Merge Revit Models?

[ryan.rosche]

Is there a way to "merge" a Revit model into another Revit model? We maintain a prototype with many many options (please don't mention design options, our set up is far too complicated to be managed with design options). My idea would be to maintain seperate files for the seperate options and appendages of the building complete with geometry, sheets, details, the works. Then when an option is needed, that Revit file complete with sheets could be brought into our base project file.

Any thoughts?

[SCShell]

Hey there,

You can copy and then Paste Aligned any object into a file. I use this method a lot. Especially on old projects where I need to update them with new construction.
Good luck
Steve

[Andre Carvalho]

You can also use the Bind option to merge the models. Just link the model you want to merge and bind it.

Andre Carvalho

[SCShell]

You can also use the Bind option to merge the models. Just link the model you want to merge and bind it.

Andre Carvalho
Hey there,
How do you bind? I have never heard of this command.
Thanks in advance
Steve

[Andre Carvalho]

Hey there,
How do you bind? I have never heard of this command.
Thanks in advance
Steve

Hey Steven,

Just select the link and you'll see the option in the options bar. After binding the model will become a group that can be ungrouped later. It also can bring levels, grids and details if you want.

Andre Carvalho

[cdatechguy]

Link in the Revit Model, select it and you will see a Bind button (not sure where it is on 2010 yet though)
This will create a Model Group, then just ungroup the model.

Only issue I have though is to watch out for the levels, you will have those from the project you started with and those from the binded model.

[SCShell]

Hey there,
Thanks! Never have noticed that.
Steve

[twiceroadsfool]

To be clear, Bind will NOT do what the original poster is asking. Bind will merge in the MODEL GEOMETRY. Sheets, drawings, views, etc, will NOT come in with it, they will simply vanish.

The tool for doing what you want, is........ (lol)........ Design Options.

I hear from a lot of people that what theyre doing is too complicated for Design Options. What exactly do the options entail that DO cant handle?

Youre only other option is to keep the files LINKED, and use By Linked View to bring in the "drawings" that are in the option files.... But youll still have to create the views in the main model, and set the link to By Linked View.

All in all, theres no SIMPLE way to do what youre after... except design options.

[ryan.rosche]

Design options isn't working out for me. I ran into this issue while trying to set it up. We have an option for precast and an option for CMU. So our details are very much different. However, Revit won't allow you to assign details or even sheets to a Design Option set.

[twiceroadsfool]

It wont let you Merge files and bring in details either. So for Drafted details, youre going to have to use "Insert from File > View" regardless. That will let you bring in sheets and drafted items, at which point the Model is a seperate story.

If you REALLY want to spend time on it, you can Model Group the various "options," and then nest Detail Groups in the Model group that have all of their particular detailing in them. But youre STILL going to have to place the model group, create the views in the project, and place the detail groups in the views after the fact.

[gbrowne]

Just thinking, would you do detailing for an option? Is the detailing not further down the design road from options...

Jus' sayin'... :-)

[barrie.sharp]

http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?p=1004017#post1004017

Check this link to a post I recently wrote. You can detail your options, the process is just slighlty different.

[cliff collins]

I think Design Options are really intended for major scheme variations during early concept design--for instance:
Option 1 : Barrel Vault entry canopy
Option 2: Pitched Roof entry canopy

i.e. fairly major design schemes---and not smaller, detailed options.

Too often I see Design Options being "over-used" --like 25 or more!
and lingering too far into DD/CD phases--which adds a lot of complexity
to the model, confuses new team members, and slows down the model
and users' ability to work quickly, clearly and efficiently.

Our policy is to develop several of them for Concept/Schematic Design, during our rapid
design study phases, and present the options to the client, get decisions made,
and then delete them--and move into DD/CD phase.

I do not recommend taking Design Options all the way to the con doc detailing level.
It can be done, but adds a lot of complexity which is better avoided by getting
decisions made earlier, and then moving forward with detailing on the approved design
in the main model.

Of course there will always be some exceptions to this, but the point is to establish
a standard of practice which keeps the workflow smooth and as painless as possible.
This becomes especially important on large, complex projects with 10 or more users.

Just my take after seeing it done a lot of different ways.

cheers........

[ryan.rosche]

Just thinking, would you do detailing for an option? Is the detailing not further down the design road from options...

Jus' sayin'... :-)

We do. We provide a prototype with the entire, complete set of construction documents with every option. Apparently, we're the only firm doing this with an insane number of options. To make matters worse for us, you can't have a design option within a design option (within another design option).

[nancy.mcclure]

As noted by twiceroadsfool, binding merges the MODEL, not the documentation.

Ryan could you not simply compile your full project documentation from 2 (or more) .rvt files, each addressing the associated feature/option? It's a CAD approach, yes, but if you're invested the time to detail each option separately with it's own reference tracking, then you can link the main/base model into the option, link the option into the main/base, etc. for visual continuity, but do a compiled documentation print with sheet names adjusted accordingly.

[adafchik]

I've been reading (and gathering from your posts) that design options should be used for early schemes as well as smaller parts of a larger model. Our firm is currently collaborating with another design team, and each of us has an "option" to present the client. So, our entire office is trying to work under "Design Option 1" for our work. We keep running into sharing problems. Does anyone know if Design Options are checked out as an entire set when collaborating inter-office? If so, what ways could we work around each other and be able to edit different components/buildling parts without interfering with one another, yet still share the same "Design Option" umbrella?

[DaveP]

... We provide a prototype with the entire, complete set of construction documents with every option.

Isn't that what Design Development is for ? :shock:

[nancy.mcclure]

adafchik - if the two design teams are working on completely different concepts, then why attempt to put them in a single file? (especially if the teams are physically separated, as a WAN adds to the complexity of things).

Why not establish the 'common' features (existing building, site, for example) as a separate file LINKED into 2 separate development files. The presentation model can be the 'common' model with 2 links - Option 1 and Option 2. Just turn off the workset of either option to display for presentation.

[Steve_Stafford]

Technically their mental model for Design Options was production home builders that have many options and need to generate sets for any combination. The Design Options would definitely not go away in that scenario. The recommendation to remove them applies to large projects that really won't need to keep them. If a project needs to hang on to them...that's what they were meant for.

[sthedens]

I was looking into using the Link/Bind method to bring modular prototype designs into a model.

It works pretty slick. There is a certain amount of clean-up you may need to do such as ungrouping and modifying the workset of each element (they all come in on "Shared Levels and Grids"). You also need to re-tag everything. Of course you would need to clean-up where the prototype and the model connect. The only real gotcha I've encountered is sometimes our door swings flip (swing family is nested inside the door family).

[joe.carnes]

I have to begin this post by thanking Andre Carvalho for his replies about linking/binding/ungrouping. You sir, have no idea what your comment has done for my entire week. If for only a moment, you have just elevated me above the resident "Revit Guru" in my region by showing me that I can perform a task whose results were previously deemed "not possible in Revit".

My case was not exactly the same as the original poster, but very parallel. Due to PM's and other "higher ups" not being well educated in the BIM arena, there were many decisions not clarified in beginning that needed to be made, as well as many design concepts not "nailed down". So to make a long story short - 3 weeks into developing the more promising design (a complicated, sprawling, multiple civil grades, and multiple floor model)... the PM hands down the proclamation that this project must now be entirely in Metric. And we must use the client-supplied METRIC template. (of course no one ever told the production team that either of these conditions ever existed - it was Imperial all the way, and use our present "standard template") All arguments for work-arounds, like to keep it Imperial and just use Metric dimensioning, were all shot down.

So I was faced with finding as many shortcuts as possible, but basically no matter what was able to be transferred over from one project to another template, I was undoubtedly going to have to redraw... a lot. Mind you I had our "Revit Guru" confirming these fears. So I hit the forums in a last ditch effort and stumbled across this thread. And I thank you all for enlightening me onto a function that I would never have thought to use for this purpose. Everything converted from Imperial to Metric, and since I had already set up the new template with the same levels but at metric conversions, everything is proportioned and sized correctly. I'll gladly redo the room tags over what I would have had to do otherwise!

Thanks again!
Joe