You can turn off the category in the linked model...done.

Yeah, but this is not quite what I was asking.

Let us suppose that we work at the same company. as you make the interior design I do the MEP system and we work using linked models so, whatever you do it is immediately shared with me and vice-versa. Then, let us suppose that you've just added a hydraulic equipment to the model, but it is just a concept and not a MEP model.

Then, I'll have to COPY/MONITOR that family you've just added and edit it, add some properties, parameters, etc etc etc.

When I finish editing it and add it to my template, I'll get a warning saying that the model I'm using is different from the model from the original template, and then I'll be asked if I want to accept it or not. Should I accept and use it (which is definitely what I'm going to do because the family you used has no MEP parameters), it is not going to delete your model - it will be kept there, on its original position.

The family I've just created will be added on top of yours and we'll have 2 hydraulic equipment at the same spot.

Now, on your side of the story, when I add the new hydraulic equipment, is it going to pop up on your screen? and if it does, what options do you have? I mean, if you don't where I placed it (assuming I changed the original position now), you won't be able to delete it, but how could you tell me that I should move it because you didn't like it?

If the architect expects the MEP engineers to use the models they provide, or for the construction documents to show these fixtures identical to the ones they're using, then in my opinion this needs to be hashed out in the very beginning stages of team collaboration.

In most cases, us MEP guys are stuck improvising. I don't see this as a Copy/Monitor issue as much as a coordination and planning issue. Personally, I always use my own Families. If they need to look identical to models the architect is using, and if the Families they're using aren't good enough, then I revise my current ones to match theirs visually. By revising, I mean only once, for that particular project. This is usually not a difficult thing to accomplish.

Nice. So what you are saying is that you normally ignore the architectural families being used in the project and use your own families? I do it myself 100% of the time, but I've never had to handle someone else's project. I think you are right because it doesn't make much difference calculating the flow and pressure loss. It'd affect the design part only.

However, if the architect wanted us to keep the original design, you'd rather adapting your own families than COPY/MONITORING -> Editing the family he had added? Moreover, when you do it, you place it on top of the original family and hide the architectural one?

Thanks!

- - - Updated - - -

Nice. So what you are saying is that you normally ignore the architectural families being used in the project and use your own families? I do it myself 100% of the time, but I've never had to handle someone else's project. I think you are right because it doesn't make much difference calculating the flow and pressure loss. It'd affect the design part only.

However, if the architect wanted us to keep the original design, you'd rather adapting your own families than COPY/MONITORING -> Editing the family he had added? Moreover, when you do it, you place it on top of the original family and hide the architectural one?

Thanks!

Think of it this way: Just because Copy/Monitor is there, doesn't mean you have to use it. You use this tool when it makes sense to use this tool. Don't use it "just because". Tutorials online, and in books, and in the Help file, etc, sometimes can give a false sense of real-world usability because the tutorial is there just for you to follow the steps, not necessarily telling you to use it all the time, every time. To sum up what I'm saying in short - you will not use this very often at all.

Let me give you some real-world examples where you use Copy/Monitor as an MEP designer:

• From the architectural (or structural) Link, you will C/M Grids and Levels 100% always (Not "every grid" and "every level", just the ones you need. For instance, levels used for Top of Parapet Walls, you would certainly not C/M these in.)
• If you are an electrical designer, and you are not collaborating in a single MEP Revit model with other disciplines, you will C/M the Mechanical Equipment from the HVAC model Linked into your model for circuiting. You would do this especially if the HVAC designer modeled their Families properly with the Electrical Connector information.

These would be real-world scenarios. And sometimes you simply need to Copy, but not Monitor, which is perfectly acceptable. The Monitor function is a nice coordination function with a certain level of value, but other than Grids and Levels, and Families that you need to support with loads (ie, HVAC equipment loads), there's not much else that will reasonably make sense to, because of the usual reality of a Family that simply does not function the way you will need it to.

For years, the C/M method from the architectural model of all the Light Fixtures, Plumbing Fixtures, Air Terminals, etc just yielded the most underdeveloped set of Families I've ever seen. Some have been so bad, it's amazing they were vetted to begin with. Some architects have been using these types of awful Families for years merely for visual coordination and nothing else. Then you have your uber-architects, who very intrepidly create stunning Families such as Plumbing Fixtures with highly functional stall size parameters, ADA parameters, and so forth... only to C/M it in to realize the Plumbing Fixture family is nested, and it's actually a Specialty Equipment family. Which, to an MEP designer, means it's unequivocally useless to us. But, awesome Family... for them.

So always approach C/M with caution. First, it needs to make sense to be Copied in the first place. The Family needs to work "for you", not "against you" for this to be true. Second, if the first requirement is met, it needs to make sense to be monitored. Plumbing Fixtures may or may not need to be. An office building with a core bathroom in the middle will not need Plumbing Fixtures to be monitored because the chase will not move. An MOB with little bathrooms everywhere, may need to be monitored because these single bathrooms per unit may move around a lot due to changes in ADA requirements based on the medical unit requirements.

It just all depends. But don't get so hung up on C/M just because the Help file, online tutorials or books say so.

Hope this helps!

-TZ

Do both. Copy Monitor (For position and tracking changes) and use the Type Mapping options to replace their family with your own.
I use a simple block that has water and waste connectors for whatever fixtures the architect has used (With different Types for different fixtures).

The only problem is if the Defines Origin planes in the architects family are in a weird place or entirely missing... then the location and orientation of your own family can come out wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Do both. Copy Monitor (For position and tracking changes) and use the Type Mapping options to replace their family with your own.
I use a simple block that has water and waste connectors for whatever fixtures the architect has used (With different Types for different fixtures).

The only problem is if the Defines Origin planes in the architects family are in a weird place or entirely missing... then the location and orientation of your own family can come out wrong.

IME, the architectural families are often just place holders that don't have any real MEP data or connectors in them. While you may get away with Type Mapping fixtures and terminal devices, major equipment is usually for us to provide exact dimensions and locations for the architect to coordinate with.

THIS. I (read: we) have enough to do without having to also worry about connectors - I know some of my brethen might jump in with "we do it!" - and good for them - but (in the work we're doing) we have to keep things generic for a long time and whilst we can (and do) talk to specific product sizes (for clearances etc) we do not kill ourselves remodelling that equipment 1:1 (if there was better content we might be more inclined to hotswap, but...)

Totally. But more often than not (at least in my experience) said elements don't get modelled for a long time - no matter the 'agreements' put in place from the get-go - and we (Architects) find ourselves putting placeholders-for-placeholders-ahead-of-proper-elements. I would never imagine an MEP outfit doing any kind of Copy/Monitoring with those.

Totally agree.

Coming from the MEP design side doing mostly HVAC on large projects, my families are very generic in nature. Often times just enough to represent the overall size and shape, clearance areas, the appropriate connectors at the right locations, and later just enough information to populate schedules or make detailed views look good.

Fabrication/construction modeling is a completely different story.

Hmmm, I usually build my systems by putting in the equipment first, usually because that's what other consultants need as opposed to branch ductwork/pipes.