openRevit

This post is going to focus on two things

1. The overuse of worksets
2. Controlling graphics WITHOUT worksets

Too often I come across users who are immediately drawn to controlling visibility and graphical issues through the use of Worksets. Large teams devise diabolical plans on how they will split up the model into numerous worksets to allow for the integration of each teams design, or maybe to split up users so no one is stepping on each others toes. I admit, when back in the day I used to use worksets to check out work for individual users there would be a number of them to choose from. Finally I came to my senses and realized that there were a lot of issues with checking out worksets, and in fact element borrowing was the most efficient and effective way to work on large teams. Here is an excerpt from Autodesk on Worksets.

While the capability to check out a workset remains valuable under certain circumstances outlined below, in general the best practice is to use element borrowing rather than checking out entire worksets.

Read More >>

Although this has been discussed a great lengths by others, I have to explicitly call out those who are continuing to perpetuate the false idea that creating pipe types for the purpose of graphical filtering or naming is the correct thing to do. This is a myth.

This issue originally stemmed from the lack of available OTB system types within Revit. Those who have done lab work know that the piping systems can go easily into the double digits. Currently the pipe connector systems available by default within Revit are as follows

• domestic hot water
• domestic cold water
• fire protection wet
• fire protection dry
• fire protection pre-action
• fire protection other
• hydronic return
• hydronic supply
• sanitary
• Other (the universal donor)

At some point in time someone thought it would be a good idea to duplicate pipe types and rename the family types to correspond with the system it was “supposed” to be on (ie. chilled water supply). Notice the use of quotations. This is the first issue with this type of categorization. You will always to be able to create the filter, visibility, and naming settings you want even if the pipe is on the WRONG system. this allows you to override the actual system with the wrong one. Why would you ever want to do that? And worse yet, you may never catch it.

Here are some of the issues with creating pipe families and types by system

• doesn’t allow you to catch incorrect system connections
• creates duplicates of already defined real pipe types (steel, PVC, etc.)
• reinforces bad habit of not creating or completing piping systems

As outlined a while back by Martin Schmid @ Inside the System, the correct way to create an unlimited amount of piping systems is through the use of the system name.

The original purpose of Pipe Types was to be able to define pipes by their material, pressure class, dimensions and joint/connection types. There is no reason to duplicate steel or copper piping for the purpose of visibility and graphical settings.

Stay tuned next time for Part II of Mythbusters where I will talk about Worksets.