Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

General Information / Best Practices

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    General Information / Best Practices

    General Information:

    As we all know, creating content is a real time killer, and can be very difficult to cope for especially smaller firms. Here at RFO many of us are self employed, or employees at smaller firms, and we could all benefit a great deal, if we could agree on a common "style guide" and start some serious content sharing (even the large companies could benefit from this as well)

    This forum is dedicated to discussing and creating a common "style guide" (RFOSG)

    Once the RFOSG is completed, we´ll setup a place to easily share the files/families (preferably with version tracking)

    Maybe we can even setup a common "base" template (containing system families, materials, schedules, etc.), which each company can evolve on their own.

    I´ve created a thread for each category (MEP and RST will follow), and the idea is to use those threads for discussing category related issues, and edit the initial post in each thread as we go.

    To keep this forum as "clean" as possible, it´s not possible to create new threads. New threads can only be created by admins and moderators, and I´m thinking that those of you who plan to contribute to this project, could become moderators of this forum, so that you can create new threads, and edit/update the initial posts in each thread.

    Let me know what you think.
    Klaus Munkholm
    "Do. Or do not. There is no try."

    #2
    Best Practices

    Reference Planes:
    Any reference planes that you do not need to dimension or snap to, should be set to an Is Reference value of “Not a Reference.”
    Keep reference plane naming consistent with those provided by the template.

    Type Catalogs:
    For families that contain more than six types (sizes), create a type catalog.
    Klaus Munkholm
    "Do. Or do not. There is no try."

    Comment


      #3
      Nested Components:
      Make nested components "shared" by default. This way you can always schedule them.
      Martijn de Riet
      Professional Revit Consultant | Revit API Developer
      MdR Advies
      Planta1 Revit Online Consulting

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by mdradvies View Post
        Nested Components:
        Make nested components "shared" by default. This way you can always schedule them.
        True, but if they are also swappable with a <Family Type> parameter, the list of "types" to choose from gets HUGE, and is sorted, not by name, but by the order they where loaded :banghead:

        So, IMHO it should not be a *default* value, but something that are carefully planned for each category/family :beer:
        Klaus Munkholm
        "Do. Or do not. There is no try."

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Munkholm View Post
          True, but if they are also swappable with a <Family Type> parameter, the list of "types" to choose from gets HUGE, and is sorted, not by name, but by the order they where loaded :banghead:

          So, IMHO it should not be a *default* value, but something that are carefully planned for each category/family :beer:
          Hmmm, I'm kind of allergic to changing my workmethod to the shortcomings of a piece of software. So, the order of loading is not really cutting it for me. But I do see the problem and it bugs the hell out of me.

          It's just that I have a large library which I put together in 8 years of Revituse. There are families I use once in a few years. And it's a great way to check which parts are used for different families. Just import the family, and look it up in a multicategory schedule I created just for this.

          BTW: it isn't necessary for Shared Components to be swappable. This is IMHO another descision, which always creates a huge type list whether the swappable components are shared or not. That's what Type Catalogs are for...
          Martijn de Riet
          Professional Revit Consultant | Revit API Developer
          MdR Advies
          Planta1 Revit Online Consulting

          Comment


            #6
            I also recommend if its going to be ANYTHING that has sizes by type, or options by type, that it be Type Catalogged IMMEDIATELY, and not when it surpasses 6 types. The only things i Dont Type Catalog right now, are things i KNOW arent going to have many "types."

            Non-catalogged families stink. They load a ton of types in to projects with no real benefit. If the office decides they need a bunch more types, or something is wrong with one (sizing for casework, for example) its a chore. Open all the families, etc. Our Interiors and healthcare people wanted to make a global change to the way we were sizing Millwork, i did ALL of our content in fifteen minutes, didnt even open Revit.
            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


              #7
              Originally posted by Munkholm View Post
              General Information:
              Thread title: change spelling of Best Pratices to Best Practices
              I'm retired, if you don't like it, go around!

              Comment


                #8
                Thanks Dave

                So... do we recommend making type catalogs when more than one type, and require it when more than 5 (or 6) ??

                And do we agree that most nested families should be shared, but not all, as discussed in this thread ?
                Klaus Munkholm
                "Do. Or do not. There is no try."

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Munkholm View Post
                  Thanks Dave

                  So... do we recommend making type catalogs when more than one type, and require it when more than 5 (or 6) ??

                  And do we agree that most nested families should be shared, but not all, as discussed in this thread ?
                  Totally agree with these two options. Type catalogs are the only way to travel. I have separate type catalogs for different window manufactures and just drop them in and out as needed. These drive just one window type. Like Aaron said to global change you are just updating a text file.
                  Mark Balsom

                  If it ain't broke, fix it till it is.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
                    I also recommend if its going to be ANYTHING that has sizes by type, or options by type, that it be Type Catalogged IMMEDIATELY, and not when it surpasses 6 types. The only things i Dont Type Catalog right now, are things i KNOW arent going to have many "types."

                    Non-catalogged families stink. They load a ton of types in to projects with no real benefit. If the office decides they need a bunch more types, or something is wrong with one (sizing for casework, for example) its a chore. Open all the families, etc. Our Interiors and healthcare people wanted to make a global change to the way we were sizing Millwork, i did ALL of our content in fifteen minutes, didnt even open Revit.
                    I am in the process of revisting our door families, and am creating some all-in-one doors with different panel variations (Full Glass, Half Glass, Flush, Narrow Lite, etc.). Would you create a type catalog for this family for the different panel & size combinations?

                    Comment

                    Related Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X