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

Thread: Trying to break "bad" family modeling behaviors

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    June 28, 2019
    Posts
    14
    Current Local Time
    11:43 AM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Trying to break "bad" family modeling behaviors

    I am a BIM manager and I've been ruminating on something for a while. I have a user that just loves to make his own family types. Especially doors, windows and stairs. The stairs part we can address later... but there's something about his workflow that just bothers me to no end, but I struggle to come up with a meaningful "why" to address this.

    His process: this user makes a lot of doors and windows families that start as generic models then become doors/windows. He says this helps me get around the issue with placing doors or windows on infill elements in Revit. I agree that placing doors and windows in infills in revit can be frustrating at times, but there are workarounds.

    Either way, he creates a generic model, converts it to a door or window so it will schedule then precedes to model it. My only real push back I have is that his modeling techniques may not be in alignment with our firms "standards". We do create family templates for their use and have supporting documents for their guidelines.

    After thinking about this for a long time I just cannot figure out a good strong "why" to support my argument that he should be modeling doors as doors and windows as windows. I cannot find any good articles on why one shouldn't do this, so if this exists already, thanks in advance for any direction.

    Cheers-

  2. #2
    Forum Addict Andres Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 21, 2012
    Location
    Tours, France
    Posts
    1,116
    Current Local Time
    01:43 PM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by MPS_DWarren View Post
    ...I have a user that just loves to make his own family types. Especially doors, windows and stairs...
    Try with users that don't like or don't want to make their own families is far worst, If you have an user that like to do his families you need to encourage him to improve his method and yours!

    Quote Originally Posted by MPS_DWarren View Post
    ...His process: this user makes a lot of doors and windows families that start as generic models then become doors/windows.
    don't see a problem with that!, is perfectly normal if the person pay attention to that process, I do the same all the time, and as BIM Manager I've found that this process works very fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by MPS_DWarren View Post
    ...After thinking about this for a long time I just cannot figure out a good strong "why" to support my argument that he should be modeling doors as doors and windows as windows.
    AFAIK you don't need an argument for that, you need to hear him and let him explain his process, as I've already said is not a bad workaround if you know how to deal with object styles, sub categories and nested parameters
    Last edited by Andres Franco; March 3rd, 2020 at 01:56 PM.

  3. #3
    Forum Addict GMcDowellJr's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 21, 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    2,774
    Current Local Time
    04:43 AM

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Theres no functional difference between a Door made from a Generic Model template with a Wall host and changed to the Door category and a Door made from a Door template with a Wall host.

    Are they making them non-hosted?

    What do you mean by infill?

  4. #4
    Forum Addict Andres Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 21, 2012
    Location
    Tours, France
    Posts
    1,116
    Current Local Time
    01:43 PM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by GMcDowellJr View Post
    Are they making them non-hosted?, What do you mean by “infill?”
    Was thinking the same!!, I've a project here in Paris which a BIM manager to the other team (the structural one) ask me to re do all my doors to have then non hosted!!, I just say no way

  5. #5
    Moderator cellophane's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 9, 2011
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    6,361
    Current Local Time
    07:43 AM

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by GMcDowellJr View Post
    Are they making them non-hosted?

    What do you mean by “infill?”
    I presume by 'infill' the OP is referring to renovation projects and that lovely automatic infill wall that pops up when you demo an element. If anything with demo is in a group you can't have anything hosted to the demo elements or the groups implode. A non-hosted door/window would be one way of getting around that.

  6. #6
    Forum Addict Andres Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 21, 2012
    Location
    Tours, France
    Posts
    1,116
    Current Local Time
    01:43 PM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by cellophane View Post
    ...and that lovely automatic infill wall that pops up when you demo an element...
    very funny

    Quote Originally Posted by cellophane View Post
    ...A non-hosted door/window would be one way of getting around that....
    Good to know that!!

  7. #7
    Administrator Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    10,894
    Current Local Time
    06:43 AM

    3 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by MPS_DWarren View Post
    I am a BIM manager and I've been ruminating on something for a while. I have a user that just loves to make his own family types. Especially doors, windows and stairs. The stairs part we can address later... but there's something about his workflow that just bothers me to no end, but I struggle to come up with a meaningful "why" to address this.

    His process: this user makes a lot of doors and windows families that start as generic models then become doors/windows. He says this helps me get around the issue with placing doors or windows on infill elements in Revit. I agree that placing doors and windows in infills in revit can be frustrating at times, but there are workarounds.

    Either way, he creates a generic model, converts it to a door or window so it will schedule then precedes to model it. My only real push back I have is that his modeling techniques may not be in alignment with our firms "standards". We do create family templates for their use and have supporting documents for their guidelines.

    After thinking about this for a long time I just cannot figure out a good strong "why" to support my argument that he should be modeling doors as doors and windows as windows. I cannot find any good articles on why one shouldn't do this, so if this exists already, thanks in advance for any direction.

    Cheers-
    In my humble opinion, you have several DIFFERENT issues going on, and they all need to be addressed differently.

    1. The technical issue: As has already been said: Starting with a GM Family Template and converting it to the Door Category, has no issues (as long as the converted Door works and functions in the ways needed by the company). So, if your reason for "arguing" with the staff member (or looking for backup) is simply that it "bothers you," than the problem is yours, not the project team members.

    But, i would want to get to the root of the specific issue they are having with infill elements, to make sure your "office standards" actually address the issue, and function correctly. Not everything written in your OP makes complete sense, about why they are doing it.

    Then there is the question of everything OTHER than the Family Templates: Are they getting ALL the correct Shared Parameters in that new family, so it schedules correctly? If so... take them out to lunch, and give them a "good job." LOL.

    2. Staff members not adhering to office standards: This *IS* an issue, even if the staff members dont LIKE the office standards (within reason). Having been there many times, if there exists a well thought out and documented standard, and the standard DOES work, then you need to deal with the fact that someone feels entitled to do whatever they please. But, that brings me to item 3:

    3. Office Politics: Simply put, it shouldnt be on you (as a BIM Manager) to be the "enforcer." The times i was most effective as a BIM Manager, it was when Management realized the importance of what i was doing, and the strategy we had set up was: As the BIM Manager, i was the one who discovered the issues with staff members, and brought them to Leadership. And just like any other issues in the Architectural Office, office leadership would address it with the staff. Going one on one (BIM Manager vs Project staff) isnt a great idea, as even if you win its a Pyrrhic victory: The staff now doesnt like you, or feels persecuted, or alienated. Either way, its not good.

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    June 28, 2019
    Posts
    14
    Current Local Time
    11:43 AM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by cellophane View Post
    I presume by 'infill' the OP is referring to renovation projects and that lovely automatic infill wall that pops up when you demo an element. If anything with demo is in a group you can't have anything hosted to the demo elements or the groups implode. A non-hosted door/window would be one way of getting around that.
    You are correct.

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    June 28, 2019
    Posts
    14
    Current Local Time
    11:43 AM

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
    In my humble opinion, you have several DIFFERENT issues going on, and they all need to be addressed differently.
    1. The technical issue: As has already been said: Starting with a GM Family Template and converting it to the Door Category, has no issues (as long as the converted Door works and functions in the ways needed by the company). So, if your reason for "arguing" with the staff member (or looking for backup) is simply that it "bothers you," than the problem is yours, not the project team members.

    But, i would want to get to the root of the specific issue they are having with infill elements, to make sure your "office standards" actually address the issue, and function correctly. Not everything written in your OP makes complete sense, about why they are doing it.

    Then there is the question of everything OTHER than the Family Templates: Are they getting ALL the correct Shared Parameters in that new family, so it schedules correctly? If so... take them out to lunch, and give them a "good job." LOL.
    Thank you for bringing up the technical vs behavioral issues here, sometimes even I fail to differentiate these, perhaps I've gotten to close to the issue by thinking about it so darn much. That being said. other than his conventions for object styles, line weights, line patterns, filled regions, shared parameters, etc. are almost NEVER correct or consistent. But barring that, if there is no "technical" issue against creating a generic model and converting it to a door, I won't try to stop him (I wasn't really trying to stop him, there's just something about his modeling behavior that I just didn't... like... ergo.. my problem, not his.

    The end user adopted this technique a long time ago in a version of Revit before I ever started working in Revit. In his words: "the doors in earlier versions of Revit didn't do what I wanted, so it was faster to create a door as a GM and convert it." I saw this a means of working around the demo infill issue mentioned earlier.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
    2. Staff members not adhering to office standards: This *IS* an issue, even if the staff members dont LIKE the office standards (within reason). Having been there many times, if there exists a well thought out and documented standard, and the standard DOES work, then you need to deal with the fact that someone feels entitled to do whatever they please. But, that brings me to item 3:
    Yep, dealing with users that are "above the rules", is all part of the gig, IMO. If you don't like handling people, and managing cultural change don't become a BIM manager. I generally don't hammer people... unless they deliberately go against a recommendation and it borks a project.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
    3. Office Politics: Simply put, it shouldnt be on you (as a BIM Manager) to be the "enforcer." The times i was most effective as a BIM Manager, it was when Management realized the importance of what i was doing, and the strategy we had set up was: As the BIM Manager, i was the one who discovered the issues with staff members, and brought them to Leadership. And just like any other issues in the Architectural Office, office leadership would address it with the staff. Going one on one (BIM Manager vs Project staff) isnt a great idea, as even if you win its a Pyrrhic victory: The staff now doesnt like you, or feels persecuted, or alienated. Either way, its not good.
    I rarely "enforce" standards. I build and document our standard and measure each project's adherence to it. If the PM/PA doesn't want to follow standard that's their prerogative, they can explain themselves at the next project report card meeting. But most of my users understand that if you flagrantly ignore standards, it balloons how much time is required to "fix" things when they go sideways.


    -I deeply appreciate your feedback and insight- Thanks for the everything.

  10. #10
    Administrator Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    10,894
    Current Local Time
    06:43 AM

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by MPS_DWarren View Post
    Thank you for bringing up the technical vs behavioral issues here, sometimes even I fail to differentiate these, perhaps I've gotten to close to the issue by thinking about it so darn much. That being said. other than his conventions for object styles, line weights, line patterns, filled regions, shared parameters, etc. are almost NEVER correct or consistent. But barring that, if there is no "technical" issue against creating a generic model and converting it to a door, I won't try to stop him (I wasn't really trying to stop him, there's just something about his modeling behavior that I just didn't... like... ergo.. my problem, not his.

    The end user adopted this technique a long time ago in a version of Revit before I ever started working in Revit. In his words: "the doors in earlier versions of Revit didn't do what I wanted, so it was faster to create a door as a GM and convert it." I saw this a means of working around the demo infill issue mentioned earlier.
    So... the End User isnt correct, about this. Or they dont know what they are talking about. Nothing (much) has changed about the fundamentals of how Doors work, in Revit, since i started using Revit in 2006. They got some ADDITIONAL functionality about wall layer wrapping, in recent years, but i know this functionality isnt what your end user is talking about, since they would be LOSING that functionality by starting with Generic Models.

    So... no. There isnt any functionality that they are "gaining" by starting with GM's, nor was there in previous versions of Revit.

    I hear this "logic" a lot: "It didnt work in an earlier version of Revit, but maybe its been improved recently, since it works now." There are a few isolated cases of things getting improved behind the scenes, that users dont know or uncover (like the Detail Items now working when Shared, as discussed in another thread), but wholesale massive changes to Door Functionality? Simply didnt happen.

    Hence wanting to get to the bottom of their "reasoning."

    Also, FWIW, i dont seen an ADVANTAGE to what they are doing, either. Im just saying i dont know that i would die on that hill, unless its causing an issue somewhere, because of how they are doing it. By the way:

    That being said. other than his conventions for object styles, line weights, line patterns, filled regions, shared parameters, etc. are almost NEVER correct or consistent.
    IMVHO, that counts as "an issue." If they were getting everything right, and it was JUST how they were doing it, that you didnt like, i would say to let it go. But: No. If they cant get the standards right doing it their way, they need to Get In Line.

Similar Threads

  1. "Flatten" or "stiffen" parametric family
    By paidpal in forum Architecture - Family Creation
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: September 14th, 2018, 05:09 PM
  2. Modeling "Stabox" in Revit Structure
    By chihieu969 in forum Structure - Family Creation
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 23rd, 2017, 05:38 PM
  3. "split surface" and "paint" in nested family
    By marcomella in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: February 11th, 2015, 07:28 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 9th, 2013, 07:15 PM
  5. Revit Journal "Break Point"?
    By Gordon Price in forum Third party Add-Ins, API and R&D
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 26th, 2012, 11:16 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
  •