I don't know if there is, but if there is I'm not seeing people use it. If there isn't, I wish there was.

Still, were MEP (Revit) users to drop the (Revit) system name/type/classification way of doing things and embed more (universal) properties into the elements so we ALL might filter for them, then I'd be much much happier.

What would you suggest instead?

Any (or all) of the pre-existing (element) classifications? Uniformat, Masterformat, Uniclass, Omniclass, etc...

But I openly admit to not be particularly au fait with the nuances of MEP design, (in Revit, but also in the real world) and believe there are some "issues" with (not wanting to) add such specific detail to generic-elements*


*in the same way I've yet to see any S.Eng. outfit 'properly' differentiate their (modelled) content by appropriate concrete/steel grades.

There already is plenty of ingrained info that can be used as universal information for filtering purposes. But as always, it only goes so far, in which quick and simple modifications to the Filters can be made for adjustments.

@Rob, none that I know of as far as official standards. I created my own, many of them based on pure logic (Red for DHW, Blue for DCW, Purple for mixed air/fluid, etc). I don't use the index colors, but rather I found my own RGB colors that aren't purely contrasted. More of a pastel look which is far easier on the eyes than the pure red, green, blue, etc.

Attached was an older spreadsheet I began to get the process started. I scratched the Material idea and went full filters only. I now have my stuff organized in my template instead, but this should give you an idea anyways. Maybe it will help you get something started.

-TZ

Tannar I see you've gone with a "forward"-naming for <System Family Name> but (my preferred) "backward"-naming for "Material Name".

To date, and probably because I understand very little about such things, I've typically wanted filters to catch "all water", "all air", "all gas", etc...

as such I've always imagined, "backwards"-naming, i.e.
"Water_Cold_Commercial", "Water_Cold_Domestic", "Water_Hot_Commercial"...
or
"Water_Commercial_Cold", "Water_Commerical_Hot", "Water_Domestic_Cold",...
the 'better' (naming) approach,
if only for the easier set up of filters, ala: Filter <System Family Name> Begins with: "Water_"

Even writing that now, I'm starting to see why "forward"-naming helps (with respect to defining filters) isolate a 'complete' system quicker.

So I have to ask is that how you (MEP) generally 'aim' at systems, as in, from a design (more than modelling) approach, do you seek to work with, isolate and interrogate "a service at a time" rather than a "a run of X at a time".

Does that make any sense?

Oh how I remember the argument at Twisted Root about the Material versus Filters. LOL

Sent from my T1-A22L using Tapatalk

I'd say my example is backward-naming, technically. DWV = Drain Waste and Vent, P = Plumbing, M = Mechanical Piping, etc. You could go forward with this for other items such as Medgas, Chemical, and further break down plumbing (which can be too generic by itself) with Domestic Water, Gas, etc. Each of these categories can and usually will have multiple systems that relate to that particular category.

So your example with "Water_*" is essentially the same thing, only I'm using "DWV" or "P" or "M" or I'd use "MedGas_" "Chem_" etc.

Ha, yeah. Even though I've adopted Filters, Materials applied to the system is still the quicker, faster fix, especially for Navis exporting. Filters are still way better better though in the end for many other reasons.

-TZ

to be clear Filter Filters, rather than System Filters?