Transcript Class Summary

WARNING! This may void your Manufactures
warranty: Dissecting Revit Content with the Pros
Steve Germano – Director of Technical Sales
Bryan Novotny – Senior BIM Developer
Parley Burnett – BIM Development Manager
© 2011 Autodesk
Class Summary
The world is shifting head first into Building Information Modeling (BIM), and a wave
of Revit MEP content is being produced by manufacturers. Knowing what to look for
and what your models should contain can make or break your company's workflow.
This class will serve as your MEP content crash course and you will learn how to
separate the good Revit MEP content from the bad.
© 2011 Autodesk
Who is

?
Sister Company with JBA Consulting
Engineers

Headquartered in Las Vegas, NV
 MEP / Tel-Data / Life Safety / Security /
AV Design Firm

Company Vision – “Optimizing the
Building Lifecycle”

BIM Content
 BIM Applications
© 2011 Autodesk
Speaker Bio

Steve Germano – Director of Technical Sales




8 Years of HVAC Mechanical Engineering Design
Implemented Revit into worldwide MEP firm
Using Revit MEP since its inception
Bryan Novotny – Senior BIM Developer

8 Years of Manufacturing Mechanical Design
 Part design Inventor / Solidworks / Pro-E

Parley Burnett – BIM Development Manager

4 Years Architectural Design Background
 Designing with Revit Architecture since 2005
© 2011 Autodesk
Learning Objectives
At the end of this class, you will be able to:

Identify a high quality BIM Model

Identify key factors that make the transition from ‘Generic’ to Manufactured easier

Identify key factors that really hinder project performance, Myths vs. Facts

Apply additional little-known tricks to your content creation workflow
© 2011 Autodesk
BIM Standards

Revit MEP content has been around for over 5 years
© 2011 Autodesk
Who is Developing Standards and Where are they?

Government Sectors

Agencies and Organizations
© 2011 Autodesk
Can’t Find the Standard you Need?

At a minimum refer to the Autodesk Metadata Style Guide

Visit online hosting sites such as Autodesk Seek
© 2011 Autodesk
Why Aren’t You Using Manufacturer Based Content?

Imported, Non-Revit Geometry
- No Visibility Options
- No Linking of Materials
- Effects Project Performance
•
Lack of Meta-Data
- No Data?
- Improper data/data types
•
Content Providers Lack of Industry Knowledge
-Hosting Behaviors, Incorrect Data Types, Incorrect Family Categories etc..
© 2011 Autodesk
Why Aren’t You Using Manufacturer Based Content?
•
Over Modeled Geometry
-Revit Models are NOT Fabrication Drawings
•
Too Many Parameters or Un-Organized Parameters
•
Scheduling Conflicts
- Lack of Standardized Parameters
© 2011 Autodesk
Advantages When Using Quality Manufacture Content
•
Time Saving
•
Swap nested annotation symbol to firm standard easily
•
Accurate Data/Geometry
•
Highly Customizable Content
•
Visibility Settings/Graphics Configured to Work Within a Project
© 2011 Autodesk
The Good, the Bad, the Ugly!
© 2011 Autodesk
Example: The Bad and Ugly
© 2011 Autodesk
Example: The Good
© 2011 Autodesk
Revit Family Performance Testing
© 2011 Autodesk
Solid Geometry vs. Void Extrusions
MYTH - Voids use up more file size

Voids use exactly the same file size
 Only add file size when voids CUT solid geometry
SCENARIO:
One solid shape uses 20 KB.
Copy the solid and make it a void. Together, they now equal 40 KB.
Cut the solid with the void. Family now equals 60 KB.
(We saw an average increase factor of 1.5)
© 2011 Autodesk
Imported CAD vs. Native Revit Geometry
Many say NO to imported CAD, but for the wrong reasons.

Imported CAD uses LESS file size AND loads faster
 Materials CAN be assigned through imported CAD layers.
Native Revit model
Imported CAD model
CAD Geometry
Project File Size (10,000 1x1x1 boxes) = 5,420 KB
Revit Geometry
Project File Size (10,000 1x1x1 boxes) = 9,128 KB
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
KB
Imported
CAD
Revit
Drawn
Blank Family
10,000 Instances
© 2011 Autodesk
Imported CAD vs. Native Revit Geometry
Real reasons:
 Autocad files are often over modeled/detailed for Revit’s purpose.
 Materials not set through traditional method
 No flexing
 Visibility: all or nothing
 Stability
© 2011 Autodesk
Nested Families
MYTH - Any nesting beyond 2 levels will kill your family
Our test:
Structure:
Testing Variations:

Parent Family (288 KB)

Level 1 (288 KB)
Level 2 (288 KB)

Level 3 (288 KB)
… Level 8 (288 KB)
Only Geometry
Geometry with linked
parameters
Geometry with types
What was Tested:
 Load times
 Project file size
 Project performance observed
© 2011 Autodesk
Nested Families – Project File Size
10,000
9,000
8,000
6,000
5,000
Only Geometry
Geometry with Linked Parameters
Geometry with Types
4,000
3,000
8 Nested Levels
7 Nested Levels
6 Nested Levels
5 Nested Levels
4 Nested Levels
3 Nested Levels
2 Nested Levels
2,000
1 Nested Level
KB
7,000
© 2011 Autodesk
Nested Families – Load Times into Project
20.0
18.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
Only Geometry
8.0
Geometry with Linked
Parameters
Geometry with Types
6.0
4.0
2.0
8 Nested Levels
7 Nested Levels
6 Nested Levels
5 Nested Levels
4 Nested Levels
3 Nested Levels
2 Nested Levels
0.0
1 Nested Level
Seconds
16.0
© 2011 Autodesk
Things to avoid - ARRAYS
KB
ARRAYS
800
780
760
740
720
700
680
660
640
620
600
With Arrays
No Arrays
Family File Size (KB)
40
Seconds
35
30
With Arrays
25
20
No Arrays
15
10
BAD! Affects load times, responsiveness
5
0
Load Time (s) into Project
© 2011 Autodesk
GROUPS
Seconds
Things to Avoid - GROUPS
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Ungrouped Geometry
Grouped Geometry
Time to Load Into a Project (s)
2000
KB
1500
Ungrouped
Geometry
1000
Grouped
Geometry
500
0
BAD! Affects file sizes
Family File Size (Kb)
© 2011 Autodesk
Things to Avoid – 3D TEXT
350
300
KB
250
With One Sentence of Model
Text
With out Model Text
200
150
100
50
0
Family File Size (Kb)
Seconds
3
2.5
2
With One Sentence of Model
Text
With out Model Text
1.5
1
0.5
0
Time to Load Into a Project (s)
© 2011 Autodesk
Formula Performance
WRONG WAY:
if(AND(Condition1, Condition2, Condition3), True,
if(AND(Condition1, Condition2, Condition4), True,
if(AND(Condition1, Condition5, Condition6), True,
if(AND(Condition1, Condition5, Condition7), True, etc….))))
RIGHT WAY:
if(Condition1,
if(Condition2,
if(Condition3, True,
if(Condition4, True, False)),
if(Condition5,
if(Condition6, True,
if(Condition7, True, False)),
False)),
False)
© 2011 Autodesk
Masking Regions
PLAN VIEW : BAD!
PLAN VIEW : GOOD!
© 2011 Autodesk
Tips and Tricks
© 2011 Autodesk
Exploding Families
The problem: difficult to edit stacked geometry
The solution: exploding families
Live demo…
© 2011 Autodesk
Hidden Nested Family Geometry
The problem: difficult to hide nested families
The solution:
Set the visibility of nested family
geometry to a new yes/no parameter.
Then, inside the parent family, map
this parameter to the same one you
would the ‘Visible’ parameter.
Before: Modules above
patch panel are technically
hidden, but visible in the
family
After: Modules above are
still there, just not visible
© 2011 Autodesk
Visibility of Voids
The problem: Can’t hide void shapes
The solution: Move it so it doesn’t intersect!
Live demo…
© 2011 Autodesk
3D Error Messages
The problem: Can’t control user selections (other than types)
The solution: Output 3D Text Error Messages
Live demo…
© 2011 Autodesk
Look Up Table Switch
The problem: fittings don’t “flip” when pipe orientation is changed
Two Solutions:
1) Add rows to look up table for opposite configurations
2) Change formulas to look for both configurations
EXAMPLE:
Parameter = if(and(ND1/ND2 Configuration Not Found, ND2/ND1 Configuration Not Found),
Default Value, if(ND1/ND2 Configuration Not Found, ND2/ND1 Value, ND1/ND2 Value))
© 2011 Autodesk
Clearance Areas
Tip: use solid geometry to identify areas that should
remain clear of any other geometry in the project.
This will enable powerful collision detection
Other considerations:
 Only visible in 3D
 Assign subcategory: Clearance Areas
 Symbolic lines to represent it in plan/section views
 YES/NO parameter to turn on/off
 Depth should default to industry standard
© 2011 Autodesk
Snap-in-place families
The problem: Difficulty in assembling products
The solution: Make it easy by improving references for
Snap-in-place behavior
Live demo…
© 2011 Autodesk
Flipping Connectors
Live demo…
© 2011 Autodesk
Questions & Answers
Autodesk, AutoCAD* [*if/when mentioned in the pertinent material, followed by an alphabetical list of all other trademarks mentioned in the material] are registered trademarks or trademarks of Autodesk, Inc., and/or its subsidiaries and/or affiliates in the USA and/or other countries. All other brand names, product names, or trademarks belong to their respective holders. Autodesk reserves the right to alter product and
services offerings, and specifications and pricing at any time without notice, and is not responsible for typographical or graphical errors that may appear in this document. © 2011 Autodesk, Inc. All rights reserved.
© 2011 Autodesk
Booth 401/403
 Come
Check us out!

LaunchPoint Utility FREE!!!

SpecPoint BIM-On-Demand Configurators FREE!!!
© 2011 Autodesk