I am working inside my mechanical model with an architectural model linked in.
The arch model does not have all the rooms defined, I therefore created a bunch of spaces (not rooms) with space separation lines.
I select the arch model as a linked model, select the apertures, use spaces instead of rooms, but i do generate any glazing on the analytical model, just the spaces.
(note: the arch model is currently set as not room bounding)
If i set the arch model as room bounding, then the spaces i created get all wonky, ceilings are not captured as well as some spaces going completely missing. However, the glazing does get captured.
Does the arch model have to be set as room bounding in order to capture the glazing and doors if I am working in a mechanical model?
If the arch model has room boundaries that are not fully defined or drawn to the center of the wall, how can i force it to only look at the spaces so that it does not develop gaps? see image
The videos on line show using the pre-loaded Revit model in the tutorials which is an Architectual model.
The design intent was that all the rooms/spaces will be in the host model. In your case mechanical model. May I ask why don’t you use the rooms from the arch model as the base in this case? Can’t you just add the missing rooms?
Now back to your questions:
I don’t think that is the case. As long as you select them in the links manager, and also pick them as apertures in the Export Model they should be imported. Did you change the links from Host to arch model and selected the apertures?
so what i did notice is that apertures will pick up if i set my rooms or spaces to be extruded vs full volume. If i set it at full volume, then i have to set the arch model as room bounding for the apertures to pick up.
Not necessarily. I’m trying to get a better sense of your overall workflow. If you have the option to work from the architecture model, then I would suggest doing that. It should resolve some of the problems that you mentioned here.
We had an ongoing conversation with @bjohnsonhok early this year which we might want to revisit to ensure your workflows are as streamlined as possible.
Interesting! I haven’t heard about this issue before. We have been focused on improving the extruded mode as it covers the majority of the cases that we see people work on. But I can take a closer look to see if I can replicate this issue. Is it critical for you to use the full volume mode for your model?
Response 1: If you have the option to work from the architecture model, then I would suggest doing that. It should resolve some of the problems that you mentioned here.
I do think that working from the arch model makes sense since its easy to manipulate room boundaries, ceiling/floor footprints, etc. Only caveat with our workflow is that is it frowned upon for different disciplines to work in other disciplines model and alter.
Response: Is it critical for you to use the full volume mode for your model?
Not really, at least not right now.
I will explore all of the options from a mechanical model standpoint. @bjohnsonhok has me exploring this so I will do my best to document all issues and how i resolved them, if possible, and feed that information back to you.
We can improve this on our end to make sure the spaces are working as well as the rooms. What can be tricky is mixing and merging them together. Once we better understand your workflow and your needs we can plan accordingly.
Glad to know! Let’s stick to the extruded mode for now. We are making improvements to the extruded mode to support sloped roofs too. That should cover most of the Revit models. We realized expecting clean full volumes can be unrealistic for larger models.
Sounds like a plan! Once you have the list we can review that and get back to you. We have gone through a similar process with other offices to ensure they can use the plugins effectively. I imagine there will be two types of requests. Some can be added to the core functionalities and we can help you with custom apps like the other one for naming that you asked for.