Donate Now Goal amount for this year: 2500 USD, Received: 1627 USD (65%)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
Like Tree7Likes

Thread: Hosted Families on Ceilings are a pain.

  1. #1
    Forum Addict tzframpton's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 17, 2011
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    1,994
    Current Local Time
    05:41 AM

    Cool Hosted Families on Ceilings are a pain.

    Small rant here, but as an MEP guy I'm considering never using Hosted Families ever again for Ceilings. Have any of the MEP guys went down this path?

    I want to create Families identical to the Hosted ones but non-hosted. The main reasons are that it's a pain to manage on virtually every job. First, there are certain ceilings that it doesn't "grab" in RCP View so you have to place it in 3D. Second, in the architectural link, if the architect places their families and it cuts the ceiling, when you place yours in the same place, guess what... there's technically "no ceiling" so it becomes orphaned. Last, is when there's a change. Tons of orphaned lights or diffusers, etc.

    I think I've been doing it this way for so long because it's what I was told to do many moons ago. It sounds so right to host to ceilings, but in practice it's horrible. I'd rather just set an offset and run with it. I can tag all the ceilings showing me the height anyways, or I can set filters that can show different heights at different colors to know when it's a 9'-0", 10'-0", 12'-0" and so forth in a QAQC set of views. And hey, if I can be proved wrong and there's a great way to do it then by all means - I just want consistency and efficiency is all.

    Anybody in the MEP world tired of the hosted to ceilings thing for their ceiling Families? Anyone care to chime in on it?

    -TZ

  2. #2
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    10,100
    Current Local Time
    05:41 AM
    I'm assuming by *ceiling hosted* you mean yours are *face based,* since Ceiling Hosted wouldnt let you use the architects link at all, as a host... right?

    Either way, ive worked with a bunch of engineers in the last few years who have gone completely unhosted. Its more time up front to place them and get them the right height and everything, but its much more predictable.

    Heck, ive even converted a lot of the formerly-face-based architectural content i had, back to completely 100% unhosted. Its happiness.
    tzframpton and cganiere like this.

  3. #3
    Forum Addict tzframpton's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 17, 2011
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    1,994
    Current Local Time
    05:41 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
    I'm assuming by *ceiling hosted* you mean yours are *face based,* since Ceiling Hosted wouldnt let you use the architects link at all, as a host... right?

    Either way, ive worked with a bunch of engineers in the last few years who have gone completely unhosted. Its more time up front to place them and get them the right height and everything, but its much more predictable.

    Heck, ive even converted a lot of the formerly-face-based architectural content i had, back to completely 100% unhosted. Its happiness.
    That is correct, Face Based is the more accurate statement.

    Well, I trust your commentary more than anybody in Revit so I'll just make time to do it. Just tired of the inconsistency. I'd rather it worked, to be honest, and maybe one day it will.

    Thanks again man.

    -TZ

  4. #4
    Forum Addict GMcDowellJr's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 21, 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    2,576
    Current Local Time
    03:41 AM
    What about Work Plane Based (WPB)? I'm pretty sure it's still an issue with Groups and, of course, if the WP is deleted the element will no longer have a host.

    What's the issue with orphaned elements? Question, not commentary. I've only ever seen it as something that was annoying (cause now I have to rehost and/or move elements) but you're doing that with Un-Hosted regardless. Or is there something else I don't know about?

    BTW Aaron -- In your study of groups and why they break did you find that they break if the elements are system family hosted? I've been seeing some groups that I assumed would break but didn't. Come to find out the elements I thought were Face-Based were actually, in this case, Wall-Hosted. I haven't tested extenisvely but I think I'm now seeing that the same is true of Ceiling and Floor Hosted. If all that's correct (more or less), one less than ideal workflow might be to share-nest the FB and WPB families into the appropriate hosted families (or even UH maybe) and name them in a way that makes it clear they're for Groups. I, and just about everyone I've worked with, really like FB and the idea of giving them up entirely for the few project types where we would have the most groups is a bummer.

  5. #5
    Forum Addict tzframpton's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 17, 2011
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    1,994
    Current Local Time
    05:41 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by GMcDowellJr View Post
    What about Work Plane Based (WPB)? I'm pretty sure it's still an issue with Groups and, of course, if the WP is deleted the element will no longer have a host.
    Same issue, really. It's a pain to always have to select a Workplane, then I have unnecessary work planes everywhere. It would actually be easier just to stick with Face Based hosted families.

    Quote Originally Posted by GMcDowellJr View Post
    What's the issue with orphaned elements?
    I believe the "Orphaned" thing came into fruition because prior to this, if a hosted element in a link was deleted or altered, the family would delete. Once it's orphaned, you can still change the XY location, but not the elevation. You have to "rehost". The main thing is the cuttable ceiling families in an architectural model. If you have to match their layout, every component becomes orphaned, therefore you can't copy level to level easily on typical floors, and if the ceiling changes heights, you have to rehost every one of them.

  6. #6
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    10,100
    Current Local Time
    05:41 AM
    Share-Nesting turns in to a kludgy basketcase, in about a minute and a half, when you do it JUST to get around hosting. Having said that, i dont make *MY* objects that go in ceilings unhosted... I leave mine as Face Based. But im not in Engineering, and several engineering firms i work with are moving back to unhosted (and have been for years), since it makes their lives easier, because they dont HAVE the hosts in their model, and they "need different things" in their files:

    1. In architecture, i WANT the hole cut out of my ceiling, because its part of the graphics of my documents. So unhosted/unbased isnt an option for me (no one im cutting holes out separately).

    2. Im not going to orphan my own stuff, and if it gets deleted, its because i deleted something else of mine, so thats fair game.

    The Share-Nest just to keep a family as unhosted and hosted, really gets to sucking if you want them sized by type. You either end up with a useless top-level family that doesnt do much of anything, or your nested family has to be a different one than the one you use elsewhere, because you need the parameters to be instance to pass them through to the parent family. And you WANT to pass them through, so they can cut the ceiling, or there is no point. Or you end up with voids in your nesteds, and manually cutting, which succccckkkkks.

    Wall hosted, ceiling hosted, roof hosted, and floor hosted DONT APPEAR to have the same issues as WPB/Face Based, in Groups. Having said that, USING the WPB/FB in groups works fine, *IF* you "know the rules." I keep plenty of stuff Face Based. IMVHO, having *everything* FB is stupid. Just this week i undid the face-based-ness of my Toilet Stalls, Toilets, Urinals, and most Drinking Fountains (recessed bottle fillers are still Face based). Upper cabinets are now unhosted, and have been for months, and i LOVE it.

    "Making stuff connect" when they dont CUT EACH OTHER, is just something we *assumed* would make lives easier, but it aggravates people when they have to fight with it later. My new rule is it only gets:

    1. Face Based: If it has to cut a hole out, and
    2. System Family Hosted: Only if it is required to know the thickness of the object its cutting (like doors).
    Last edited by Twiceroadsfool; September 23rd, 2016 at 09:45 PM.
    tzframpton and cganiere like this.

  7. #7
    Forum Addict GMcDowellJr's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 21, 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    2,576
    Current Local Time
    03:41 AM
    I must have missed something in the grouping rules then because face-based light fixtures always seem to be breaking my groups!

    I know what you're going to say, but are you sure that wall-hosted, for example, breaks groups? I've been testing and it seems they don't... maybe I missed something?

    I was certain wall-hosted broke groups but a guy in one of the offices told me I was wrong. I got indignant and went to prove him wrong only to find that they weren't breaking. The only thing I could figure is the wall-hosted worked (like with doors) where the face-based didn't . The rest I'm extrapolating from.

    I've not started working out the how. Sounds like there are issues I'll run into. I figured I would share-nest, apply a family type parameter, recreate the necessary instance parameters and hook them up. I've done it for other things (casework in a curtain panel for example) and it's worked out well so far. I haven't tried cutting the host yet.

    I'd be okay with managing un-hosted by my office mates would lose their minds.

  8. #8
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    10,100
    Current Local Time
    05:41 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by GMcDowellJr View Post
    I know what you're going to say, but are you sure that wall-hosted, for example, breaks groups? I've been testing and it seems they don't... maybe I missed something?
    It was a typo. Sentence was supposed to say they DONT APPEAR to have the same issues. It has to do with Face-Based using one face of the object, and not the object itself.

    If you were in my RTC Australia class when i went over the issues, youd find out you can fix the issues entirely, with only allowing one face based object per face. Yep. Break the wall at every cabinet, and the groups all behave perfectly.

    BTW, after i taught that class, and sent the handout to autodesk, the champs at QA/QC chased down that bug. Youll find the groups are WAY more stable in late 2016 and 2017 releases, REGARDLESS of the content.

    But thats not why i started changing mine to unhosted. I like not having to constantly rehost stuff, when i can just MOVE it.
    cganiere likes this.

  9. #9
    Moderator DaveP's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 10, 2011
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,962
    Current Local Time
    05:41 AM
    We've gone (or at least are going) to completely Unhosted.
    Been through the whole
    • "Wall Hosted" . . . oops won't work with Links
    • "Face Based" . . . oops won't work (well) in Groups
    • Unhosted!

    process.
    Currently, most of our families are Unhosted and we're encouraging people to use the "Moves with Nearby Elements" checkbox.
    The problems with Moves With are mostly that you have to remember to check it. But it's slightly flaky as to what "Nearby" means, too.
    If we could build the Move With option into the family itself, or at least leave the default set, it would help a lot.
    tzframpton and cganiere like this.

  10. #10
    Moderator cellophane's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 9, 2011
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    6,119
    Current Local Time
    06:41 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
    BTW, after i taught that class, and sent the handout to autodesk, the champs at QA/QC chased down that bug. Youll find the groups are WAY more stable in late 2016 and 2017 releases, REGARDLESS of the content.
    Did they ever resolve the issues with rotating groups to 90? I seem to recall something about it but for the life of me I can't remember...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Hosted fixtures in curved or sloped ceilings
    By bt.comm in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: June 6th, 2016, 11:01 PM
  2. Converting Families to Un-hosted
    By cellophane in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 27th, 2015, 01:04 AM
  3. Placing families on linked ceilings?
    By domsib in forum MEP - General
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 22nd, 2015, 10:43 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 20th, 2014, 01:15 AM
  5. Nested annotations on roof hosted families
    By jmk in forum Architecture - Family Creation
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 27th, 2013, 12:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •