Pipe connector issues, Flawed or fixable?

[dbroad]

When revising some MEP plumbing fixtures and building new content, I ran into these pipe connector issues:

1. Work Plane based: I had no face where I wanted a particular connector (CW rough in out of wall), so I tried the use the work plane option.  
   • You are forced to choose the reference plane option, since face is always the default option. This is understandable but, then you are forced to choose a work plane, even if one was specifically set up and set current for the task (think waste of time).
   • When placed on the work plane, there is no way to align the connector since the align tool can't be used with it. (major bug IMO).
   • When a pipe connector is placed on a work plane, any plane, the flip-z normal control doesn't work. The flip-z normal control only works if the connector is face-hosted. (major bug IMO).
   • When hovering over a pipe connector, the tooltip indicates that the move action is active.  Yet, using a mouse to move a pipe connector only results in rotating the pipe connector,  Yet there isn't a way to really control such an angle. (Two bugs IMO: false advertising in move icon and inability to really control position or angle of pipe connector).  Only the move command can be used to move a connector.
   • There is not ability to change the host of a pipe connector from work plane to face. This means that a well developed connector must be deleted instead of relocated, and then rebuilt. (Big time wast bug IMO).
   • The connector accepts no point pick after choosing the workplane. It just goes where it wants to go, even if that point is outside of the view (bug IMO, confusion factor extremely high).
2. For face based pipe connectors, I found:
   • The connector is always put at the midpoint of the face regardless of how practical that is.  I mean you can't have hot and cold water coming into the same point, can you?  Yet, they can't be moved after placement because they are locked in place.  A CW rough in for a water closet shouldn't go into the middle of the back of the tank, right?  The odds of having the sanitary waste outlet in the right location, being face based is near nil.  I've looked at the OOTB content and its pitiful. I can understand these restrictions for ductwork but for plumbing it makes no sense.

I've only been working in earnest on MEP content for a week. How have you guys been dealing with it for over 10 years?

The only workaround I've found, perhaps an expert might chime in to agree/disagree, is to build a cylinder (a void) that is positionable and attach the connector to its face.  I guess that's why the plumbing fixture connector families were made (as a workaround). I'm really surprised that these pipe connector issues never got fixed though.  I'd really rather not need to go to the trouble of either importing the connector families or building unnecessary geometry into plumbing fixtures to control positioning and normals.

[RobDraw]

---

@dbroad wrote:

I'm really surprised that these pipe connector issues never got fixed though.  I'd really rather not need to go to the trouble of either importing the connector families or building unnecessary geometry into plumbing fixtures to control positioning and normals.

---

You might want to go with a different program. All connectors work in this way and it sounds like you got your head around it pretty quickly.

---

@dbroad wrote:

The only workaround I've found, perhaps an expert might chime in to agree/disagree, is to build a cylinder (a void) that is positionable and attach the connector to its face.  I guess that's why the plumbing fixture connector families were made (as a workaround). I'm really surprised that these pipe connector issues never got fixed though.  I'd really rather not need to go to the trouble of either importing the connector families or building unnecessary geometry into plumbing fixtures to control positioning and normals.

---

Change "workaround" to "workflow" and your frustrations might go away. Sometimes it's not about how you think it should work but rather what Revit wants.

[dbroad]

Thanks.  After struggling for a while, I came up with a face based MEP connector assembly family for sinks and lavatories.  It can be opened and other non-MEP plumbing family content loaded. Then it can be saved as MEP plumbing content.  So far it's working well.  I used reference lines to constrain the pipe connectors rather than using small solid cylinders. See attached if interested. I also reported it through manage.autodesk.com and got good feedback.

[RobDraw]

I've gone the route of not using fixture families that have the actual fixture in it. I show the architects fixtures through the link and add my own "fake" ones with just enough geometry for placing and hosting connectors. Basically a wafer thin extrusion or two and workplane hosted connectors with a couple parameters for offset(s).

[dbroad]

That sounds reasonable.  I played around with the idea of just adding the OOTB MEP fixtures to a linked project and then turning off the linked plumbing fixtures. I also tried copy/monitor.  But copy/monitor didn't exactly do what I wanted since many of the architectural plumbing fixtures didn't have consistent orientations and insertion points. So I bit the bullet and added decent MEP versions to the architectural project.  

If you can share a fake plumbing fixture, I'd like to take a look at it.

[a_kralkay]

Great, another half baked workflow from Autodesk. I am getting very sick of encountering bugs in the software and then googling it only to find out that people have been complaining about the exact same thing for years.

Has anyone reported this to Autodesk? I've noticed that they never acknowledge faults in the software in forum posts and only look at the idea's board if things have enough votes. It's like as long as someone can come up with some absurd time-consuming workaround then Autodesk acts like there isn't a problem.

[iainsavage]

Place a couple of stubs/spuds in the family (I use sweeps) and host the connectors to the faces of those.

Takes seconds to do. 

Not worth getting upset about.

[RobDraw]

Agreed.

Connectors are easy once you realize what Revit wants and once you get you head around it how to do it, it makes a lot of sense. I remember struggling at first. I certainly didn't think the program was bugged though. That's giving up. The funny thing about learning is you don't realize how little you know until you actually know it. With Revit, if you learn it correctly, that knowledge can be applied to other facets of Revit. Too many people get frustrated after trying it their way and cry "bug" and don't realize that their so called workarounds are valid workflows and can apply to many aspects of Revit. Then, when they are shown the way, get all defensive, shoot the messenger and learn nothing.

[iainsavage]

Revit isn't perfect, but in a 40 year career I've never yet used any software from any vendor that didn't have its idiosyncrasies. 

My view is, find a way to get what you want from the software and get on with completing your task. 

Regarding the connector issue though, most equipment has a threaded stub, threaded hole, flange or other point of connection so it is surely correct that you should include these in the family and host the connectors to them? I've never seen a piece of equipment where the pipe just somehow magically sticks to a face or connects to an imaginary workplane so I don't get what the problem is here.

[RobDraw]

Exactly. 

Model it the way it will be built to the level of detail required for the project and/or your needs.

I've made parametric families for plumbing fixture connections because the architects were responsible for the fixtures. These families worked with multiple types for different connector configurations. I never tried it but they could be mapped with copy/monitor. I prefer to monitor and adjust manually. Architects don't always get the fixtures right so we have to be careful to not blindly follow changes.

[a_kralkay]

This is what I did. I figured out how to get this to work before even reading this thread. The workaround was not what I was here for, nor what I was frustrated with.


You highlighted obvious dysfunctions with the software that I also recently discovered (4 years after you made this post). I simply wanted to know if they were officially reported or just left as a forum post. It's clear that making forum posts isn't getting anything fixed/improved in Revit. So if you hadn't (which I noticed later that you said you did) reported the issues, I was going to. That's it.


What I didn't need was a lecture from RobDraw on everything he believes I am doing or not doing without knowing anything about me or my level of competence in the software. And I certainly don't need to be argued with when I defend my position or gaslit about what I am doing wrong. I know very well what Revit wants. I've been using it for over a decade and other software for much longer. I am quite familiar with software "challenges" and coming up with ways to get around them. What I come to this forum to hopefully figure out is WHY Revit wants these completely non-intuitive and often nonsensical "workflows", or if they actually are just unintentional bugs in the code. Most developers like people to report bugs in their software so that they can be fixed (usually quickly, not several years later, but that's another convo), so I like to make sure that's being done when I can. Not sure why this is such a controversial topic with Revit...

[RobDraw]

---

@a_kralkay wrote:
What I come to this forum to hopefully figure out is WHY Revit wants these completely non-intuitive and often nonsensical "workflows", or if they actually are just unintentional bugs in the code. 

---

Then you should have created you own post in the Product Feedback forum. This is a user help forum, users helping users. Regardless of your personal feelings about me, your post is in the wrong place.

I stand by my observations and by posting your personal opinions you need to be prepared for responses that might prove them wrong, no matter how you feel about the source or the delivery, personal attacks are out of line.

Good luck.

"Gaslighting is a form of emotional abuse and mental manipulation that will leave you questioning your own reality and have you wondering if you’re in the wrong in nearly every argument."

I'm pretty sure that's not what I am doing because you actually are wrong. As for the sanity part, I don't hink I have that much power over you.

[iainsavage]

---

@a_kralkay  schrieb:
You highlighted obvious dysfunctions with the software 

---

No I didn't - I highlighted that in my opinion the logical way to host connectors is on a piece of geometry which represents the actual connector in the real world equipment e.g. a tail, hole or flange etc.

---

@a_kralkay  schrieb:
I noticed later that you said you ... reported the issues

---

No I didn't - I have raised support tickets for other issues but not for this topic.

---

@a_kralkay  schrieb:
What I come to this forum to hopefully figure out is WHY Revit wants these completely non-intuitive and often nonsensical "workflows", or if they actually are just unintentional bugs in the code.

---

I don't think that's what the forum is for and very few people on the forum work for, or have any insight into, Autodesk. I'm just another user like you and try to answer queries which people raise so that they can get on with their working day.

I can't give you any insight into how or why Revit is programmed in any particular way although I would say that in my experience I have seen very few issues which are genuine "bugs". If you think you have discovered a genuine bug then raise a support ticket. If you have an idea which you think would improve the programme post it on Ideas forum. Posting on this forum is unlikely to gain any traction with Autodesk.

As for the rest of your post, I won't respond on @RobDraw 's behalf.

[a_kralkay]

I mean you literally highlight issues and claim "bug" at the end of most of them and said you were surprised these issues weren't fixed yet. And in one of your replies you say "I also reported it through manage.autodesk.com and got good feedback." I may have misinterpreted that, but it doesn't really matter at this point.

Before reporting what I would call "bugs" I come to the forum to see what other users are saying about how they do it, to try to see if there is some logic behind that workflow that I hadn't picked up on initially. Sometimes there is (you personally have some insightful comments that have been helpful), which helps me understand the software design decision I found confusing at first. But I'm not looking for an official explanation from Autodesk (though it would be nice sometimes) or anything. Just seeing if anyone else was able to make sense of it.

Not everyone is going to agree on the definition of a bug which is fine. But I see no benefit to pretending the software doesn't have any. Just because there is a way to make something work, doesn't mean that functionality or workflow was intentional when it was designed. That would be what I call a "bug". It happens in every single program, Revit included. I have even found a few myself and brought them to Autodesk's attention, which they have been thankful for.

[a_kralkay]

Sorry, I just realized you are not the OP and I was responding/making claims as if you were.

[iainsavage]

---

@a_kralkay  schrieb:

Sorry, I just realized you are not the OP and I was responding/making claims as if you were.

---

Glad you cleared that up, I was beginning to think I'd developed dementia and couldn't recall my own posts!

[RobDraw]

So, here we are. You've managed to hijack this thread without ever discussing the topic and threw in a personal attack all while saying the program(?) is bugged up.

Things that make you say, hmmm.....

[Dsamples848HN]

FYI, ran into this issue with hosting a pipe connection work plane base. For some reason the direction you draw the work plane, left to right or right to left, determines the z axis direction on the pipe connection.

[iainsavage]

Reference planes have a "top" and "bottom" orientation depending on which direction you draw them in.

Hosted elements will attach to the reference plane on the default side initially,

You should notice that the z-axis of the connector is always on the opposite side of the plane from the plane's name.

You can flip the connector to the other "face" of the plane using this control:

Personally though I never hosted connectors to planes, I always hosted them to a piece of geometry and then hosted the geometry to planes.

[Dsamples848HN]

Yeah it didn't let us flip the connector for some reason; it showed the flip option but wouldn't actually change the direction of the connector for whatever reason. The only we way could get it to work was by flipping or redrawing the plane itself.

We were using planes as hosts because the 3D model that we were connecting to was from a different software and due to time constraints/file size we didn't want to explode the model or redraw as a Revit family. So, it was a unique scenario for us as well.