I never taught I would see something like this being shown by a BIM manager! Just kidding it’s a good approach! I have been using thick walls for a quick kitchen layout for some time now. I find it to be better at first as it allows you to test out many different layouts before settling on the one where you are going to use casework families. But in situations where the kitchen elements in the project are there more just to show how the space could potentially be used (really common in my country) this can be a superior time-saving solution.
Haha yeah I don't usually use these types of workflows but this one felt worth sharing - I actually use this with resi projects in concept stage currently. Massive time saver and easy to control visibility using filters.
Gavin, this is really a brilliant solution to a real issue. The aspect that dovetails with the way that I like to work is to have Placeholders, they allow that early concept tests, are geometrically/spatially correct (NB. Always! No exceptions), and can then be replaced later. Yes there is extra work on that, but, linked to the visualisation tools is insanely powerful. Nice one.
Glad you like it Pierre! It's saving me a lot of time with a client when we produce conceptual/marketing drawings. Kitchens and benches are reduced from 5 minutes to 5 seconds!
I was just going to say that you can make a stacked wall out of it and use a sweep for the counter to get rid of the manual floor-countertop drawing :P Nice little hack, definitely speaking for using Revit in outline proposals - beating SketchUp in every aspect! Thanks for sharing Gavin.
Yeah the countertop's a funny one, I've found some scenarios where it's better kept separate so you can cut holes in it and do kitchen bench overhangs etc. Depends on the job type I'd say which method is better (if deployed at scale, definitely an integrated sweep though).
IMHO this method could find its place also in a larger office with managed BIM standards. It is quite easy to abandon Revit Categories as "Classification", use a different method to classify elements, and only consider Revit Categories a guide, not a "standard". This way one can use the so called "system families" as modeling tools instead of specifying what that element exactly is. Just as an example, Revit Railings are much better as skirtingboards, crown moldings and wall coping than actual railings. The first things comes to my mind is using the IfcExportAs parameter as an alternate classification, and there you go, you got much more freedom classifying your elements, but still not too deep as using Uniformat or Uniclass. And if you use IfcExportAs as element classification you can be sure that your exported Ifc will also be correct (more or less, not taking into account how the System Families treat IfcExportAs in reality, like a Wall can only be exported as an IfcWall, but in the Revit Evironment it can still be valuable, and I understand that the Ifc exporter will allow mapping system families to any Ifc Class sooner or later, but thats a different story). Or it is possible to create a company wide shared parameter for custom classification, with the required level of distinction between elements, and if the graphical and documentation standards are built upon these parameters using filters it can be much-much more powerful than using only the OOTB revit categories, and at the end of the day, you can model your joinery using customized walls ;).
Right you are - the Revit category system is really only relevant in Revit itself, once you move beyond to IFC the ExportAs parameter does most of the dictating. I actually already use this method for a few of the cross category elements (e.g. I model my toilet partitions as casework so that they cut, but classify it differently to most joinery). I use Uniclass also in all my families as I like having this classification system available also. I use assembly codes for this, and the default Revit IFC ExportAs/Type parameters to dictate element IFC classes/type enums. You're right in that some of the system families have limited export options for IFC, I expect this will change soon given Autodesk has recently pledged their time towards developing their IFC workflows. I actually use this system for smaller resi projects during concept phase, and use filters to control all the joinery wall types - so category isn't really a challenge here either.
Yes you can, but it takes a lot longer than 5 minutes to build this content. I developed this system mainly to help residential modellers in concept phase who found casework and line based families too indimidating. I have my own detailed casework families but these have many hours invested in them.
Since making this video I have begun to use another wall type in the stacked wall as the counter top, good suggestion! One benefit to using a floor is you can easily punch holes in it, so that if you have non-face based families then you can still show them going through the counter.
This killed me, Gavin. Not sure if I could live with your method :P Why not build it as a Generic Model in Place with Solids and Voids then for an early stage? At least is not a wall and a floor...
A model in place line based has some issues, such as awkwardly joining at their ends and not supporting automatic corner junctions (L/U shaped kitchens are very common). You must consider also that many people do not feel confident building or editing revit families, especially with void mitres which need angled reference planes. This approach allows them to build unit types in the wall editor, much friendlier. The floor can be made to a wall if you use a wall to the floor depth, just didn't figure it out when I made the video. It's not category compliant, but then again how many team members follow the rules in early design phase anyway. May as well give them an option which works for them at that stage that something like dynamo can replace later on!
Do you mean model in place as a sweep? That's many extra steps if you want to make a system like this work at scale. It would work for maybe 1 or 2 units but once you have many they would all be disconnected as families from each other, bad practice if this happens.
I never taught I would see something like this being shown by a BIM manager!
Just kidding it’s a good approach! I have been using thick walls for a quick kitchen layout for some time now. I find it to be better at first as it allows you to test out many different layouts before settling on the one where you are going to use casework families.
But in situations where the kitchen elements in the project are there more just to show how the space could potentially be used (really common in my country) this can be a superior time-saving solution.
Haha yeah I don't usually use these types of workflows but this one felt worth sharing - I actually use this with resi projects in concept stage currently. Massive time saver and easy to control visibility using filters.
You are truly a guru. I love to see these out of the box solutions!
Thanks Erik!
Amazing work, thank you! This has saved so much time for me. I've implemented this method for a kitchen and bathroom.
Glad to hear!
Gavin, this is really a brilliant solution to a real issue. The aspect that dovetails with the way that I like to work is to have Placeholders, they allow that early concept tests, are geometrically/spatially correct (NB. Always! No exceptions), and can then be replaced later. Yes there is extra work on that, but, linked to the visualisation tools is insanely powerful. Nice one.
Glad you like it Pierre! It's saving me a lot of time with a client when we produce conceptual/marketing drawings. Kitchens and benches are reduced from 5 minutes to 5 seconds!
I was just going to say that you can make a stacked wall out of it and use a sweep for the counter to get rid of the manual floor-countertop drawing :P Nice little hack, definitely speaking for using Revit in outline proposals - beating SketchUp in every aspect! Thanks for sharing Gavin.
Yeah the countertop's a funny one, I've found some scenarios where it's better kept separate so you can cut holes in it and do kitchen bench overhangs etc. Depends on the job type I'd say which method is better (if deployed at scale, definitely an integrated sweep though).
That’s really cool approach, waiting for 10k subscribers video soon, long way to go man
Yeah not long now! Glad you liked it
IMHO this method could find its place also in a larger office with managed BIM standards. It is quite easy to abandon Revit Categories as "Classification", use a different method to classify elements, and only consider Revit Categories a guide, not a "standard". This way one can use the so called "system families" as modeling tools instead of specifying what that element exactly is. Just as an example, Revit Railings are much better as skirtingboards, crown moldings and wall coping than actual railings. The first things comes to my mind is using the IfcExportAs parameter as an alternate classification, and there you go, you got much more freedom classifying your elements, but still not too deep as using Uniformat or Uniclass. And if you use IfcExportAs as element classification you can be sure that your exported Ifc will also be correct (more or less, not taking into account how the System Families treat IfcExportAs in reality, like a Wall can only be exported as an IfcWall, but in the Revit Evironment it can still be valuable, and I understand that the Ifc exporter will allow mapping system families to any Ifc Class sooner or later, but thats a different story). Or it is possible to create a company wide shared parameter for custom classification, with the required level of distinction between elements, and if the graphical and documentation standards are built upon these parameters using filters it can be much-much more powerful than using only the OOTB revit categories, and at the end of the day, you can model your joinery using customized walls ;).
Right you are - the Revit category system is really only relevant in Revit itself, once you move beyond to IFC the ExportAs parameter does most of the dictating. I actually already use this method for a few of the cross category elements (e.g. I model my toilet partitions as casework so that they cut, but classify it differently to most joinery).
I use Uniclass also in all my families as I like having this classification system available also. I use assembly codes for this, and the default Revit IFC ExportAs/Type parameters to dictate element IFC classes/type enums.
You're right in that some of the system families have limited export options for IFC, I expect this will change soon given Autodesk has recently pledged their time towards developing their IFC workflows.
I actually use this system for smaller resi projects during concept phase, and use filters to control all the joinery wall types - so category isn't really a challenge here either.
Again Supper 👌
Thanks Immi!
Interesting approach but for the same time, you could create a furniture/case system which is also not fully parametric as this one...
Yes you can, but it takes a lot longer than 5 minutes to build this content.
I developed this system mainly to help residential modellers in concept phase who found casework and line based families too indimidating.
I have my own detailed casework families but these have many hours invested in them.
Good work as always.. Out of curiosity, why didn't you use a built-in sweep for the counter top?
Since making this video I have begun to use another wall type in the stacked wall as the counter top, good suggestion!
One benefit to using a floor is you can easily punch holes in it, so that if you have non-face based families then you can still show them going through the counter.
This killed me, Gavin. Not sure if I could live with your method :P
Why not build it as a Generic Model in Place with Solids and Voids then for an early stage? At least is not a wall and a floor...
A model in place line based has some issues, such as awkwardly joining at their ends and not supporting automatic corner junctions (L/U shaped kitchens are very common).
You must consider also that many people do not feel confident building or editing revit families, especially with void mitres which need angled reference planes. This approach allows them to build unit types in the wall editor, much friendlier.
The floor can be made to a wall if you use a wall to the floor depth, just didn't figure it out when I made the video.
It's not category compliant, but then again how many team members follow the rules in early design phase anyway. May as well give them an option which works for them at that stage that something like dynamo can replace later on!
Thanks Maestro,
Can you make videos about MEP?
Unfortunately I'm not experienced enough with the MEP tools to make training videos currently, I would otherwise!
for certain types of projects ;)
But of course.
Is your Revit Architecture Template available in imperial units?
Unfortunately only metric. I would look into Parallax if you're after an Imperial template that is well set up. More expensive, but well developed.
Aussie BIM Guru thank you.
Ideal for curved island units too.....
Yeah for sure, hard to do those with families!
Why not you just make it profile and give path .
This method is time taking
You make this very complicated by the way
Do you mean model in place as a sweep? That's many extra steps if you want to make a system like this work at scale. It would work for maybe 1 or 2 units but once you have many they would all be disconnected as families from each other, bad practice if this happens.