Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Changing Face Based to Unhosted Family - Delete the Face Host?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Changing Face Based to Unhosted Family - Delete the Face Host?

    I followed all of Paul Aubin's directions here:

    https://www.lynda.com/Revit-tutorial.../637607-4.html

    ...and everything checks out except for the very end, when converting from a face based to an unhosted family. I cannot simply "Delete the face host". No matter what. Revit just won't do anything when I try to delete it. I've tried versions 2015-2017. I tried in a family that was originally wall hosted that I took through all of Paul's steps. I tried from a newly created face-based family. I've tried changing the family category.

    NOTHING WORKS. What am I missing here? :banghead:

    I can't just copy the items from my current face based family to a new unhosted family, as the joined geometry of solids and voids gets busted up when pasted into the new file, and I can't seem to fix it. It's a plumbing manufacturer's family that I am trying to clean up, not one of my own. Yeah, it's probably trash, but I really don't want to rebuild it. Help?

    Thanks!
    Debby

    #2
    Is there a reason you don't want to just nest the face-based family into the unhosted?
    Developer at Anguleris BIMsmith Marketplace.
    Previously at Sumex Design for ARCAT.com

    Comment


      #3
      By far the easiest... though not possible if the base family uses family type parameters.
      Greg McDowell Jr
      about.me/GMcDowellJr

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by blusurfer View Post
        I tried in a family that was originally wall hosted that I took through all of Paul's steps.
        GAH. I think I answered my own question here. It turns out that I had just taken a face based family through Paul's steps, and Revit will not allow me to delete the face. If I take a wall based family through Paul's steps...voila, it works. I can delete the host face and uncheck Work Plane-Based.

        SIGH. Sorry about that, everyone.

        But hey, if you've got an idea about deleting the face host from a family that originally started as face based, thus turning it into an unhosted family without copying and pasting everything, I'm all ears.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Andrew K View Post
          Is there a reason you don't want to just nest the face-based family into the unhosted?
          Other than my own insanity? Not really. :crazy:

          I tend to like to keep my standard families built completely consistently. So in this case, I have two faucet part families (ideally unhosted, currently face based) --> nested into a faucet family (currently unhosted) --> nested into the final combination lavatory and faucet family (currently face based with a void to cut the countertop). Is there any reason that the two faucet part families need to be unhosted? Sounds like other than in my own head, no.

          As for the lavatory, it is also a separate family that would be nested into the final family. Where is it best to put the void to cut the countertop? - In the lavatory family (assuming it is face based rather than unhosted) or in the final face based family with the nested lavatory and faucet? Does the location of this void make a difference if the lavatory and faucet family is nested into and arrayed in another family for a restroom countertop with multiple lavatories?

          OMG. I might be overthinking this.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by GMcDowellJr View Post
            By far the easiest... though not possible if the base family uses family type parameters.
            These are faucet families an there is no real reason for them to be parametric. I have materials in there as a parameter right now.

            Comment


              #7
              I'd have the faucet shared/nested into my sink with a family type parameter to swap faucets as needed. The sink family would have a void to cut the counter. The counter is a separate family. I'd recommend the counter be built as a Generic Model so it can join with other counters to clean up joints and the like and to be cut by the sink family. Both the sink (with it's nested faucet) and counter get placed in the project where the sink cuts the hole in the counter (either manualy if un-hosted or automatically if hosted and face-based -- personally, I go for unhosted).
              Greg McDowell Jr
              about.me/GMcDowellJr

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by GMcDowellJr View Post
                I'd have the faucet shared/nested into my sink with a family type parameter to swap faucets as needed. The sink family would have a void to cut the counter. The counter is a separate family. I'd recommend the counter be built as a Generic Model so it can join with other counters to clean up joints and the like and to be cut by the sink family. Both the sink (with it's nested faucet) and counter get placed in the project where the sink cuts the hole in the counter (either manualy if un-hosted or automatically if hosted and face-based -- personally, I go for unhosted).
                I was going the route nesting the faucet directly into the face based sink family (sink not nested in this scenario), but it was wreaking havoc on the layering of the masking regions contained in the faucet family and then in the sink family in the plan view, where they overlay each other. (Not an issue in the front/back and left/right views, as the masking region from the nested faucet family did not overlap the masking region in the sink family.) I could get it to work by turning off Draw in Foreground on the masking region in the sink family, but then the outline of the void extrusion to cut the countertop would show.

                I'm usually one for having my model be what shows up in the plan and elevation views, but there is just too much going on in the lav and faucet families. Do you use masking regions and symbolic lines, or do you just let your model be what you see in 2D views?

                Comment


                  #9
                  Model geometry all the way. MR and SL are fine if you're only ever going to see the object in one of the 6 main directions -- go off axis, even a little bit, and POOF! it disappears. The need for the drafted stuff has been greatly diminshed over the years as computers have gotten more powerful.
                  Greg McDowell Jr
                  about.me/GMcDowellJr

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by GMcDowellJr View Post
                    Model geometry all the way. MR and SL are fine if you're only ever going to see the object in one of the 6 main directions -- go off axis, even a little bit, and POOF! it disappears. The need for the drafted stuff has been greatly diminshed over the years as computers have gotten more powerful.
                    Hmm. So, do you model different levels of information for coarse, medium, and fine views? Or do you do it once for all three and call it a day? (Doing it once is usually the direction I take.)

                    The reason I ask is that most of these plumbing fixture families from manufacturers go nuts with different 3D models (not just 2D drafting elements) for different levels of detail. It seems like some sort of massive overkill to me, so I'm curious what other BIM Managers do.

                    Thanks for your help on this! Very much appreciated!

                    Comment

                    Related Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X