Schedule Linked Files and Current File

I wrote an earlier post describing a way to create a schedule of linked files. I read a thread at RFO asking about including the current file in the schedule too. I can use the same approach to get that result too. This is a schedule of Levels (since all projects have at least one).

The schedule will naturally reference levels in the active file and I only need to check the Include elements in links option to get their levels too.

The query at RFO also dealt with custom file naming so I took advantage of the built-in Project Information parameter called Building Name. In each project file I've entered a custom File Name in Building Name. This example is using the format described at RFO. I also unchecked the option for Itemize every instance to avoid having many rows for each and every level in the files. I used Clear Cell to eliminate the Title (also turned off that option in Appearance) and used Hide Column for all the fields except Building Name. For this to work long term we need each trade to include this same piece of information in their model/file and update it when they post their next version.

Revit 2017 - Calculated Values in Tags

This addition permits us to do the same thing to tags that we've been using in schedules. For example, in a tag I'd like to show the difference between the client required area and the actual area of a room. That wasn't possible without some export/import or Dynamo shenanigans. Now it is possible, right in a tag.

This starts in the Edit Label dialog via a new button, then it is the same as the dialog we've seen in Schedules.

Since these can be used in schedules and tags, and it has to be done separately for each use, it probably makes sense to document all of the formulas we use so they are easily harvested for another project. Build them into a template and there is less need to do that at all. Regardless it wouldn't hurt to have a Drafting View set aside with the text versions of all the formulas we use stored there. That way a simple Copy/Paste operation can harvest a formula to use in a tag or a schedule or both.

Revit 2017 - Combine Parameters in a Schedule

This is the often requested ability to concatenate parameters values into a single column. The schedule Properties dialog has seen some cosmetic changes, note the new Combine Parameters button.

We see the new smaller buttons replacing the larger and clearer buttons of old. I also get the New and Modify buttons confused with each other ALL the time. When we use Combine Parameters the dialog looks like this for a Room Schedule.

This is combining width and height into a single size parameter for a Door Schedule.

Another very interesting possibility is to combine different parameters for the same values when different families are displaying the same information but have different parameter names, because they came from different family creators. Here's combining three versions of width parameters into a single column, three families using three different shared parameters for the same thing, you can see I left each parameter's name in the heading.

I found it interesting that I can even combine parameters assigned to different Types of Parameter, like length and text. This is an example where I've combined two text parameters and one length parameter all intending to say the same thing, however impractical it will be to deal with the units of that mixture, or lack thereof.

This means we can create a VAV Schedule based on different families from different manufacturers and combine their different manner of Horsepower (or similar) parameter value into a single column. VERY interesting!

Doors and a Sliver of a Room

Following on my post yesterday regarding Doors and Rooms, if you happen to have a room that is NOT at least 14 inches deep you will find that Revit is unwilling to report either its To Room or From Room parameter. If you've been reading this blog a long time you may remember a post I wrote which included a short video that mentions this issue?

A room like pictured below will work because it is 14" deep.

However the room pictured below won't be recognized and the corresponding parameters will be blank, in this case the To Room parameters.

If you are familiar with the Room Calculation Point (I call it RcP) feature it can be used to influence this issue.

Keep in mind it will also negatively affect which room you can regard as the To Room, if not for this door specifically any other doors that need the opposite behavior.

The Room Calculation Point (RcP) feature was added to doors to provide a way to change how the To Room assignment is controlled. Originally the To Room value for a door was (still is without the RcP being enabled) decided based on the side of the wall the door swings in toward.

There are doors which must swing out of a room but still belong to the room they swing from. For example a classroom's door (like shown in the images above) often swings outward to the corridor (often set into an alcove), for exiting requirements usually. However we still think of and document the door as belonging to the classroom, not the corridor.

If the door is placed so that the panel swings into the classroom (using stock doors) then the To Room parameter is assigned to the classroom. If we then flip its orientation so the panel swings out of the classroom the To Room value remains associated with the classroom (check out the post I mention above for a video of this behavior).

The RcP feature changes that behavior to alter the To Room value to follow the flip of the door orientation regardless, which means in my example, and the images above, the To Room value would change to reference the Corridor instead.

May you have sliverless designs...

Stretching Schedule Properties Dialog

When we stretch the schedule properties dialog only the Available Fields list gets wider. The side dedicated to the parameters assigned to the schedule gets no love.

It's been this way for quite awhile but it still seems strange to me...

Insert Data Row is Disabled

While working in a Room Schedule we can create new rooms via Insert Data Row versus placing a room in the model and having it appear in the schedule. This allows us to assemble a project's programming requirements early or at least at the same time as modeling activities are creating the building. There are two settings that will disable the Insert Data Row tool (using Revit 2016 at the moment). This is what it should look like.

If we don't check the Itemize every instance option on the Sorting/Grouping tab the Insert Data Row is disabled.

The other culprit is using the Embedded Schedule feature.

Careful out there...

Finding Families - IDs of Selection

When we need to track down a family that might be loaded into one or more project files we can use master schedule project that includes links for all the relevant project files. If one of the project files already has links to all the others then we can just use that one for this instead.

A schedule focused on the relevant category that also uses the option Includes elements in links can be quite useful.

It can help us track down which models and how many there are in each of them. A little clever use of the Filter tab in the schedule can be a big help. Once we've figured out where the family is we can deal with each of them in each project.

We can search through the Families branch of the Project Browser and then use the right click option for Select all Instances in Entire Project.

Now I can reach for IDs of Selection.

Revit provides a list of Element ID numbers for each family.

It is not unusual for the list to be quite long so I often reach for Notepad (or better still Notepad++...which reminds me I need to install it on this new PC). I use CTRL+C to copy the element IDs to the clipboard and then CTRL+V in Notepad. Notice the commas between the Element ID numbers.

In Notepad I can be selective about which ones to start examining more closely. I just select one or more of the element IDs and then use Select Element by ID (CTRL+C and CTRL+V again in reverse).

Notice the instruction in parenthesis (in the image below)? It says to use a semicolon between the numbers but Revit used commas earlier. Odd.

...and...believe it or not, this is the reason I decided to write this post... commas work too. Yeah, that's definitely subtle.

As for the element hunting and selecting process, I'll be interested and waiting to see what sort of Dynamo approaches pop up in comments.

Revit MEP - Circuit Length Calculation

I received an email asking if I thought it would be possible to use a Line Based family to calculate wire length for circuiting purposes. It was prompted by reading an earlier post about using them for Egress Path calculation and documentation. I think it's a reasonable approach for Egress Paths because there is no such tool or concept already in Revit.

Electrical circuits on the other hand do calculate their length already, granted it does so simplistically. It combines the X/Y/Z distances of the devices from the panel (and each other) to arrive at a total circuit length.

A friend some years ago sent me a PDF that showed a bunch (a couple shown above) of different equipment and device layout schemes he did to better understand how Revit arrives at a value for Circuit Length. What it shows is that Revit does nothing to factor in obstacles which force the wiring to go up or down or around the things that are more than likely going to increase the total circuit length.

To be fair...how could it really? How detailed is the model? How long do we want the software to interrogate the model, the linked models to do a better job? It's a bit like requiring all conduit to be modelled, even 3/4" conduit feeding single gang boxes in a wall when there isn't a single stud in the model. Like with so many things in life, it's about context.

It's one thing to put a single gang box on a wall to indicate one is required here and another thing entirely to run conduit to all the way to it when you can't be sure it can really go there. Or like showing a pair of outlets back to back on a demising wall in a residential project where fire rating and sound attenuation would require them to be separated by a minimum distance.

Some things are still conceptual (schematic) in nature even in fairly detailed models. If we start modeling every stud then perhaps it becomes more reasonable to expect more system detail too. Then again if I have to create a run of (15) 3/4" conduits across a wall or ceiling I probably ought to model that situation because it's going to take up a lot of space and everyone else ought to be aware of it.

It's also been my observation that no matter how good software gets at a task there are always outliers that dismiss its results as still wrong. That written, it does matter and Revit should improve how it does calculations and how much say we have in the outcome because the length it calculates is also used internally to contribute to other calculations like wire sizing and voltage drop.

Setting aside how circuit length should be calculated (it might surprise you to know that engineers don't always agree on this), I'd consider this approach if my task was to determine how much wire was needed, a little closer to actual requirements than might show up in the circuit properties. I'd create a schedule focused on Electrical Circuits.

What you see above: I created a couple panels and added a bunch of duplex outlets. I assigned them to circuits. The schedule's second column is Revit's calculated length, no more effort on my part than placing devices, creating circuits and choosing a panel.

I sorted the schedule by Panel and then Circuit, provided a header for Panel and footer for totals. I added a parameter for Length Factor (a number) and then a Calculated Parameter for Total Estimate (a length) which uses a formula of Length Factor * Calculated (column 2).

Then I consider each circuit's circumstance and enter in a factor that increases or decreases Revit's own calculation according to how easy or hard the actual wire run or routing will be...or at least what I think it will be. A factor of 2 doubles the length etc. This calculation doesn't factor into load calculations like for Voltage Drop...but then neither would using a line based family.

This doesn't account for situations that might share a neutral (or ground) or runs that are comprised of individual conductors in conduit (like THHN or THWN) or a wiring combined into a common jacket like Cerro's NMB (a typical household wiring product).

That's the risk/difficulty of automatic calculations, the closer you examine situations the more outliers there are. It can be a bit like arguing about something being 99.6 percent correct. If it costs another $1000 to get to 99.9 or 100%...is that difference worth it?

Schedule Text and Width Factor Fidelity

Schedules in Revit 2015 are able to use any of the text styles defined for a project. Text styles have supported the use of a Width Factor for several years. In schedules however this width factor is not observed so there is a loss of fidelity when comparing text elements and text that appears in schedules. The text above and below the schedule lines are using a width factor of 0.75 but the schedule rows do not look that same despite using the same text style.

Log this under Fit and Finish?

Quick Tips - Disabled New Data Row Button and Pinned Element Selection

Two gotchas I've seen come up a few times lately.

Revit 2015 R2 provides a separate button for a new Data Row when we create a room, area or space (sheets too). It is disabled however when the schedule is not using the Itemize every instance option (un-checked). This means creating a new row might not be visible in the schedule, so it is disabled. I wrote a post about the new Data Row button when R2 became available.

Can't select something in your view? Did you pin it? Someone else pin it? Why do I ask? Because we can tell Revit we don't want to select Pinned Elements now. The trouble is we forget those settings easily and later we look clicking challenged when we repeatedly click on something and Revit ignores us. I previously wrote about the new since Revit 2014 Selection Options.

Revit 2015 R2 - Data Row

In August of 2013 I wrote to complain about the placement of the Data Row button to create a new room, area, space or sheet in a schedule. I'm happy to write that they listened to me (and everyone else). The latest update release for 2015 has dedicated a little bit of ribbon real estate to a Insert Data Row button on its own. Fewer clicks for click counters to click (or count)!

Ugh Schedule Bug Revit 2014 and 2015 and Hotfix

Reading through a thread at RFO this morning brought some unpleasantness to my attention. The usual suspects there have been working with Autodesk to identify the issue and then a reply mentions that Autodesk is working on a Hotfix for both 2014 and 2015 to reconcile it.

Short story: Multi-Category schedules that are intended to include elements in linked files may not be report everything or anything correctly.

Link to a Hotfix (right-click Save As)
Link to READme

Thanks to the RFO gang for the heads up!

Deleting Spaces or Rooms in Schedules

Want to delete all the Spaces or Rooms you see in a schedule? Take these steps:

• Scroll the bottom of the schedule
• In one fluid sequence click to select the last row (left mouse button) and...
• Drag your cursor UP until it is over the ribbon (yes, beyond the schedule)
• Let go of the left button
• Click Delete

Revit will prompt with a total number of elements that will be deleted. It should match however many was listed in the grand total. Wherever you put your cursor in the schedule and drag up to the ribbon, Revit will let you delete all rooms from there to the top of the schedule even though it is off screen

If you try the same thing from the top down you only get as many rows as are visible in the schedule window.

2014 Revit OpEd

How Many Levels

In Revit 2014 they added Levels to the list of things we can create a schedule for. Working in a project stuck in 2012 I found myself wishing I could use that feature. I really just wanted to know how many levels were actually in the project. I was pretty sure there were more levels than I could see in a section view. I still got my answer but not with a schedule.

I started the process to create a new floor plan view. Revit's dialog has an option to hide levels that already have views. I unchecked the option: Do not duplicate existing views. Now I was sure how many levels were really in the project, more than I suspected.

It really means don't create new views for levels that already have at least one view associated with them. Their phrasing is less wordy but I usually get furrowed brows at first when we discuss the purpose of the option.

Want to speed up creating views? Close all User Created worksets first. Revit will generate the views much quicker when there is nothing to display in them.

2014 Revit OpEd

Schedules can be in a Group

Alex at RFO mentioned in a thread that he has created a Group with schedules on sheets to help manage them when he needed them on more than one sheet. I wouldn't have thought it was even possible and I probably wouldn't have thought to try that even if it occurred to me.

Schedules that are on more than one sheet can end up in different locations so a Groups origin could make it a bit easier to ensure a schedule or schedules are arranged the same way from sheet to sheet.

Something to think about, hat tip to Alex!

Formatting Schedule Wish

I wish I could move schedule fields up and down in the list just by clicking on one or more and dragging, on both the Fields and Formatting tabs. I know it's asking a lot. If I can't get that I wish there were Move Up and Move Down buttons on the Formatting tab for fields too, like this.

I can't count how many times I find myself on the formatting tab and realize that I'd prefer a little different arrangement. No it isn't hard to switch back to the Fields tab, but it seems so unnecessary...it's the "same" list. From a development standpoint it is adding a couple buttons and copying code. I could probably manage it with what little I remember of programming in the past. Which of course means it is too easy to get done. :(

Foundations and Insulation Calculation

I got involved in a thread at RevitForum.org that asked about calculating the total bitumen insulation required to cover concrete foundation surfaces. The original post described using the Paint tool and how much time it took. I always wonder if people are responsible for the calculations or just curious whenever I read such requests. Sometimes I ask. Intellectual exercises might be interesting but they can waste a lot of time if the results don't actually get used by someone.

Since I put the effort into it already I decided to use this post to share the example project I created in response. I shared an earlier version in the thread but this one has more ideas expressed.

I'm inclined to try to use schedules and formulas to calculate/predict the insulation material required instead of using paint and a material takeoff. The Isolated Foundations (footings) have one form (most of them) so there aren't compound layers like foundation slabs, floors or walls.

It isn't as simple as just reporting all the surface area of each kind of foundation. It isn't even simple to do just that. The surface touching the ground doesn't get the insulation (my understanding in this situation). No insulation is required where a column sits on a footing so we need to subtract the column base area from the top of footing surface area. No insulation is required where a wall sits on a footing either.

We also have parameter inequity. Isolated Footings don't have a "thickness" parameter. Foundation Slabs and floors do. Inconsistent application of dimensional values is the sort of trouble we face when we use the provided family categories (as their naming/behavior implies we should) and try to compile their information using the "same" notion of dimensional criteria. They just aren't all equal, they don't have the same "beliefs".

My approach started out with a foundation schedule that includes footings and slabs, a schedule for walls and a third for columns. I needed to distinguish between footings and slabs so that I could create formulas to figure out the area for the top and sides of each kind of footing. Floors and Slabs have Default Thickness and Perimeter. When they are rectangular they also have Width and Length. If they are irregular they don't. Foundation footings don't have thickness but have Width and Length.

I used a formula to divide the Volume to arrive at an Approximate Height to use to calculate surface area for top and sides. I used a parameter called Is Slab (an integer) so my Bitumen formula could decide which formula technique applied. I just enter a 1 for slabs and 0 for footings. This is the foundation schedule for wall footings, isolated footings and slabs/floors.

As you can see I added some rows to the header to explain the empty cells in the schedule. I also added the formulas (after capturing the images) to the comments so it's possible to validate the results without having the model.

Here's the schedule for the walls. I've not resolved the overlap of walls onto footings or the walls and their own footings in the schedule above. I'd probably create another schedule for subtracting the bottom surface area of the walls, or if possible include it in this one.

And here's the schedule for the columns, I put the (-) in the header to make it a little more obvious that the area should be subtracted from the other totals.

You may already know that columns don't have a base width or length parameter that we can see in schedules. They have a type name but the parameters that govern their base dimensions are called "b" and "h", like the corresponding graphic in some structural design manuals I've seen. I added two shared parameters, Base Width and Base Length, to the column family and just made them equal to "b" and "h". That's probably the easiest way to resolve content that fails to use system parameters that are compatible with other families, as well as content that you download and find the same conflict between other content of the same category.

Assuming the approach above is completely uninteresting these are some possible alternatives we could consider.

• We can "paint" on materials and there is a Split Face tool which will work on floors, foundation slabs and walls but not structural foundations or columns. We can model all foundation elements as floors and/or foundation slabs which would make it easier to use the Split Face tool and then paint on the insulation.
• Use a combination of the schedules above and some use of the Paint tool and material takeoffs.
  
• We can create separate families for the insulation conditions that can be scheduled by themselves, or at least for the foundations that can't be "painted" with Revit's paint tool.
• We can build more complex footing families that have an additional form(s) for insulated surfaces and these can in turn be used to define them in a material takeoff, instead of a regular schedule.
• A talented programmer with the Revit API could take into account all sorts of permutations and generate a pretty comprehensive summary).

I've posted the project file if you'd like to DOWNLOAD IT. Happy insulating!

Level Matching in Schedules

If you've used the Level parameter in a door or room schedule to sort and group them you may have also been surprised when you attempt to do the same thing including a linked file's elements. The Level parameter becomes unavailable in the filter tab of Schedule properties when it includes linked elements.

Behind the scenes Revit doesn't look at a Level the same way we do. We see a name like ground or second floor but Revit sees a unique ID instead. That means a linked project might have the same levels, the names we read, but they aren't the same ID. To a computer they couldn't be more different.

Revit reconciles this same situation with phases by providing a phase mapping tool in the properties of each linked model. When we use that dialog we are telling Revit that "this" is the same as "that". It seems pretty reasonable to me to do the same thing for levels. Provide a level mapping button right next to phase mapping, or combine them into a project mapping dialog. Maybe it doesn't have to be a mapping dialog. We could just interact with them in a view to map them to each other. We do this when we use Copy/Monitor.

The current workaround is to filter a schedule based on some other data that is uniquely level related or worse, actually entering "level" information into each element so they can be filtered by it. Add to the un-Revityness is that we now have to encourage people to add the same info to their model so we can use it in our schedule. Especially frustrating when the "same" info is already in the model.

Schedule Column Selection Wish

Short and sweet. I wish that when I select a column in a schedule and drag across multiple columns that the view would scroll as I move beyond the frame of the view. This way I could select all the columns in a schedule that is too wide to do so in one pick/drag motion.

Undoing the use of Clear Cell in a Schedule

I wrote a post in June 2013 that describes the new feature for Revit 2014 schedules called Clear Cell. This allows us to separate the view name in the project browser from the name we see in the schedule header. I got a comment on that post yesterday asking how that can be reset or undone. It's pretty simple though not obvious perhaps. It boils down to putting a parameter into the header instead of the text we used after using Clear Cell.

To reset the header, while in the Schedule Editing mode/view, click in the Header field, notice the Parameters panel on the ribbon?

Click Category: (a drop down list box) > Choose Schedule

Now click the Parameter: (a drop down list box) > Choose View Name

You should see now.

The brackets indicate that Revit will provide whatever the parameter value is. In this case its the parameter value for View Name.