you to condone anything and you can rest assure its not your duty to respond to everything.  I disagree with your approach to "helping".  I hope your weekend starts early.

[RobDraw]

Thanks for trying and you're welcome. 

Not sure what you expect to find. Did you see anything "helpful" in my thread that you resurrected? No, because it's not recommended to ignore such issues never mind intentionally create them.

[s.borello]

Why on earth would you want to do something like this?  This happened to me me 5 or so years ago because of user error... it was a mess.  Listen to the wise words from @RobDraw, and try to not take it personally. 

[dhelling]

I explained why earlier in this thread, but in general I am trying to prevent my stuff from being thrown around due to the host changes specifically during construction.  Please keep in mind I prefer to keep our stuff hosted to walls and other vertical planes throughout design timeframes.  Regarding your mentioned experience, I am curious what was messy about what happened in your situation? 

Please be specific with your terms "un-hosted", "orphaned", and "<not associated>".  I want to understand what you mean.

Also, I don't take any constructive comments personally as long as they leave out insults.  I work very hard to do the best I can and sometimes that means I ask difficult questions that may can seem difficult to understand.  I can put up with a few insults, especially if the conversation is productive and related to the question.  

[RobDraw]

---

@dhelling wrote:

I work very hard to do the best I can and sometimes that means I ask difficult questions that may can seem difficult to understand.  

---

Then how many times do have to ask the same question and get the same answer before you realize that you shouldn't do what you are asking.

I told you a couple ways to do it and "insulted" your sensitive ego when I told you it was a bad idea and explained why. Most people asking about this want to fix it, as they recognize it is a problem, not create the issue. If you want to risk the possibility of serious, go ahead. and continue down this road but you you would be hard pressed to find anyone who says it's not a problem.

Good luck!

[dhelling]

I hear you and understand you mostly.  I have heard there may be risks, although it is not clear what the risks exactly are.  I don't always agree with your approach, but I appreciate many of your efforts.  I must be honest.  I don't find your suggestions to be the solution for my situations.  I would like to then move past the "why" and onto the "how", in regards to my question.  It is okay if this post goes un-answered for a little while.  In the meantime, I heed your warning and will attempt to test my theories with caution.

Perhaps you can still help me on this related but more refined question.  I mentioned this earlier, but what do you know about the differences between "orphaned" and "<not associated>"? 

I believe the "<not associated>" elements are almost the same as "orphaned" elements since they both are not technically hosted to anything anymore.  Although I thought the "<not associated>" elements do not show in the "Reconcile Hosting" list and the "orphaned" elements do.  Correct thus far?  If so, are the"<not associated>" elements an issue that must also be fixed?  If so, how can a person find them to re-establish the element's host?

[RobDraw]

Do you know how to unhost your elements yet? Have you tried to do it? Have you tested the results in a project? 

[dhelling]

I have a couple of my own theories to test, but I have to try them out yet.  I can share them if you would like.

I don't want to waste your time or mine.  Do you even want to continue this conversation? 

[RobDraw]

So, despite you having answers, you haven't tried anything. You're spending a lot of time on a workflow that is going to break your model.

[dhelling]

Just curious what is your job?  Why are you spending so much time on this if you find it as pointless as you do?