Welcome to the forum! :thumbsup:

Natively, not really.

There are addins that will do bulk SP adding to content, and equally addins that can do bulk-population. Dynamo can do both, if you've the capacity to learn it, and an aversion to paying for addins.


As for the IFC aspect, that would require custom mappings - at which point I step away and defer to the better judgment and knowledge of others.

Thanks for the advice. The rvt file will be shipped off to the architect (from us, a contractor) to put together the final project. would any addins that I am running have an adverse affect to this process?

Macros (and their effects) travel with models & content, addins do not.

But the suggestion (to employ addins) was made thinking you were the author - whereas now, my advice could be misconstrued I was promoting a workflow that required another (party) employ an addin - which it was not. Personally, I would encourage you reconsider that line of thinking - unless of course you're one of those generous contractors who buy their consultants the tools you need them to use?

What's got me thinking/wondering now is, what's the idea behind furnishing a consultant with an .rvt in this way? Is that a standard practice for you? I mean, to say, why would any architect (want/need) to use your .rvt file?


One imagines this is all pushing a data-requirement? In which case, surely you need only provide your consultant with a shared parameter file, IFC mapping definition, and a spreadsheet/matrix detailing what gets what?

Thanks

There is no standard practice for my industry. we are one of the last branches of consultants to begin working with revit as a project modelling tool.
An architect would need to use our model because of the complexity and specialisation of each component input into the project.

my question remains then - is there either;
a method of adding parameter information onto an IFC element which has been imported into the project
OR
a method of exploding an IFC element to make it editable within the family creater.

Thanks for your help so far.

The decision to define the parameter within a family (versus the project) should be closely reviewed. There are certainly many situations in which that is appropriate. However, in your example, I would argue that a Project-based (shared or not) would be a better choice. You mention needing to add a parameter for gas, electric, and water requirements.

PROS:
1. Define the parameter once, in the file, rather than in each family
2. Allows you to define it as an un-shared, but still can display in a schedule and on the element. This lets you edit the name of the parameter, later, if needed.

CONS:
1. As a project-based parameter the gas, electric, and water parameters would be applied to all families in that category (specialty equipment). Which may make filtering other specialty equipment out of the schedule more challenging.

If you really want to batch-add the parameters to the families, you can use the Extensions tool: https://ideatesoftware.com/blog/batc...revit-families

Cheers,
Glynnis Patterson
www.ideatesoftware.com