FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Time for more Revit dick - force fed directly into your eyesocket!


I've managed to beat some little models out of Revit lately, but they are basically 3D eye-candy for people to 'ooh and ahh' over -  and are unimpressive technically.

The latest is for a fairly elaborate assembly that I received as a sketch from someone who, while they did a pretty good job of trying to wrap their head around it (and could talk a good talk), obviously had no idea what they were doing. 

They were smart enough to know that it needed to be engineered, but in their attempt to flesh out their concept they were detailing out things that, if left in the design, would have made it a dangerous liability.

See, sometimes people spend massive amounts of time going over every single aspect of a system to make sure all of the components are suitable - and other times people simply whip numbers out of their ass.

You don't want to offend the guy who spent time/money in development by telling him 'I don't think this is going to work', but you also don't want to make assumptions based on dodgy information.  I am always much more impressed when someone is willing to say 'I don't know', and then try to find out - rather than try to cover up the fact that they don't know by giving me (or others) misleading or completely fucking incorrect information.

Anyway, a few minutes in ACAD and I had some detailed cross-sections that started the design process moving forward.  At no point did I go 'wow, I wish I had a 3D model of this thing', but I think part of that comes from my extensive engineering experience, ability to read drawings, and that the other people helping to design the assembly have as much (if not more) experience, and ability to do the same.

What it comes down to is that we don't need a 3d model of something in order to be able to conceptualize or 'see' it in 3d.  It drives my wife nuts when we get a product with 'some assembly required', which she attempts to do by carefully reading the directions, following all of the steps, and then finally, some time later, gives up out of frustration, and hands it to me.

With a quick glance at the picture on the box, I put it together in minutes (checking the instructions only if it seems like there might be something that requires doing it a certain way to keep from damaging it or for clarification).  Sometimes I have a few pieces left over, but in many cases, I actually make improvements to the design while assembling it (using leftover pieces from previous assemblies).

I don't claim to be a genius, but I'm pretty fucking smart, and even despite my complete disdain for Revit I was able to slap together a model of the assembly using extrusions and voids to create components in individual families, compile them all into one master family, and then bring that into a project so I could slap a decal on it and annotate a 3d view of it.

I've done this dozens of times over the years - just fiddling around with geometry in the family editor.  The first one I ever did was a high-bay fluorescent fixture.  A bunch of rectangular cubes looked retarded in the model, so I scalloped it out, put individual lamps in it, added end caps and a ballast housing (soon after, the lighting company that we spec came out with families for most of their fixtures, but they really suck for use in Revit models - so we usually opt for generic ones).

It made the model look cooler, but had zero effect on my actual drawings, and there was no 'value added' that an architect couldn't have done themselves to dress up their dollhouse/rendering.  In short, it was a total waste of time and effort - for no reward.

The second was for the same project - some post-top lanterns (the architect who started that project was convinced he was going to force me into Revit - he was gone a few months later).  They were a little more challenging, but with some creative use of extrusions and voids, I had some nice looking carriage fixtures (complete with lamps - no glass though).

If all I had to do all day was model shit in 3d, I might not have such a negative view of Revit (although there are packages out there for 3d design that eat Revit's fucking lunch if I just wanted the geometry).  That may be where architects and others attempting to make me bend over for the Revit cock might be missing the point - I don't have time, budget, patience, or the decision making power to flesh out a project in 3d - and still have time to generate 2d construction documents that are partially schematical in nature so that projects can be built.

I have sketched bus ducts (online tips say to use ductwork, but a few failed experiments later, and I said 'generic model'.  I've drawn massive HVAC and air cleaning equipment (and connecting ducts - again, all generic models so that I could actually get it to insert and appear properly.  'Coordination' was the reasoning, but despite all of that detailed equipment modeling, the structural engineers still ended up misplacing the equipment platforms/walkways around the equipment.

I've sketched an entire goddamned boiler room - in one family!  The walls, floor, ceiling, boilers, expansion tanks, the racks they sat on, the stairs going to the racks, doors, etc. - the thing was immaculate - and even inserted into the overall building perfectly!

In the meantime, my electrical drawing showed what looked like 2d walls, and 2d squares to represent the boilers, which I circuited and annotated.  I could have included a 3d detail of it in my drawings to justify all the extra work I was required to do, but that would have just been retarded.

I can see the reasoning behind detailing out a 3d model of an elaborate assembly (or building), but when you end up having to go through and fake all of the details that come out of it anyway, you might as well do it in 2d.

As always - Fuck Revit, Fuck Autodesk, and Fuck All Revit Apologists/Users.

I hope you all bleed from the ass and die in excruciating pain.