Results 1 to 8 of 8
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By snowyweston
  • 1 Post By snowyweston

Thread: Dealing with unhosted/hosted issues

  1.    #1
    Member
    Join Date
    February 6, 2015
    Posts
    79
    Current Local Time
    06:09 PM

    Dealing with unhosted/hosted issues

    Hi all. One thing that wastes a lot of time for us is when we update our architecture model and are greeted with a million orphaned devices. Worse even, is when some of these hosted devices become orphaned and decide to travel down a floor/level.

    It becomes very time consuming going in trying to re-host and find different devices/equipment. We've tried talking to the architect about best practices when it comes to changing their models, but these things still happen frequently.

    Question is, what are some tips and tricks to help make this process less painful? I've read about using workplanes for ceilings, and even about abandoning hosting/face based elements all together. But any insights or resources are appreciated.

    Thanks!

  2.    #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    April 3, 2013
    Posts
    21
    Current Local Time
    07:09 PM
    We have this issue currently, over 15,000 orphaned items because it was "easier" for the architect to delete the ceilings rather than modify them. I looked at creating a dynamo graph to switch hosing between faces and reference planes, but the select new host is a read-only element and can't be done by dynamo.

    I'd suggest using appropriately names reference planes for ceilings, so that things can be quickly and easily moved, it takes a degree of consideration when placing families though, to ensure you place them on the appropriate plane.

    If you have to rehost to a ceiling, pin the objects in place before you rehost, then they won't move from their location, but will re-host to the ceiling.

    It seems the majority of architects don't know how to use Revit correctly, we have about 20 Revit projects on the go, and so far only 1 of them has an architect who modifies elements rather than deletes and reconstructs.
    Last edited by Hudster; October 11th, 2017 at 09:17 AM.

  3.    #3
    Member kubsix's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 31, 2011
    Location
    Quad Cities, Illinois
    Posts
    227
    Current Local Time
    01:09 PM
    My recommendation is to stay with those face based families and not to worry about rehosting. You can ignore the warnings.

    It's true that non-hosted elements can be placed anywhere and won't loose hosting but you do need to manual move, align, and orientate each element. And then do it again with each and every arch model update for those walls and ceilings that change.

    Face-based families are viable and have the advantage over non-hosted with auto-orientation and moving with the host, which will reduce work load when placing and with the multiple changes to the floor plan. It's true that on very rare occasion face-based element will move to unexpected locations with changes to the host. Their one downfall. Keep talking with the architects and share your pain. I don't see this happening very much anymore myself.

    Rushforth has a tool for rehosting elements to the closest walls. You may want to try that if you're going to loose sleep over it.

  4.    #4
    Moderator snowyweston's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 21, 2010
    Location
    C.LONDON
    Posts
    3,795
    Current Local Time
    07:09 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Hudster View Post
    It seems the majority of architects don't know how to use Revit correctly, we have about 20 Revit projects on the go, and so far only 1 of them has an architect who modifies elements rather than deletes and reconstructs.
    (and sadly) it seems we're still all too ready to 'blame the other' than work out a solution together.

    Unless you expressly define your requirements to your partnering consultants, Architects or otherwise, then do not be surprised when their workflows suit them more than they do you. Whilst modifications are the linear ideal (over deletions) - at least with respect to through-link hosting - let's not be na´ve to the benefits more efficient modelling workflows offer others.

    None of this relates to, warrants, or deserves the accusation that someone/somediscipline "don't know how to use Revit correctly"

    The failure (of your element hosting) is a failure of not collaborating effectively.
    Andres Franco likes this.

  5.    #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    April 3, 2013
    Posts
    21
    Current Local Time
    07:09 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by snowyweston View Post
    (Unless you expressly define your requirements to your partnering consultants, Architects or otherwise
    The last time they did it we asked them not to do that, we even showed them why, and they did it again.
    We even now have a handout we give to architects with our aspirations and requirements from a model, 99.99999% of them ignore it.

  6.    #6
    Moderator snowyweston's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 21, 2010
    Location
    C.LONDON
    Posts
    3,795
    Current Local Time
    07:09 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Hudster View Post
    99.99999% of them ignore it.
    One imagines they're not obliged too?

    I hear your pain (it works swings & roundabouts, trust me) but until everything is IPD, people will look after their own interests first, always.

    The best thing you could do is get that 'handout' into a BEP, and said BEP recognised as part of contract particulars.
    chompi0n likes this.

  7.    #7
    Member
    Join Date
    February 6, 2015
    Posts
    79
    Current Local Time
    06:09 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by kubsix View Post
    My recommendation is to stay with those face based families and not to worry about rehosting. You can ignore the warnings.

    It's true that non-hosted elements can be placed anywhere and won't loose hosting but you do need to manual move, align, and orientate each element. And then do it again with each and every arch model update for those walls and ceilings that change.

    Face-based families are viable and have the advantage over non-hosted with auto-orientation and moving with the host, which will reduce work load when placing and with the multiple changes to the floor plan. It's true that on very rare occasion face-based element will move to unexpected locations with changes to the host. Their one downfall. Keep talking with the architects and share your pain. I don't see this happening very much anymore myself.

    Rushforth has a tool for rehosting elements to the closest walls. You may want to try that if you're going to loose sleep over it.
    Thanks for the feedback. The reasons you mentioned are why we're sticking to hosting/face based families. I did try Rushforth tools, but it seems to only move to closest wall, but doesn't actually rehost the devices/families? I still have to manually rehost, which kind of defeats the purpose. Thanks for the suggestion though!

    Quote Originally Posted by snowyweston View Post
    One imagines they're not obliged too?

    I hear your pain (it works swings & roundabouts, trust me) but until everything is IPD, people will look after their own interests first, always.

    The best thing you could do is get that 'handout' into a BEP, and said BEP recognised as part of contract particulars.
    That's the issue we face as well, we spoke to the architects, they seemed keen to change their ways, and then they revert to old habits. Unfortunately in our region I don't think much MEP firms have jumped fully onto the Revit bandwagon just yet, and so we don't have a loud enough voice. We'll keep reminding I suppose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hudster View Post
    We have this issue currently, over 15,000 orphaned items because it was "easier" for the architect to delete the ceilings rather than modify them. I looked at creating a dynamo graph to switch hosing between faces and reference planes, but the select new host is a read-only element and can't be done by dynamo.

    I'd suggest using appropriately names reference planes for ceilings, so that things can be quickly and easily moved, it takes a degree of consideration when placing families though, to ensure you place them on the appropriate plane.

    If you have to rehost to a ceiling, pin the objects in place before you rehost, then they won't move from their location, but will re-host to the ceiling.

    It seems the majority of architects don't know how to use Revit correctly, we have about 20 Revit projects on the go, and so far only 1 of them has an architect who modifies elements rather than deletes and reconstructs.
    Yes, I just recently discovered the pining trick when it comes to fixtures. It works very well (so far), thanks for that suggestion. And, we're experimenting with reference planes for ceilings, but I'm hoping to test it out on smaller projects first to get an idea of possible drawbacks.

    Overall thanks for all the feedback. It seems we're in the same boat as others.

  8.    #8
    Member kubsix's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 31, 2011
    Location
    Quad Cities, Illinois
    Posts
    227
    Current Local Time
    01:09 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by mkisno4 View Post
    I did try Rushforth tools, but it seems to only move to closest wall, but doesn't actually rehost the devices/families?
    Good to know. Never actually tried the tool out since I wasn't concerned about rehosting.

    Quote Originally Posted by mkisno4 View Post
    And, we're experimenting with reference planes for ceilings...
    My concerns with reference planes for ceilings would be 1) chasing and maintaining the various ceiling height through out the life of the project, 2) the extra work it would take to select and place the devices at the correct height, and 3) them not showing properly in the architect's model due to elevation conflicts. Seems like more work then chasing the occasional rogue light fixtures.

Similar Threads

  1. Unhosted Family Hosted by Floor. Why??
    By kingjosiah in forum Architecture - Family Creation
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: June 6th, 2017, 11:34 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 30th, 2017, 01:45 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 20th, 2014, 01:15 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 14th, 2011, 11:15 PM
  5. Unhosted Families versus Unhosted "Work Plane Based" families.
    By Twiceroadsfool in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 25th, 2011, 02:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •