I see no reason why you can't model to the level of detail you're inquiring about. In my office we model to a high level of detail when it calls for it.

-TZ

Personally I always start really simple, make the family parametric, and then add detail.
So for example I would just make the top part and the bottom plate as rectangular blocks with parametric width and height.
Then a round extrusion with a duct connector on that can parametrically be sized and moved.
Then I would make sure it works functionally with duct systems etc and has the data in that I need.
Finally, if its really necessary, I might add 3D details, or even just a Detail Item that shows the grille with lines.

If you build from coarse to fine, and control everything with parameters, then you will have a family that can be easily adjusted to any size or model of fan coil you may need. Then instead of a huge model full of individual families, that have to be custom made for each project, you just need a few streamlined families and loads of Types.

If you can see that it is a fan coil unit, how big it is and where the connectors are.. does it really need more detail?

I actually hate using manufacturers models because they start with detail (They want to show off their product) and dont think about how to make it easy and efficient to use in projects. Things like modelling all the grille vanes kills the speed of your model when you have 50 of them on a floor plan.

Thank you!! I will try to figure it out.

As usual, I'm in full agreement with Josephpeel. Parameters and data come first, geometry comes second. If this were my project, I'd use a "generic cube" family that I use for all non-ducted DX air conditioners. I normally use it for wall-mounted cassette type units but I could easily just create a new type with the correct dimensional parameter values. It's literally just a box, but it has all of the necessary parameters loaded and I have a standard schedule that works with it. Its electrical connector will use the FLA and Voltage to calculate the correct apparent load. I don't mess with connecting refrigerant piping since its flow can't be modeled in Revit. All of our plans are 1/8" scale so all you're going to see is a square and the little "pipe down" symbols next to it, so I don't see the point in making the connection.

I do connect condensate drain piping, however. Here in the US we use connected tons of cooling capacity to size this piping, so you can push that data through a piping connector using fixture units. I'm scheduling the capacity data anyway, so I use that in a formula to get my "tons" value. In my models, you can see the "connected tons" (fixture units) totaled up in the condensate piping, which I can then manually size using my old fashioned engineering tables. It's very handy on jobs with lots of small AC units (for example, in IDF closets) and a lot of condensate piping.

Agree, except that the idea of using 'tons' to measure cooling capacity fills me with horror..

The latent heat of fusion for ice is constant, so why not just express it as energy? 1 ton 1016kg. Freezing 1kg Ice = 333550 Joules. 1 ton ice = 339,000,000 joules (Not really a practical size unit!)

Also it must be 'tons per hour'? Energy/time = power. 1 ton Ice in 1 hr = 339,000,000 joules/3600 seconds = 94166 Watts (joules/second)
Surely it is much more useful to say the AC unit has a cooling capacity of 94kW (Or hamster wheel rotations per lunar cycle, or whatever you use) and a COP of 3 so it consumes roughly 31kW of electricity max...

MADNESS!

I know, it's crazy, but that's "how we do" here in the US. Tons, pounds, inches, feet, gallons... the way God intended. None of those America-hating communist units!

Yes, it all starts with using metric units. Then before you know it you will be speaking french and german, saluting the EU flag, drinking beer that has flavour, and replacing the dollar with the Euro...