• Q. Why have you created the (Revit) assets on the planting category, and not, say Entourage?


    For actual plants (trees) it makes sense for the scaling-hack-trick of the planting category template (this would be better served by being an instance parameter mind) - but we are never going to scale-size a person or a chair... and whilst we could introduce filters to differentiate (and exclude) the content from our model(s) proper*, the choice is somewhat strange - and in ways problematic.



    *we model all viz. content on a non-primary design option to limit model & view-space bloat but that's beside the point.

  • Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with this one. I find it useful that's its all on the same category because it's much easier for selection (isolate / hide by category), easier to find in the project browser (all enscape assets are together), and it keeps the option open for scaling (I think there's a good chance we will scale some characters slightly if we feel they are slightly too tall or short). Same with props like vases, etc

  • Let me put it another way then.


    We use Revit to design and document our Architectural and landscape proposals.

    We use Enscape to visualise.


    We schedule planting.

    We do not schedule entourage.





    EDIT

    So.…


    If the assets are going to stay as planting, then at the very least, for others (who might not use Design Option, phase or workset hacks, or maintain dedicated viz. models) we need a means to directly target-filter out the Enscape content (Revit does not allow schedule filtering by <Family> or <Type> parameter(s) alone).


    I'd prefer Enscape to not introduce their own shared parameters (as Revit still doesn't have a "Parameter does not exist" inverse filter) - but it presently appears to be the only option - as appropriate/correct OmniClass assignments would still be problematic.

  • I'm finally digging into the asset browser for the first time and we're super excited to finally have an alternative to the hot mess that is the ArchVision monopoly. I was surprised by using the "Planting" category. We won't discontinue using Revit's RPGs, so it would be really helpful to match the categories that Revit uses for non-schedulable content. "Planting" for plants, "Entourage" for people, desk clutter, ephemera. Furniture is a grey area. As others have mentioned above, we're very particular about the furniture we specify and use in our models. I would almost prefer not to have any Enscape furniture available to our users, except for the fact that mesh modeling for soft furniture is much better for visualization than most Revit furniture. Even so, if it is in a schedule, I probably want to use Revit-modeled furniture. Another issue, I would really like to have a way to turn off the Asset Library tool so we can manage that content at a firm-wide level. It would be important to us to ban certain content. It also appears that each time I load content from the Asset Library, it is downloading content from the web. That's a great idea, but we already see some important modifications we MUST make to these assets for them to be usable, but if we're overwriting that content with updates from Enscape, that's going to be a problem.


    Here are some of the important changes we need to make to certain families and we would strongly plead that Enscape makes these changes to this content in the next update:


    • For certain objects like desk clutter, it would be helpful if they were modeled as face-based families. As an alternative, if you just check "Work Plane-Based" one will have the option at placement to host them on surfaces. PLEASE MAKE THIS CHANGE!
    • We would never schedule this sort of ephemera, but we might need to control it separately from plants so we would really prefer that this sort of content be saved in the "Entourage" category. (We don't need this sort of content to be scalable. Scaling is super useful for plants but we shouldn't need to scale people, or clutter if it is modeled accurately in the first place.
    • Furniture is a grey area. Often we schedule furniture, in which case, Enscape furniture would be problematic. It would be nice to have a way to substitute certain Revit furniture families with Enscape furniture (categorized as "Furniture") when rendering in Enscape.
    • We could really benefit from managing loading of the Asset Library tool for users. We really love the content, and the Asset Library tool works well, but we just want more control over whether and which content gets loaded into our projects.


  • knowhere0 We use the planting category, because it's the only category where you can scale objects.

    • It's definitely better to place them automatically on surfaces
    • We could optimize the categories due some tricks. We'll check the feasibility.
    • Giving your the ability to add your own content is on our agenda as well
  • Regarding scaling I often have to modify sitting people to fit sitting height so they don't float or feet intersect with floor, so I think possibility of scaling any asset should be there. What if you need an oversized or micro version for some reason?

  • Epix 3D , you can already change the size of our assets.


    For that, you can simply go into the Type Properties of any asset and change the Dimensions Height to anything smaller accordingly:


    Don't be mislead, this will not just change the Height, but also the overall size of the asset itself.


    Let me know in case you experience any problems with that. ;)

  • Epix 3D , pardon, I thought you referring to the ability to scale assets in Revit.


    You should be able to very easily scale any of our Assets in SketchUp with the native Scale tool. Do you experience any problems with that?