Groups vs. Links

[brethomp]

I know this is an age-old discussion, but with some of the recent improvements to links in Revit 2008 and 2009, I am wondering if opinions/experiences have changed.

When doing a multi unit building in Revit 2009 (in this case a 500+ room hotel), is it better to use Groups or Links for the units.

We started off using Groups, and it is working well other then file size. With the groups the project is REALLY slow to edit, and the Central file is over 180 MB. This file size is now becoming troublesome, it is easy to breach the 3Gb memory limit by editing these groups, even with few worksets loaded.

I did an experiment with using links for the unit plans instead of groups, and the files are MUCH smaller, and much faster to edit. With the new features of Revit in the area of links, it seems like I could pull off all of the documentation using links.

Have others tried using Links instead of Groups in Revit 2009? Was it successful? Or are groups still the way to go?

[dhurtubise]

Definitely links... if you dont care about walls not cleaning up

[kingjosiah]

Links, huh? I'm surprised to hear that. I thought groups were geared towards multi-unit buildings. Would that be based on the file size issue only? Or are there other issues where the use of links outweigh groups?

We're doing a few 10-story residential towers which use groups for repetitive rooms. We started using links, but if i recall correctly, we ended up converting those links to groups as there were problems with rooms and area calculations.

That said, just last week we started having major problems with the groups. We have a "master" group which resides outside each project and is reloaded into each .rvt project as changes are made. Now when we reload the group, it keeps the original but makes a new ungrouped copy directly on top. Exasperating. We've file a support request with our reseller; they are of the opinion that in spite our problem groups are the solution to multi-unit buildings.

If the only downside to links is wall cleanup, and there is an answer to room calculations, we may revisit links.

- Jon

p.s. bthompson... the large file size indicates to me that you are modelling every room...is this true? Would this be to leverage true calculations for cost estimates or scheduling? We're only modelling the rooms on the specified floors and where sections are cut...our file size hovers around 50mb.

[Tyveka]

We have been using links as well.
Our situation is slightly different, we're doing apartments and townhomes, some condos, so not nearly the scale of a hotel or some such project. But for us, links work far better, even across multi-disciplines. Less overhead and we can display the views as we need to in each view.

2009 came a long way in allowing that. We even have design options thrown into the links for the plumbing on units that are second story units, since the sanitary runs down instead of under on those. And as long as you name each instance of each link appropriately, it's really fairly simple (time-intensive but simple) to manage the views.

Hope this helps!

[brethomp]

Bump. Now that there has been even further improvements to links in Revit, I would like to see if anyone's opinions have changed. Are links the way to go for the units of a hotel? Or are there reasons to stick with groups. Anyone have some experience they can share?

[nextvkin]

I did some apartments about 4 years ago (Revit 8.5) & found that linking was a better way to go. (Agree with the comments about editing groups. I seem to recall that when attaching a wall to the roof, it did not happen to every other instanace in the group). Cleaning up of walls was done in such a way that where 2 buildings joined they joined at a window or sliding door. Door & window numbering cannot be done in the conventional way.

[hworrell]

I would also like to know if anyone has tried anything now that you can tag across links... does this make it easier? Anyone try it yet in 2012?

I am starting up a student housing project tomorrow and will most likely go with groups...