Imported or Linked DWG Appearance as Generic Model Broken in 2017

Using Revit 2017, I have a 3D DWG file for some framing that I want to use as a coordination reference within a project file. Initially I linked the file directly to the project but that approach (unfortunately) doesn't respect the cut plane of a plan view which, for example, means cripples above a header show up in the plan view too (header as well).

I decided I'd use the old create an in-place Generic Model family trick.

If you're with me so far you're probably expecting what I expected; to find that Revit regards this imported 3D geometry as generic model (cuttable) category information, giving me the look I wanted. However, when I clicked Finish Model the linked file disappeared entirely.

I thought for a moment, "Am I just imagining that I could do that? I swear Revit used to do this?!?"

Hmm, I decided I'd create a component Generic Model family instead and use Import CAD. This way I could replace the source CAD file if necessary.and just reload the family later...if necessary. Also thinking, "...maybe it'll work this time, this way...?" Nope...

I gave in, I did a quick search using Revit Help and noticed a result called "Regression Revit 2017 - Cutting 3D DWG with section results in inconsistent model display".

NUTS! ...at least I'm not crazy (about this at least)...

Well I'm writing to declare that it's not just an issue in section views. The damn thing doesn't show up in a plan view at ALL.

It works as I remembered in Revit 2016...project is in 2017 though.

I did try creating the family in 2016 and let Revit upgrade it in the 2017 project...no joy...busted. I also created a Specialty Equipment family (in-place too) and it shows up in plan view but since that category doesn't cut...it's missing the point, my reason for traveling this road in the first place.

sigh ... next service pack, update release, patch...(whatever they're going to call...)

Exploding CAD Data

Just say no! Friends don't let friends explode cad data! Any other words of wisdom?

If you have to...here is some text from the 2010 help file:

When you import a drawing into Revit, you are importing all the elements, such as blocks and external references (xrefs) from the drawing. (See Implications of Importing vs. Linking for Xrefs.) They are all contained inside a Revit element called an import symbol.

You can explode (disassemble) the import symbol into its next highest level elements: nested import symbols. This is a partial explode. A partial explode of an import symbol yields more import symbols, which, in turn, can be exploded into either elements or other import symbols. This is analogous to exploding in AutoCAD 2010 with nested xrefs and blocks. For example, you explode an xref into other xrefs and blocks. Those xrefs and blocks can, in turn, be exploded into more blocks and xrefs.

You can also explode the import symbol immediately into Revit text, curves, lines, and filled regions. This is a full explode.

NoteYou cannot explode linked files or an import symbol that would yield more than 10,000 elements.

Resulting partial explode import symbols can be exploded again by selecting them and clicking Partial Explode. You can continue to do this until all import symbols are converted to Revit Structure elements.

Selling Product versus Productivity

I read a post on Evan Yares' blog where he comments on an article written by Matt Lombard. Seems to me that though discussing CAD the discussion really is the same when you swap CAD for BIM (as a "product" at least). It is focused on Solidworks but you could easily put Autodesk in its place.

Evan quoted this portion of the original article on the blog Matt Writes and I like his selection so I'll include it here too.

"What’s the difference between CAD and Productivity? CAD is just a tool. In the same way that a hammer sitting on a bench isn’t putting a new roof on your house, CAD itself is just a static tool. Productivity is the combination of a tool and the ability to use it. It’s like a two part epoxy - either part on its own is just a sticky mess that you can’t do anything with, but put them together, and you’ve got something of value. If I buy a CAD product and have no idea how to use it, the software itself has no value to me. Ironically, the value is created by the customer, not the vendor, when the customer learns how to use the tool. So often, the customer has to pay extra for training on the tool. It is only when the abilities conferred by the training are combined with the software that you have something of value - productivity." [Matt Lombard - 2007]

If you aren't prepared to just read the rest yourself the article is asking Solidworks to focus their energy on providing better resources to help make the users of their product(s) more productive, the real value.

Evan added his own comment: "Advanced capabilities do far less to help make typical CAD users productive than do improvements in baseline usability."

I can hear someone using that as an excuse to stick with AutoCAD instead of moving to Revit. I can hear that twisted into an excuse to barely use AutoCAD Architecture features. I can hear someone say that I posted this because I provide training services and want to preach. No not at all, I think the point is to endeavor to recognize inefficiency (and do something about it, added in response of Evan's comment) wherever you might find it, it is all around us, you just need to look.