actually the more your LOD increases, the more important it will be to seperate the elements for quantitative purposes.

My opinion is to have walls with all their layers created properly. This way you can count/itemize walls accurately. Sometimes I have to calculate thermal resistance and that's when it's good to have the walls as-they-are.

Thank you guys for the response I was checking some LOD400 and 500 specifications , U values and fire rating information call for a full wall assembly n material calculation can be performed with full wall assemblies but easier with separate walls

*If* it's a standard, I'd be surprised and I don't believe any LOD will dictate how to model, just what's required.


A good discussion about walls as assemblies vs walls as a kit of parts.
It also depends on where you are in the food chain. Are you a designer? A contractor? A sub? That could dictate your requirements and what's needed from a model.

More reasons why LOD should be kicked to the kerb!

The hilarity of it all (if it were funny) is that LOD runs rough-shod over the two distinct activities that it depends entirely upon; that is a model, and a definition of what BIM is.

The model is, and can be, whatever - so long as Information can be gleaned to meet the I part of the BIM requirements.

The key distinction here is that a model, Revit or otherwise, is not the/a BIM, so there's absolutely no argument, from any LOD "standard", that ALL of the Information should reside within a model. A technical report of, with certificates for, fire resistance tests; spreadsheets of U-Value calculations and synthesised thermodynamic models? All of these things are all alien to Revit - so in the same way I do not expect to find my services contract ever delivered to me in an .rvt, so should NO ONE expect the reverse in any shape or form.

The unadulterated hypocrisy and bias of the standard makers is, sadly, all too evident when you read most of them - so pay them no mind.

Model what suits your delivery requirements.

If someone picks your model up down the line and haven't themselves deflected an over-zealous LOD500 requirement, that is not your problem.

And yes, I did just suggest "chuck it over the fence" - despite all of us supposed to be cute in the spirit of collaboration - but, well, as you can probably work out I don't buy any of that BS either.