Why We're Here

I recently came across a thread on our discussion forums that was asking about customizing the Rise/Drop symbols that are shown when a Pipe or Duct has a vertical segment relative to the plane of the view in Revit, see below.

We currently provide the user the ability to choose from a number of different symbols that display these situations.  These symbols came from some generally accepted methods for displaying these situations.

We do this for a reason, and it had to do with Revit MEP being a design tool and not a drafting tool.  So, I set off to write a post explaining this point.  When I was done, I realized that I had gone into a lot more depth on the purpose of the product (big surprise knowing me), and that it might be useful for you in my blog audience.

So I've decided to add some snippets from the thread below.

***********************************************************************
Post from User:
    Hi there Kyle.
I would like to get some control over symbols - some of them are OK, but others need some customization to meet my company's standards. Piping symbols are mostly OK.
On the other hand, I would like to assign different symbols to ducts. Round ducts, no matter what system type, would always get the filled yin yang (seems I can't do this at this moment), and rectangular ducts would get a "section" symbol (see the attached picture).
***********************************************************************
Response from me:
There's currently no way to customize the display of Rise/Drop symbols. This touches on Revit MEP's intention as a design tool and not a drafting tool. As we design features for Revit MEP, we try and ensure that it is capable of conveying designed intent through generally accepted methods.

The design and development task is significantly larger when it includes providing the ability to fully customize the way that we convey design intent, which is really a drafting requirement.

Ultimately our goal is to get to a point where we support the BIM process for all disciplines and stages of an MEP project. This requires that we can do the following:

• Model the required systems for the MEP portion of the project.
• Facilitate the calculations required for the design of those systems; either through native calculations or interface with other applications.
• Coordinate the MEP systems with other disciplines on the project.
• Allow for other applications to leverage the data in the BIM for Upstream and Downstream purposes.
• Construction Documents that convey the designed intent of the MEP systems.

Adding in the requirement for those construction documents to have fully customizable graphical representations of the BIM elements is not a requirement of the above goals, and ultimately slows our progress towards our goal with the product.

That's not to say that we won't provide some of this functionality in the future once we reach our goal.

This is why I asked my original question. We are glad to investigate and try and implement functionality to allow you to convey designed intent, if we currently do not have that ability in the application.
*************************************************************************

I'd be interested to hear the comments from all of you on this subject, as it's an important point to understand Revit MEP's trajectory as a product.

Comments

[Mitchell Clark]

I fondly remember this topic from a while ago. What's at odds here I think are the needs of communicating design to an industry still on the uptake in terms of BIM interaction. I fully appreciate that tweaking display graphics aren't a development priority, and that someday when we send sheet metal models to factories without drawings, nobody will care what the symbols look like. In the meantime, Revit still has to live in a somewhat more traditional world, and until we can communicate directly from a model, graphics will be a part of the process. Anything that allows flexibility to keep graphics clear, removing some more superficial roadblocks to BIM implementation in the process, well that's a good thing to me. Just my two Canadian cents.

[Jose Guia at CadKicks.com]

Kyle, good info.

Mitchell Clark, .. Well said.

You've been kicked (a good thing) - Trackback from CadKicks.com
http://cadkicks.com/adkrevitmep/Revit_Customizing_the_Rise_Drop_symbols

[Rand Man]

Kyle,
Thank you for this blog and your videos. I am evaluating Revit MEP for an A-M-E firm that currently uses about 200 AutoCAD seats. Management is considering changing over to Revit for everything. The PE's that sign the jobs and the plumbers who read the drawings expect to see schematic representations of the design.

Construction Documents that convey the designed intent of the MEP systems is clearly one of your goals. Customizable graphics (plumbing risers) are mandatory, in order to accurately and quickly convey design intent. You can't expect an entire industry to give up tradition very soon. The true end-user of our product is the man in the ditch or on the ladder.

[Chris Wade]

The symbols are incorrect for construction documents (based on industry standards) for ductwork rise/drops (all choices are wrong).

[Kyle B]

Chris,
That is not the feedback that we have gotten from others, so perhaps your "Industry Standard" is based on a more localized Documentation Standard.

What are the symbols you typically use for documenting Rise/Drops in your ductwork? Feel free to send me an e-mail (address in my bio) with examples if you want.

Cheers,
Kyle