There should be a content bill of rights or something to ensure that you are receiving the best quality Revit families for use in your projects. Good content can really add value to the design and documentation process, and bad content can make working in Revit less than fun. I’ve downloaded some really unusable items and even had the unfortunate experience of watching poorly built content sail through a QA process. Why does this happen? Is it lack of training, experience, communication, or is it a result of lack of documented process and specifications?


I’m working on co-authoring a series of articles, whitepapers, or some guide that will assist in the process of finding, evaluating, and augmenting Revit families for use in your firm. Ultimately, it comes down to identifying what is most important to you, the users. I would really like this to be a conversation, to aid in the planning of this work. Please add your comments to this post, sharing your horror stories, pet peeves, or ah-ha moments as you work with Revit families.

5 comments on “All Content is NOT Created Equal

  • Either, really. Free and premium content come in all forms. I would like to hear about user experience with both of these types of content, as well as any issues they may have encountered with custom-built content. It seems there have been a wide range of experiences out there. I should mention that if you have any negative experiences to share, please do not include any names in this conversation. For those issues of a more delicate nature, you are more than welcome to email me: web[at]seandburke[dot]com

  • Peeve #1 – Seen a lot of content created by folks who are way too in love with their own stuff. Meaning it’s over modeled down the the gnat’s… um… hiney. I don’t need every single thread on every single bolt modeled. I probably don’t even need the bolts. Too many triangles just makes the content unusable in a real project.
    Peeve #2 – not using symbolic linework in a view properly. Again, I need a nice clean represenation. Don’t leave me the bevelled surface with fifty lines, when a simply symbolic rectangle would do.

  • Jason,
    In regards to #1, yes… I’ve experienced that more than I would like to admit – both in downloaded content and created from a vendor whom was hired to produce a large content library. Finding that right balance is critical as you mention, to project performance. Symbolic representation, your second peeve, may be due to the fact that the content creator either doesn’t understand how items were traditionally represented by hand-drafting, or hasn’t thought of the scale an item may be reasonably printed from a sheet view. These are great comments here and on AUGI, keep ’em coming!

Leave a Reply