Forums >> Revit Building >> Technical Support >> How can I make this family smaller?

BIMChimp

active

Joined: Wed, Jul 11, 2012
28 Posts
No Rating

Does anyone have suggestions on how to get this family down from 888kb to 300-500kb per Autodesk standards?

I'm open to any suggestions or methods for how to accomplish this.  Would modeling the drawers in 3D add a lot of files size?

Thanks,

LJ

This user is offline

teafoe5

site moderator|||

Joined: Fri, Nov 12, 2010
1749 Posts

Have you tried PURGE UNUSED?  I haven't opened the family but this may help a bit.

This user is offline

View Website

BIMChimp

active

Joined: Wed, Jul 11, 2012
28 Posts
No Rating

Yes there are 0 items to purge.

This user is offline

WWHub

site moderator|||

Joined: Tue, May 16, 2006
13079 Posts

How worthwhile are those hinges?  I think a simple extruded barrel is all you need and maybe not in a seperate family from the door.

Make sure you also check all of your nested families.

I don't like your use of reference planes for every edge of geometry - which you then lock.  There is no need for the lock if the RP is there and dim locked.  I really prefer less RP's with locked dimensions to solids that are not aligned with the RP.

This user is offline

BIMChimp

active

Joined: Wed, Jul 11, 2012
28 Posts
No Rating

WWHub,

I'm not quite sure what you mean by not as many reference planes?  It was my understanding that dimension strings should always be to reference plans and never locked to geometry.  At least that's how Revit Standards from Autodesk are.  They tell you to make the skeleton and test it first.

Can you elaborate to help me understand the best methods?  I will do the hinges as barrels and in the family, not nested.  Do you think the nested drawers and door is good?  I did this to allow for the required 1/8" gap between objects so it renders correctly.

Thanks,

LJ

This user is offline

jlights

active

Joined: Tue, Dec 18, 2007
146 Posts

You're right, Autodesk's standards say to use reference planes and not to dimension to geometry, so I wouldn't change that. However, you have nested families with nested families and too much detail. Don't nest families two deep. Nest the handles in the main model and place/align/lock them as with other model elements. Purge unused from your nested families as well. I agree, lose the hinges, and NEVER model screwholes! You can even lose the lock extrusion and replace it with a model line since it's so tiny, or at least get rid of the lock hole in the middle of that lock extrusion. Also lose the interior partitions. Revit families are not used for manufacturing of products nor for selling them but for specifying them in a project. The rear access panel does not need to be modeled separately, because it won't be seen whether it's there or not. All you need for that is the checkbox. You also don't absolutely need all those separate door and drawer pieces (no one will be opening the doors in the model! :-) ). These can be represented with model lines on the front face that are controlled by the existing visibility parameters. You only need to model what you will see. For that matter, you can model the entire cabinet as one solid extrusion with the profile as seen from the side. It doesn't need to be hollow. Revit has to calculate the size and shape of everything no matter how small it is, and some of these details are just going to bog down projects as well as bloat the family file.

Also, remove any labels from dimensions that don't change regardless of the type of cabinet, (such as depth and height); just lock these dimensions, but leave the parameters in the family as reference information for specifiers.

There are so many configurations in this family that you might consider making a type catalog; this will enable users to specify the exact configuration they want (i.e., 35" Left Door and Rear Access Panel). If you do, use a 1 for Yes and 0 for No in the catalog columns with yes/no parameters.

-----------------------------------

jlights

This user is offline

View Website

BIMChimp

active

Joined: Wed, Jul 11, 2012
28 Posts
No Rating

Jlights,

Thanks for the reply.  I appreciate the thorough explanation.  I agree with the dimensions and references, I don't want to dimension to geometry, and only model lines.  

The issue with useing model lines, is the rendering does not show lines.  This is why I have the panels as a separate family so I can have the 1/8" gap (also required by Autodesk) showing in the rendering.  

My client wants us to show the rear access panels and the drawer body (not currently shown) for 3D views on their side.  Why, I do not know.  But I will fix the items you mentioned and hope to get the size under 500kb.

Do you suggest I keep the panels (drawer and door) as a nested family that is off set 1/8" on all sides so I can have the gap for renderings?  Or should I just have it as an extruded solid locked to reference planes?

Thanks,

LJ

This user is offline

jlights

active

Joined: Tue, Dec 18, 2007
146 Posts

Your rendering comments make sense. But where does Autodesk require a 1/8" gap? I've never come across that. Instead of nesting the door and drawer panels, you can make them as one extrusion in front view (you can do multiple non-intersecting loops- maybe you want two groups for left and right drawers). If you do that you'll want to also have a front panel extrusion with openings to accomodate the drawers, and then adjust the main box  extrusion shape in side view to allow for the front panel and drawers. You can then Join the geometry of the main box and the front panel with the cutouts so you don't see the seam of the two extrusions.

Sometimes clients don't understand how the families are used in projects and ask for things that are not really necessary or useful in families. If you can get the file size down to where you need it and keep those back panels in, go for it. (that might be a good place to use model lines instead of a separate extrusion, as the back of the cabinet  is unlikely ever to be rendered).

-----------------------------------

jlights

This user is offline

View Website

WWHub

site moderator|||

Joined: Tue, May 16, 2006
13079 Posts

Your right - autodesk says to dimension to reference planes but why do you have reference planes in the middle of gaps?  Instead only have reference planes to the openings in the host model.   And in the host model, you don't need reference planes to the drawer faces.  Instead, in the door and drawer families, move that gap ref plane to the same point as the opening rf planes in the host. 

Believe it or not, removing those 12 useless ref planes and assiciated dimensions in the host will make a pretty good change in your size.

This user is offline

BIMChimp

active

Joined: Wed, Jul 11, 2012
28 Posts
No Rating

jlights,

In regards to the gap, it is found under the Autodesk Revit_Model_Content_Style_Guide_v2_1/Category Specific/Casework/Casework_Category.pdf page 18.  "RENDERING - To ensure door and drawer pulls render with enough edge definition use a minimum gap of 1/8” between geometry edges."  Just to point you where I found it.

I will play with the idea of having all the panels be one extrusion.  That's a good idea.  I'll let you know how it goes.  

As for my client, it's tough as they really don't want a solid box for the geometry, but still want performance.  I may cut some of this stuff out and tell them why.

Thanks for the help,

LJ 

This user is offline

BIMChimp

active

Joined: Wed, Jul 11, 2012
28 Posts
No Rating

Thanks WWHub, 

I'll try to get rid of those and as jlights suggest, I'll also get ride of the nested families exept for the handles.

LJ

This user is offline

jlights

active

Joined: Tue, Dec 18, 2007
146 Posts

BIMChimp, I've never read the Casework style guide- I'm familiar with the lighting fixture one as I build a lot of light fixture families. Thanks for letting me know. After I thought about it I realized that's probably why they want the 1/8" gap. At the small scale of a rendering, anything smaller is likely to disappear.

Hope you can convince the client that that performance is what specifiers will care about in families, not pretty but invisible details. The pretty stuff is best off in the marketing materials and on the website. They really don't want specifiers complaining about their Revit families weighing down projects with excessive detail...

-----------------------------------

jlights

This user is offline

View Website

BIMChimp

active

Joined: Wed, Jul 11, 2012
28 Posts
No Rating

Ok so now I'm trying to go back to the left and right hand door option.  This family really shouldn't be taking so dang long!

I need an idea for how to accomplish the Left and Right hand door options, while also keeping the yes/no lock parameters to a minimum, rather than having all the locks be based on left and right hand locks.  So if the lock is on the left or the right it still is controlled by the door lock.  Does that make sense?  Is this possible without nested families?

Thanks,

LJ

This user is offline

BIMChimp

active

Joined: Wed, Jul 11, 2012
28 Posts
No Rating

Ok, so I did what you suggested jlights and made the interior solid just to see the difference in model size, and the model is still over 500kb! 

Do shared parameters add a lot of memory?  Cuz that might be an issue.  I have two familes, one was created in 2013 and it's only 428kb.  The other was created in 2009.  I can't get the 2009 file under 500kb (however I did save it in 2013 and it was 108kb smaller with no changes).  The 2013 file doesn't have quite as many items in it regarding Materials/parameters.  But it has more detail in the 3D geometry.  

Thoughts?

Thanks,

LJ

This user is offline

quinn

active

Joined: Wed, May 14, 2008
209 Posts
No Rating

you try an audit on it?  That can really cut alot of excess sometimes. 

This user is offline

line based family help (length)

1

How to make section marks smaller?

1

Casework and Family Editor Repeating Detail

1

problem with grid bubbles when printing in smaller scale

0

Family file is too big...

7