什么'；s第一步sta

hertz hound · 发表于 2022-7-8 20:20:34

我对Revit一点也不精通，但我已经完成了Revit architecture“无需经验”，并且完成了Paul Aubin掌握RMEP的三分之一。Revit architecture“无需经验”这本书是我的良好起点。

在启动Revit之前，我希望将AMEP设置得非常好，如果启动Revit，我就不会松开它，然后找到一份需要AMEP的工作。一种方法是阅读有关Acad架构的书籍。

从我看到的情况来看，Revit和Acad Architecture在屋顶板、楼板和墙壁方面非常相似。

在Acad Architecture中，我制作了TJI结构构件样式和屋顶椽结构构件样式。我不认为任何人通常会浪费时间做这件事。对我来说，这一切都只是练习。我还做了窗台板和箱板。然后制作楼板来代表底层和硬木地板。从那以后，我建了一个房子的模型。

我相信类似的操作也可以在Revit中完成。坚持到底。无论哪种方式，绘图的开销都会很大。

Revit似乎使用绘图视图来处理它，以减少开销。我知道我不应该比较两者，但绘图视图是带有擦除块或遮罩块的模型，然后在此基础上进行详细说明。这样，您就可以获得所有构件的详细信息，而不必将其构建到族中。

nestly · 发表于 2022-7-8 20:23:58

谢谢赫兹猎犬。听起来我们在某种程度上是平行的，然而几个月后，我放弃了AMEP，因为对我来说，它显然无法满足我的需求。初步观察表明，Revit MEP对我来说同样不可行，但Revit Architecture和R

tzframpton · 发表于 2022-7-8 20:26:10

Why not? Virtually anything you can do in vanilla AutoCAD you can do in Revit, as generic models. Not everything you can do in AutoCAD you can do in AMEP with AMEP-specific components (therefore it's just AutoCAD).
Either way, with a preexisting commitment to some minuscule "initial observations", it may mean that you'll never allow it to be a viable option for you. Revit is different in almost every way than your current comfort zone, AutoCAD, which puts Revit automatically in the negative bias department with you. Sometimes, it's not about what something can't do, but what it can do. In my experiences of both programs, I've never circumvented from honesty between the two platforms. I've always stated there will be give and take, and I'll tell you now like I've told everybody else - there will be things you'll miss from AutoCAD and you'll hate from Revit, but there will be things you love about Revit so much you'll shun AutoCAD.

The answers I give all depends on what you ask. If someone asks, "which do you prefer overall, Revit or AutoCAD, for MEP design?" I'll say Revit. If you ask "which do you prefer to model a Fender Squier guitar?" I'll say AutoCAD.

It's all give and take. If you want infinitely robust and accurate Solid modeling capability with no information-rich scheduling and lackluster view creation, keep using AutoCAD. If you want an unprecedented view of architectural and structural coordination (when available) with MEP components, and information-rich model view generation, use Revit.

From what I know, AutoCAD's modeling capabilities in Primitives and Solids are far more efficient than any other CAD software available. It reins king in this area, bar none. Furthermore, the RVT file format also includes a robust database, so anything added or included will add more weight to the file. There's a lot more going on under the hood of an RVT file format than DWG. Every item modeled is accounted for both spatially and informationally. Even the *.txt journal files from Revit can be gigabytes in size, just for a text file!! But, there was a time in the earlier days of AutoCAD that an 800KB DWG file was probably massive, so I feel this is relative.

nestly · 发表于 2022-7-8 20:31:43

I think "generic" is the operative word. I don't work in a generic world. Everything I do that's related to piping and plant layout is very specific, which is to say the structural design and pipe routing I encounter in the real world probably isn't designed the way a software engineer would have designed it. Don't get in a twist about that statement, I'm not very deep into Revit yet, these are my initial observations.

So I just finished the stair tutorial, and while the Revit stair tool looks very good for laying out stairs/railing, my initial observation is that while they look pretty in the Revit model, they seem to be lacking the detail that would be required to actually fabricate the stairs/railings. (ie no specifics about stringer/tread material, no specifics about the connection between stringers and treads, no specifics about the connection between the stairs and the railings, and no details about either the top or bottom connections. Again, this is my initial observation, but it looks like to get proper working stair drawings, you either have to draw/model it manually in Revit, or use another program that's better suited to modeling fine detail. It seems as though this may be typical of what I'll encounter using Revit for pipe supports and pipe routing as well, which is the basis for my initial observation.

Again, I'm just in the initial stages of evaluating Revit, so I'm far from drawing any conclusions.

tzframpton · 发表于 2022-7-8 20:33:57

I believe you misunderstood what I meant by Generic Model. My apologies in advance if I wasn't specific enough - I know you are fresh to the program. 3D Solids in AutoCAD are all "generic 3D geometry" in the sense that AutoCAD doesn't know if it's a pipe fitting, a pipe, an aluminum bracket, a wood column, etc. "Generic Model" is an actual Family Category in Revit for things that do not fit into the other specified Family Categories. Each Family Category, once specified, has sub-parameter values that are specific to the Category itself which can either add valuable extra functionality, or pigeonhole the Family's functionality. Generic Models is the Category type that allows the greatest overall range of parametric solid modeling which simulates the AutoCAD environment.
Revit is not a fab software. It doesn't advertise to be one, however depending on the approach a designer most certainly can use it for fabrication. Revit MEP lacks most for OOTB fabrication for native Pipe and Duct Families. But my shop drawings only show detail to the point of column grid to center of pipe, or BOP elevations for heights, CtC pipe offsets, etc. So it's a field installation coordinated set. Given my background, I certainly can set Revit up for fab level spool drawings but it wouldn't be as efficient as purchasing a 3rd party add-on. Other things, such as stairs, however, can definitely go fab level. My boss' stairs are fab level for sure. When we get deducts from our subs to help with BIM, design or fab, he makes them so detailed in our projects I have to hide his stairs because they make my views lag due to the performance hit, haha. He's also been using Revit since it's launch in 2000 before Autodesk bought it so he's been at it for a long time.
Also note, people who use Revit for extremely high detail usually take certain Family components so far, then add extra 3D geometry to finalize it in the form of Generic Models or any specific SubCategory. So minuscule things like brackets, nuts/bolts, trim, etc. can be added in, AND scheduled. Things like hangers and such are usually done as Generic Models as well. Here is one of our trapeze unistrut supports: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4989089/Hanger_Trapeze.rfa

Load it into a Project, select it and have a play with the checkboxes and widths/heights. This hanger is technically simple. We plan on going much further with it. But placing these hangers around the project for pipe racks and ducts gives a great deal of efficiency when generally coordinating it throughout the job, and especially helpful when we populate the schedule which gives us a pretty accurate BOM estimate for ordering bundles of unistrut and threaded rods. You simply cannot create schedule-able, parameter driven geometry like this in AutoCAD. It's a painstakingly manual process for AutoCAD to recreate this hanger, not to mention capture the data automatically that creates your takeoff.

Hope this helps.

-TZ

nestly · 发表于 2022-7-8 20:36:03

Fab drawings are just as important to me as overall design, so it looks like I'd have a fair bit of customizing to try to use Revit for what I do now. With regard to the stairs/high detail components, that too could be a problem. Basically anything I model is true-to-life in so much as if you can interact with it in the real world, it's included in the 3D model. Tight quarters often mandate this. Turning the head of a valve so the wheel doesn't clash with something else, or spinning a MOV so the lever for manual operation is accessible, but also considering what affect that will have on the location of the electric connection. The question isn't going to be just whether Revit "can" do it, but whether it's practical. Using you boss's stairs as an example, it's not going to make sense for me to model that much detail if I can't display everything at the same time because of excessive lag. That was kinda what caused me to abandon AMEP. Automation was great, but way too much overhead trying to have both high detail and automation. After I got familiar enough with AMEP to understand its' practical limitations, it was an easy decision to give it up.

Last question for now, are you linking to any external drawings/models, such as ASD or Advance Steel, etc. or is everything (such as Boss's stair details) native Revit?

tzframpton · 发表于 2022-7-8 20:40:30

Point taken on the excessive lag, however this was subsequently resolved by setting things to Coarse, Medium and Fine Detail which brought it back down to normal performance. And for the record, the only reason why the stair lagged so much was because the risers were a perforated aluminum plate, in which he used an Adaptive Component with Voids to create the perforated effect. In other words, TOO much detail, lol. But Revit is still fast if you're in wireframe mode, which is common for AutoCAD users. It's only when in Hidden mode that performance begins to be affected, and most Revit users do not ever use the Wireframe Visual Style for self evident reasons.

On to your last question: Linking is straight forward, however there are ways to Link things into Revit for best results. Anytime we receive steel files, we try and export as IFC first (using an AutoCAD vertical product), then in Revit go to File > Open > IFC. This runs the IFC file through a conversion process into native Revit objects. You'll get mixed results with this. But Revit 2015 allows native IFC linking as well, which is an options we've used lately with great results as well, although you can lose visibility control on isolated and individual objects. Again with this, mixed results.

Another way is to use a sacrificial Revit model and import the DWG file inside an In-Place Model component under a relative Family category, such as Structural Framing. Save this as an RVT file, and then Link (aka "XREF") this file into your main project. This gives you the most versatility for a few reasons... number one, native DWG files do not inherently support Revit's infamous cutting functionality in Plan, Sections and Elevations. You'll see the entire file in all Views which kills functionality and ability to show rich levels of detail. So embedding a DWG inside a cuttable Revit Family, the DWG can now support cutting ranges. Number two, you have much more flexibility in controlling your Views, View Templates, etc, since the DWG models inherit the Family Category it's embedded within. There are a few other reasons why this is the preferred method but those two are the main points.

I understand your stance on this point. This is what will make or break Revit for you. I can tell you now, when you start getting down to very fine level of modeling you will hit serious road blocks that you'll find frustrating. Revit doesn't allow things to be modeled at the 100ths of an inch. It's not that it's incapable of it mathematically, it's that the program intentionally doesn't want you to get down to that level of precision. It drives a lot of people nuts when they're used to AutoCAD creating a line that is 0.0025" long, even though they don't need it, they want to be able to. But tackle the tight-quarters with a different approach is all I would suggest.
Benefits of Revit aren't in the super fine-detail areas of modeling as much as it's the intuitive areas of modeling. A for instance in your case would be bolt sets for slip-on and weld neck flanges. You can build a flange to flex per ANSI standard sizes, use Voids to create the bolt holes (that flex and add/subtract bolt holes when sizes change), then add a shared nested Family of the nut and bolts that can follow the bolt pattern, add/subtract as needed and quantify the bolt sets as you place each flange in the model, including the gaskets. Every Family has a cost and material parameters for BOM and scheduling purposes. These are the benefits that Revit offers, not an infinite free-form solid modeling environment that AutoCAD is known for.

tzframpton · 发表于 2022-7-8 20:44:11

Nestly, I thought this may be of interest to you:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4989089/Images/misc/SysQue_Market_Report_2014.pdf

Supposedly this document is an independent study of the SysQue product line with real-world names of users involved in the report. The different User Types noted on page four are particularly interesting.

The main reason in showing this to you is I'm projecting Revit will not be good enough for your personal standards right out of the box. So this may be your only alternative without spending countless hours laboring in Revit to get it to work the way you need it to. But this document gives some good insight at the bare-bones Revit in comparison with SysQue Revit to help you understand both products better.

-TZ

nestly · 发表于 2022-7-8 20:48:33

Thanks Tannar

I'm still continuing to familiarize myself with Revit via Online courses and now a very large Revit MEP book, I'm just trying to avoid even opening Revit for now. Very busy and no free time right now, but I've bookmarked your link for later in the week when my schedule gets back to normal.

[综合讨论] 什么'；s第一步sta

发表回复

精选推荐