How much detail should you include about wall, floor and roof composition at different stages?
In summary, it is best to model only as much detail as is necessary in a given composition stage. When you are locking in a choice you are adding more detail. In the conceptual design what matters is massing, site fit, floor area, orientation, height, carbon/wind/sun data analyses. It is best to keep structural and product details simple in this stage. For the preliminary design, it is best to pick generic types of everything with rough similarities. You pick systems without building them up. In the design development stage, every layer gets its real material, thickness, and build up. Code compliance, system and building coordination, and accuracy matter here. As for construction documentation, readability, emphasis, and clarity are all important here… also making things consistent across the board.
You moved a design from Forma into Revit this week.
My building shape and general site design stayed intact. My floor plan nearly did stay intact but I had to rebuild some walls and layouts due to oversights I had in Forma that I only noticed in Revit, once having the option to add doors, etc. My intended facade design stayed intact but would sometimes accidentally get deleted and so I would have to rebuild several times. Revit seems to get a lot more grounded in reality, calling for more structural integrity, as well as more details would must be implemented on a solid and working base design. Forma is for quick drafting, testing, and ideated. Revit is for fleshing out those drafts in order to make them real, working, and sound. I would spend a lot more time in Forma making sure my floor plan make sense in relationship to doors, stairs, and facades. I would also ensure my facades make sense. I would approach Forma a lot more seriously knowing time spent there will save tons of rebuilding and errors in Revit.
Many manufacturers provide Revit families for their products.
If manufacturers give away families they are already likely establishing some sort of relationship with clients who choose to use those families. The client is more likely to chose to work with that manufacturer during construction rather than a manufacturer who does not offer families. For the user, families correspond to real products and so in late stages in the design process when one is sure of the models purpose and the products required. The model then matches what gets bought and installed. In earlier stages, however, it is best to stay flexible and keep the model light. One is likely still hashing through options, decisions, etc and so it is best not to choose families which might be overly detailed.