Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Family Type for Windows

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

    Family Type for Windows

    Hi all,

    Long time lurker here who has learned a tremendous amount from this community. Thank you so much for all that you do.

    I am developing new window families at my architecture firm. For the most part I tried to follow recommended design conventions at this forum and are designed as such:

    (Muntins) Generic Model UH, nested into (Glazing) Generic Model UH, nested into (Sash) Generic Model UH, nested into (Window Frame) Generic Model WH, nested into ___.

    What are the pros and cons of nesting this unit into a parent family that is either a standard window family vs using a Generic Model WH family? I would like to have a firmer understanding of the implications of setting this as one or the other. Thanks!

    #2
    Originally posted by Azuefeldt View Post
    I am developing new window families at my architecture firm. For the most part I tried to follow recommended design conventions at this forum and are designed as such:

    (Muntins) Generic Model UH, nested into (Glazing) Generic Model UH, nested into (Sash) Generic Model UH, nested into (Window Frame) Generic Model WH, nested into
    IMO:
    Use shared families.
    Having the muntins as a separate family is fine - it is a lot easier to control. After that I would create a sash that includes the muntins, glazing and sash frame. This becomes your sash for a fixed window / casement / etc and 2 of them are your sashes for a single/double hung window. Create a frame as well. At this point I would nest all of those into the actual window rather than nesting it again. (I'm contemplating a rebuild of my windows and some of this may shift slightly)
    In this same family include your sills, lintels & trim - makes everything a lot easier long-term. Start with the most complicated assembly - i.e. 3 units with transoms, then work backwards.

    I personally have all of the parts created as generic models and nested into a window family (see attached) but I know people that have everything created as a GM.

    also this:
    https://www.revitforum.org/architect...l-windows.html
    Attached Files
    Revit for newbies - A starting point for RFO


    chad
    BEER: Better, Efficient, Elegant, Repeatable.

    Comment


      #3
      I would undo the top levels of nesting, too.

      Muntins > Sash > Parent Family
      Frame > Parent Family
      Trim > Parent Family

      Mine are all Generic Models, including the Parent Component. There is a thread here somewhere covering the pros and cons already.
      Attached Files
      Aaron "selfish AND petulant" Maller |P A R A L L A X T E A M | Practice Technology Implementation
      @Web | @Twitter | @LinkedIn | @Email

      Comment


        #4
        Thank you both for the responses! There is a lot to unpack and learn from examining your family, Cellophane.

        I am curious as to what the implications are of including multiple levels deep of nesting in families. Any recommended reading on that topic?

        Comment


          #5
          The problem isnt that you are nesting multiple levels, its that WHAT you are nesting isnt the best bang for your buck:

          There will be times you want to swap a frame and not a sash.
          There will be times you want to swap a sash and not a frame.
          There will be times you want to swap trim (exterior or interior) but not anything else.

          Thats why it makes the most sense to have them all simply nested one level deep in to the main family.

          My main families are Generic Models because it ELIMINATES all of the graphical downsides of the Window Category, and there are ZERO downsides, as you can still control the data to make them schedule on their own, and report window assembly codes. Some people just *dont like* that they are Generic Models, which is a people problem.
          Aaron "selfish AND petulant" Maller |P A R A L L A X T E A M | Practice Technology Implementation
          @Web | @Twitter | @LinkedIn | @Email

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post

            My main families are Generic Models because it ELIMINATES all of the graphical downsides of the Window Category, and there are ZERO downsides, as you can still control the data to make them schedule on their own, and report window assembly codes. Some people just *dont like* that they are Generic Models, which is a people problem.
            What in particular don't you like about window family graphical downsides?

            Comment


              #7
              Let's just say they have a unique relationship with the cut plane in the model.
              Greg McDowell Jr
              about.me/GMcDowellJr

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by bt.comm View Post
                What in particular don't you like about window family graphical downsides?
                Everything. They arent truly cuttable families, so you have to have a bunch of hackish crappy symbolic lines or detail components. My Windows are all 3d geometry, all the time, and they look great in Plan.
                Aaron "selfish AND petulant" Maller |P A R A L L A X T E A M | Practice Technology Implementation
                @Web | @Twitter | @LinkedIn | @Email

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by cellophane View Post
                  IMO:
                  ...
                  I personally have all of the parts created as generic models and nested into a window family (see attached) but I know people that have everything created as a GM.
                  I can see some of these GM nested components are Face Based. I know Face Based families cause grief when used in Groups. Are these ones safe because they are nested inside the parent family?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
                    Everything. They arent truly cuttable families, so you have to have a bunch of hackish crappy symbolic lines or detail components. My Windows are all 3d geometry, all the time, and they look great in Plan.
                    That's interesting. I had never really noticed, as our projects don't involve windows with lot of bells and whistles - they do behave weirdly if you start to make them more complicated with casings and so on. And if you don't use the symbolic lines, it doesn't seem to work at all.

                    Do Doors suffer from these behaviors as well?

                    Comment

                    Related Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X