Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: WPB Families in Model Groups

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    July 21, 2018
    Posts
    88
    Current Local Time
    05:28 AM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!

    WPB Families in Model Groups

    Can someone remind me again why having Work-Plane Based families is not such a great idea for model groups - is it purely because users are likely to host components to elements outside of the group?



    When placing the components, if "Place on Work Plane" is selected instead of the default "Place on Face", and it's a plan view, then the components will all host to the Level and as I understand it there shouldn't be any fix group errors down the line. I.e., having all families hosted to one level is a good outcome. So is the biggest issue just that it's too easy to accidentally "Place on Face"? And if we were to somehow disable that button and force users to *always* "Place on Work Plane" in plan views there wouldn't be any issues?

    Some people are worried that using non-work plane based families means the families are sometimes hosting to a floor or floor finish rather than the level, and that this is causing fix group errors. There doesn't seem to be an easy way to adjust the host once the item is placed, so they want to make all families work-plane based and use the level as the work-plane.

    I don't get the final say, so before they go and update all my non-WPB families to WPB just thought I'd get some outside opinions.

    Thanks
    Last edited by LeChumpOfStultz; January 12th, 2020 at 03:49 AM.

  2. #2
    Administrator Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    10,779
    Current Local Time
    12:28 PM

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    WPB in groups is a hardcore bad idea. There is a technicality (glitch) that I can explain tomorrow when I'm not on a phone, but it's NOT work-aroundable.

    Essentially, it's what causes the group instability and erratic reputation groups have. Rotating groups, mirroring groups... All possible. Until FB, LB, or WPB come in to play.

    Avoid.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    July 21, 2018
    Posts
    88
    Current Local Time
    05:28 AM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Would love to hear more.

    Is the best idea to have all families as non work plane based and just place them where they lie, largely ignoring the "host" parameter value because it can very between groups if need be? (I think I did some testing that seemed to support this idea.) Or should users place components in empty space or something so that the host always reads as the level?

    The end goal here is having group stability, but with the assumption that users aren't always going to place components correctly.

  4. #4
    Administrator Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    10,779
    Current Local Time
    12:28 PM

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    I used non WPB and don't even pay attention to what it lists as hosts. I just place them in context. No workarounds needed.

    I'll post the handout from testing the group behaviors later... I taught an RTC class in Australia on it, that year.

    Meetings all day today tho.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

  5.    #5
    Member
    Join Date
    July 21, 2018
    Posts
    88
    Current Local Time
    05:28 AM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Did you find a copy of the handout or is there a link to it online somewhere by any chance?

    I thought my conclusions about group behaviour were the same, that the listed host thing could largely be annoyed, but some people are still really concerned that different elements inside the same group appear to have different hosts, and that even between group instances the element can seem to have a different host.

  6.    #6
    Administrator Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    10,779
    Current Local Time
    12:28 PM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    I did! Apologies, ive been out of town all week.

    But- based on this thread and an email conversation i had this week- i DID revisit the "unhosted families hosting to floors" issue. It doesnt crop its ugly head for me, because my finish "floors" are roofs, but YES: The UH families DO host to floors even if you dont want them to, so my comment above would change: If people have FLOORS in their model, id hide them before placing UH families that are going in groups.

  7.    #7
    Administrator Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    10,779
    Current Local Time
    12:28 PM

    3 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    And after that, i forgot to post the handout.

    BTW, there are some things in this handout i would revise based on knowledge ive gotten since i taught that class. But more on that later.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  8.    #8
    Member
    Join Date
    July 21, 2018
    Posts
    88
    Current Local Time
    05:28 AM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
    I did! Apologies, ive been out of town all week.

    But- based on this thread and an email conversation i had this week- i DID revisit the "unhosted families hosting to floors" issue. It doesnt crop its ugly head for me, because my finish "floors" are roofs, but YES: The UH families DO host to floors even if you dont want them to, so my comment above would change: If people have FLOORS in their model, id hide them before placing UH families that are going in groups.
    Haha sounds like the office is back to relying on users to correctly follow protocol then, never a good option

    I can't imagine users are going to remember/want to always hide floors before placing elements, or go to designated floor plans to place elements. Much like they're not going to select "Place on Work Plane" rather than the default "Place on Face".

    And with that in mind, I suspect some will say that WPB isn't necessarily any worse - both require users to do things correctly and if they don't then group errors will arise. And given so much of the library is already WPB I feel like they would need much stronger persuasion to change, any ideas?

  9.    #9
    Administrator Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    10,779
    Current Local Time
    12:28 PM

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    1. I don't subscribe to it being my "job" to persuade people, anymore. I tell them how it is, and if they can't see the reality, I focus on users or clients who do see it. I don't waste time on folks that have to be "won over to agreeing." I sympathize with Practice Technology Managers who have to. I spent a number of years doing it. It sucks.

    2. WPB is still way worse. It's 100% of the time they have to check what they are doing, with WPB. UH, it's only if a floor happens to be in their model, AND visible in the view. Given view ranges, roofs being a better modeling tool, structural slabs being in a separate model (which don't behave the same way with UH components), a lot of the time the UH ones don't need to be "checked" at all.

    3. As scary as it is, in light testing, accidentally hosting the UH family to a floor, DIDNT break the group, even when the floor was moved under one instance and not another. It made ME uncomfortable, but Revit was okay with it. A WPB family hosted? It'll break a group every time.

    This is a false equivalency argument. There aren't two equal positions. There are just lazy people who don't want to do more work. No offense meant, of course.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

  10.    #10
    Forum Addict elton williams's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    2,712
    Current Local Time
    04:28 AM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post

    structural slabs being in a separate model (which don't behave the same way with UH components)
    Is that because it's a linked model element or because it's a 'structural' slab?

Similar Threads

  1. Model Groups with Faced Based Families that are Shared/Nested
    By GMcDowellJr in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2019, 02:10 AM
  2. Families Vs Model Groups in 2019
    By LeChumpOfStultz in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 19th, 2019, 12:15 PM
  3. Model Groups With Workplane Based Families Best Practice
    By LeChumpOfStultz in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 8th, 2018, 03:23 AM
  4. Wall Hosted Families in Model Groups adding Levels to project
    By ew11 in forum Architecture - Family Creation
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 7th, 2017, 04:50 AM
  5. Model groups - Attaching existing detail groups, not creating new ones?!
    By basilmir in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 21st, 2014, 12:06 PM

Posting Permissions

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