Model setup options. Pros/Cons

[mit81]

What are the pros and cons of setting up a model that has your arch and structural models linked in and then linking that model into your MEP model? They are trying to push this model setup at my place of work. I understand that you can clean up the arch/structure model and refresh it in the MEP model. So you don't have to do that every time there is an update. In your MEP model. But, can't you accomplish the same goal with just making a view template that uses the VG on the linked in models (arch/struct) to clean the models up?
Besides the ability to keep the arch and structural models clean before linking in the MEP model. Are there any huge benefits? And what are the downfalls?


Thanks.

[neightyeight]

I've implemented this setup in our office for the last few years and it works great.

Pros:
1. Edit your view template in one place (that controls the architectural background) instead of once for each individual view in the MEP model(s).
2. Use "By Linked View" to control your background in the MEP model(s). Background remains consistent across disciplines. Adding plan regions to show or hide architecture happens once, and doesn't mess with your MEP content visibility. This method also allows you to show your MEP content, setting the view range however you wish, without messing up the architectural background.
3. Place spaces in one model, update in one model. Tags will read these spaces through the link. (For one combined MEP model this is a small time saver. For separate MEP & FP models it saves a lot time!)

Cons:
1. Interference reports will not see the structural model (linked in the link) as a model to clash detect against. We use Navisworks, which does not have this problem anyways. Or you can link the structure into your MEP model separately for clash detection and then unload it the rest of the time.
2. Spaces will not see MEP content in them. However, equipment in the MEP model(s) will read the space in which it is located through the link so no problem there.

Those are the major things that stand out to me. We use separate MEP models (much better performance!) so having this "Coordination" model as we call it is a huge time saver. And I love the ability to control the background independently of the MEP settings by using the "By Linked View" option.

[BenSammis]

Spaces will not see MEP content in them. However, equipment in the MEP model(s) will read the space in which it is located through the link so no problem there.

This is a huge problem for us. We use what is essentially a space schedule to derive all of the relevant data to produce our Comcheck reports. Whatever time is saved by essentially adding another layer of linked models would definitely be lost on the back end by forcing us to generate the Comcheck data manually.

[neightyeight]

Understood about the issue this may cause depending on how you use Revit's spaces. Of course, you could place the spaces in the MEP model(s) and simply use this "Coordination" model for the other time-saving items. This would still give you the functionality you want with spaces. Depends on what you want to get out of it I guess.

[BenSammis]

Upon further refelection, I'm still not seeing much benefit from this. If you're using the "by linked view" option to create MEP views, you'll have to set up every single relevant view twice, once in the combined A/S model and again in the MEPT model.

I suppose I can see how in certain instances this might be a beneficial procedure, but I doubt that it'll actually save time in most projects. At least the ones that my firm typically deals with.

[mhartmann]

i'm planning to (if i ever get time to create my master template) link in a fake arch, struc, m, p, e, and a civil revit files. and set all the visibilities for each in all the discipline's view templates. then 'reload from' to the actual files for each one that applies for that project, and unload the links that aren't needed.
a possible solution to skipping the 'middle man' model is to create a floorplan and ceiling view template that you can send to your archie (if they cooperate) so they can set a floorplan and ceiling view for each level to your view templates. then you could set to 'by linked view' using those views...
hth,
mike

[BenSammis]

I also dislike the "by linked view" option because we end up seeing all of the architectural annotations unless they create special views just for us.

[neightyeight]

I suppose it's worth trying out on a project and seeing if it saves time or not given your office's workflow.

I know for us it has saved a significant amount of time. We do MEPFP. So that means we will have 6 views for each area of floor plan in the building (power, lighting, mech duct, mech pipe, plumbing, fire protection) and we may have a technology view as well. So when the architect updates the model and we have to add a plan region, manually hide elements, adjust line colors/weights, etc. it has to be done 6 or 7 times - once for each view. Plus add in the time to edit all the view templates. This time adds up very quickly. The purpose of the coordination model is to send all links through this model and control their visibility here. Changing the architectural background happens once. Because all the other models refer to this view they are all updated and consistent and this process takes 1/6th the time. Additionally, one floor may have 3 or 4 areas, each one it's own sheet. So, for example, say we want to manually hide a model line or make invisible the edge of a floor that makes the background look confusing. (3 areas x 7 disciplines = 21 times to hide that one element.) Or hide it once in this Coordination model and it's hidden everywhere. Over several months quite a lot of time gets saved making the additional hour or so on the front-end setup well worth it.

In this setup "By Linked View" is referring to our Coordination model, not the architect's, so we don't see any of their annotations.

In the end I suppose one would have to try several methods and discover what works best for them. We've tested several ways and so could comment on some of the pros/cons we've experienced. Hopefully it helps.