linked files+design options+townhouses

[cr_gixxer]

As you may see in my several other posts, I, like others am trying to make townhouses more efficient, I have decided to step back from all my current modelling with groups etc, and re-theorize how to structure these projects. I have a large file with all groups, and its at a standstill....I am spending more time trying to do things than actually doing anything.

My strategy that I am exploring now is to attempt to link files:
-separate files for the different unit types, exterior shells only.
-separate files for the numerous interior options.
(all of these files would use reference planes for alignment....not sure if grids would be better....)

Right now I'm thinking all these separate files will be linked into a large "site" file. (Ideally this would only be a file for each block for CD's), but first I need to put together a tender set with everything together
I'm not sure how to approach the grid lines in the large file. I might need to paste opaque "GL" text over the unique grids. I could then saveas this file for each blocks' CD package, and delete the other blocks that I don't need.

What I'm really hung up on right now is that the shells have options:
One instance is for a balcony. So the only difference between UnitA and UnitA-balcony would be a window changes to a patio door, and the balcony tagged on the outside. Would it make sense to have a balcony file linked into the shell file. Could I turn this off and on? It's easy enough to have the two UnitA model files, but as things go in architecture, the client will want to change something...let's say a window goes from a casement to slider and move it 2 feet down the wall. My issue is that I would have to make that change twice.
Another instance is that one shell might have stone rather than siding on the street face. Again the same issues with making a change would be double, or triple work.

I have 8 unit types, although 3 types basically cover 80% of all units on the site.
I've mapped out all the unit types and variations I need, and it goes something like this:

UNIT TYPE A *end is on the end of the block, interior is midblock. HiVis has a bumpout and side windows*
-LoVisibility End Unit
-LoVisibility End Unit - Stone street front
-HiVisibility End Unit
-LoVisibility Interior Unit

Some or all of these may or may not have a balcony.

So you can see why one single change would be alot of work for me. ( I would have to go into 8 files to make the change)

The number is "options" with this client is kinda ridiculous, and having all these options simultaneously is what I think is the real source of thjs. I've looked at how this has worked for them in the past with their consultants in CAD, and it's just as ridiculous for them, with just as much work.... so I'm not going to play the blame the software game.

So in looking at Design Options as a solution...
From my initial playing around, design options seems to be global when linked into another file. Whatever is primary in the linked file will propagate through all instances in the large file. Is there a way around this?

I wish I could set up a linked file similar to a family where I can associate modelling with a type or instance parameter that I can toggle with an on/off switch.

[cr_gixxer]

now looking at worksets.....which I know very little about.
can I assign a design option to a workset?
Can I toggle worksets in the big file?
can I use visibilty/graphic overides some how to toggle options in the big file?
how can I get the design options tab in VG overides in the big file?

If I figure this out, I am definitely moving to the next level of understanding and leveraging the powers of BIM.

[patricks]

I believe a new feature in Revit 2012 was the ability to control worksets across linked files. Not sure about design options.

[cr_gixxer]

so I've figured something out.... I may be onto something....

in each unit type shell file:
several design options sets (one for balcony, one for bumpout, one for stone wall) options for each.

in the big file that these are linked into I can use VG overrides:
each imported instance has a name. right now they are 1, 2, 3.....
I can override the display settings for the chosen instance to custom,
then go to the design options tab and override each set to the desired option.

I guess I'd have to do this for each view though...which may be time consuming....further playing around required.
Right now the files I have been playing around with have been super small and basic. I would need to try and increase the complexity of each to see if my wait time gets too long in syncronising, reloading links.......that's my biggest fear right now.

[rbcameron1]

In regards to this, I think once you set up your custom VG overrides, you can set it as a ViewTemplate. Worksets are also a good idea, but may not be necessary. So in the View Template window you'd have VT_optionA, VT_optionB, etc... It might not be the toggle on/off you want, but it does simplify your process. Let me see if I have this correct:

....|--------------- Main Model ------------------|.-.-.-.-.-Linked
...\/............................\/..................................\/
Option A.........-........Option B...........-............Option C
Override...................Override.........................Override
View TemplateA1, 2....ViewTemplateB1 or2.........ViewTemplateC1 or C2


ALL OPTIONS ARE LINKED INTO A "MAIN REVIT MODEL". IN THE MAIN MODEL YOU HAVE ALL THEIR OVERRIDES SET TO SHOW WHAT YOU NEED TO SHOW. YOU NEED A WAY TO TOGGLE BETWEEN HOW THOSE MODELS APPEAR, I.E. VIEW TEMPLATE.

I like Worksets, I like View Templates.....I do NOT like Design Options. Not because I can't figure them out, but because it is difficult to bring someone new onto the project, train them in revit, let alone the complexity of Design Opt's. Most people come from CAD backgrounds, thus explaining "links" as "xref's" helps them understand what they are doing. The chain is only as strong as the weakest link.

so I've figured something out.... I may be onto something....

in each unit type shell file:
several design options sets (one for balcony, one for bumpout, one for stone wall) options for each.

in the big file that these are linked into I can use VG overrides:
each imported instance has a name. right now they are 1, 2, 3.....
I can override the display settings for the chosen instance to custom,
then go to the design options tab and override each set to the desired option.

I guess I'd have to do this for each view though...which may be time consuming....further playing around required.
Right now the files I have been playing around with have been super small and basic. I would need to try and increase the complexity of each to see if my wait time gets too long in syncronising, reloading links.......that's my biggest fear right now.

[cr_gixxer]

I don't know if view templates would work since often I would need 2 or more options in one block / one view. Unless I'm not understanding what level those templates are sitting at how to select them. From what you wrote, I create the templates in the unit model file. This unit model is to be linked into the the larger "site" model. I can't figure out how to apply that template to a specific linked instance in the larger site file. I can see the benefit of quickly switching between templates within the unit model file, but not outside of that file.

I initailly thought a way I could make the vg overrides more "global" in the larger "site" file is to use dependent views. Since I can get a simple site plan pretty easy using other methods, I could cascade all my blocks in the model space without overlap in elevation views, not worrying about an overall site plan layout. I would then only need to overide each suite in each floor plan level (basement,main, 2nd) and the each of the overall elevations. I think the dependent views would follow these overrides. (AT LEAST I HOPE SO....ANYONE KNOW THIS FOR CERTAIN? ) I could crop each block out for block plans and elevations. I thought this would at least be alot less steps than using callouts for each block plan. and then 4 separate elevations for each block.but after some quick number crunching, with 102 suites I get 714 separate override steps.)

[patricks]

Make a view template for each view showing the same levels of your linked unit file. So every view that shows a first floor, apply the view template for that floor that applies the correct design option VG override to every instance of the unit link. Every view that shows a second floor, apply the view template for that floor, and so on.

[cr_gixxer]

So I think I get it..... in each of the view templates, I would override each instance to what I wanted... I'm wondering then if the one view template would work for all floor plans (base, main 2nd), and another for all elevs.

[cr_gixxer]

I've managed to split one of my units types into its own file, build the option sets, and assign everything to its proper design option
I've then linked this unit type file into the larger model. (right now its the large site file with all the blocks, but could be a block file for ifc just the same......but I digress)

In one of my views I did the VG override to show the desired options. I then created a view template from that view and applied it to other views, and it worked ok, but then as a test, I went into manage view templates, and changed a couple design options. I thought when I hit apply/ok I would see the change propagate through both views. (ie main and second floor), but it didn't change at all.

Am I missing something, because I don't want to have to manually override in every view...that's a lot of clicking.

[patricks]

Unfortunately yes. An element in the main model cannot be altered in any way by anything in an option, or vice versa. So if you have any doors and windows in a design option, the host wall must also exist in EACH design option.

I recently did a building that had a deductive alternate to only build half the building, with a temporary exterior wall. I used design options, and it ended up being a NIGHTMARE because I had to duplicate so many different objects into both options. And this was only one building with two options - whole building or half building.