They came in and showed us how to use it. Seemed great, but a little too much info for our model. We just used it to generate our office standard doors but stripped them down.
I think the LOD is a bit elevated for our office or design scope also. Its a nice tool, but I think we may be better off building our own doors. I think that from a design perspective, our door models need to achieve different goals and maybe we want more control over that.
I have implemented openings studio into a couple architecture firms. We use it to share the door schedule with Assa Abloy, then we bring their completed Schedule info back into Revit, without replacing the doors. The parameter values in the schedule are added to the existing door families.
Build your own doors. You'll spend a lot of time but it'll pay off in the end. You'll have the doors you know work as you want and you'll have gained a lot of experience in family creation. You might even get the bug so bad that you'll never again want to use a manufacturer's family (other than maybe a light fixture). Cabinets, windows, showers, tubs, counter tops, flashing... The rabbit hole goes deep.
I've tested it for sending door schedule information, but had some issues with custom parameters (using the doors Aaron posted a while back). It is fixable, but requires some coordination with the Assa reps. To create the doors, I would echo what the others have said about creating your own. Here is the link to the doors that were shared: https://www.revitforum.org/architect...-v4-r2015.html
For what ever it is worth - I prefer the Allegion app over the Assa Abloy for getting the information out. Granted, that means Allegion is writing the specs, but our local rep (for both companies actually) is pretty good.
The Allegion app (the way it works) makes much more sense, and it doesnt dump 850 pounds of **** in to your file: It asks you "what schedule is the Door schedule," and it reads INFORMATION from the schedule, not from the Door Components themselves. Assuming you have a door schedule that works for your documentation, that is intelligently built from your library, that is an AWESOME approach, because it means they arent dictating to you HOW to work with Doors in Revit. Which is fantastic.
AAOS wants you to use all of their stuff, and all of their libraries, and it also shoves a boatload of parameters in your files, and- if it encounters ANY use of Doors in a manner other than what they are expecting- it takes a dump on your front lawn.
Both of their goals are the same: To end up with a hand on your specs for Division 08.
AAOS goes about it in a way that- if you have a crummy door implementation to start with- can be very appealing, because they give you a ton of doors to try to help you along. Allegion goes about it in a way that- if your door setup is already very nice- works very un-intrusively, which i (ultimately) respect.
Having said that, my door libraries (both the free one from 2012 and the current pay one) *CAN* work with both: AAOS and Allegion. For AAOS, you just have to jump through a few extra hoops setting it up in your Template.
FWIW, you dont NEED either: AAOS or Allegion. I wish more architects would push back, when 3rd party Spec-assistants or recommendation makers or vendors, told them to install platforms just to get recommendations on Project Hardware. I would say "No. I will send you an electronic copy of the door schedule (in excel, or whatever), and you can give me your input, and I WILL CONTROL how it mixes with my project, AFTER I REVIEW IT." There is zero reason to install an app to mess with Door Hardware, other than "oh this vendor is offering to do some of my hard work, so they can get their products in the specification."
Having placed a door into a wall, I want it to open outwards. If I do this, I find that the door is put into a stupid position in the opening with the...
Comment