Project Director / BIM Manager at jmarchitects : BIM, process, efficiency obsessive. Problem solver. Data wrangler/Dynamo enthusiast. Views very much my own.
Some thoughts of things I think might help the @AutodeskRevit Family Types UX...
1. Edit parameter names directly in family types
2. Show which parameters are Shared in family types
3. Click and drag parameter order
4. Auto-complete parameter names when creating formulas
1/2
The costs involved in hiring a car in the Uk these days is bordering on criminal… utterly crazy. If you added on all the extras you’d be as well off just buying a car…
@Real_David_McI@a_shilliday That project code is quite long and as it doesn't define the site, this ideally needs to be set elsewhere.
The volume/functional breakdown code(s) could be developed to accommodate that though.
@Real_David_McI@a_shilliday How do you utilise your Project Code? Would that not be better suited to define the site, then the volume/spatial breakdown defines the building?
@Real_David_McI@a_shilliday We also like the flexibility should an additional building be required, external store, energy centre, etc, that a unique volume code can be assigned to that rather than having to incorporate it in the main model.
@Real_David_McI@a_shilliday This is very limiting for the team in terms of coordination of the project. As mentioned we would have both building and site models, we give both a volume code as the site will get used by landscape and by civils, while ARC, STR and MEP will use the building volume.
@Real_David_McI@a_shilliday 109 options for Type does feel excessive though, but serves to highlight the challenge with this field (and arguably the opposite problem with the newer 'Form' field).
@Real_David_McI@a_shilliday In my experience you need to allow some flexibility with volume codes. For instance, we would typically apply a code to each model/building, plus 1 for the site itself. There does need to be flexibility, if it's too rigid then I can understand why it doesn't get adopted.
@a_shilliday From what I see, the biggest risk seems to be poor cost management at the project early stages and clients looking for cost certainty in a very volatile market...
@Real_David_McI@a_shilliday I would be interested to see what you provide to the appointed parties. We generally find that the client's IM provides assistance here (and often prepares the naming protocols) although we have seen some 'odd' interpretations of the ISO over the years...
@a_shilliday There are still many clients who really don't understand anything about what the ISO is trying to achieve, or their role in it (with some notable exceptions).
The latter part of your post is a concern though, but not sure that is related to the ISO... more likely fees... 😉
@a_shilliday You know it’s not that easy, and we see first hand the scenario I described above even when naming has been agreed. Everyone wants the line of least resistance for them.
You should maybe go back and work on the other side for a while… 😉
@for59j54@a_shilliday I get annoyed every time a document controller tells a team that they need to re-input metadata because they use a ‘checking folder’ for all new uploads… thankfully though that seems to be f he appending less these days…
@for59j54@a_shilliday The platforms are far from perfect sadly. As Neil mentioned earlier permissions is a factor.
We definitely need to be thinking more carefully about these things though.