Multi Submittal Package in one Revit File

[thalim]

Hi,

Has anyone come across to have a different submittal package in one Revit file?
We currently have a Foundaiton Permit Set, Foundation Bid Set, Building Permit Set and Building Bid Set. We want to maintain it in one Revit File.

We created a Project Parameter for different submittal for View and Sheet:

FPS = Foundation Permit Set
FBS = Foundation Bid Set
BPS = Building Permit Set
BBS = Building Bid Set

We create a new Browser Organization by Submittal Package.

Then, we duplicate each view with a prefix as listed above for each submittal as well as the sheet. For example:

FPS - First Floor Plan in Vew. FPS-A-100 First Floor Plan in Sheet, but the border will still show Sheet A-100

FBS - First Floor Plan in Vew. FBS-A-100 First Floor Plan in Sheet, but the border will still show Sheet A-100

By doing that we were able to have a duplicate sheet in each submittal package.

However, in the Plans, Elevations, or Building Sections, the Buidling Sections symbol, Wall Sections symbol, and Callouts symbol show the real sheet name which is FPS-A-100. I can't find a way to trick Revit to show the section as A-100.

Any idea and help will be appreciated.

Mahalo.

Tobin

[twiceroadsfool]

It cant be done, without sacrific Revits ability to track the actual view names and sheet numbers. You can only use a sheet number once.

In the past, ive managed to compromise with some project managers to do a:

1A-100
2A-100 and so on. But its that, or:

2. Use a linked file for the documentation.
3. Use a seperate model entirely, for the different sets...

[dgreen.49364]

We recently had a rather large project where the contractor asked for 14 different bid packages. We kept it simple and didn't try to work around it the way you are. You can spend a lot of time trying to manage and maintain the system you are trying to force. What we did was, at each bid package, we printed a pdf set, archived the pdf set and moved on with the model and the next bid package. Being at the end of that now and well within construction administration, we have no regrets about doing it that way. It worked out fine.

[twiceroadsfool]

We recently had a rather large project where the contractor asked for 14 different bid packages. We kept it simple and didn't try to work around it the way you are. You can spend a lot of time trying to manage and maintain the system you are trying to force. What we did was, at each bid package, we printed a pdf set, archived the pdf set and moved on with the model and the next bid package. Being at the end of that now and well within construction administration, we have no regrets about doing it that way. It worked out fine.

Its not trying to force a system if you need the documents to be different, because theyre different documents. Now granted, you could just number them all differently so subsequent sets wont HAVE an "a-101", but there are caveats to doing it your way...

A design change that occurs while under construction and which means revisions to past sets of drawings will be a pain in the butt for you. If it doesnt happen on your jobs, thats great... But it happens to a lot of us, hehe.

Now that we have FILTERS that can pick up TYPES of views, this looks like it should be a no brainer. Views have an ID parameter for which "set" in the model they are a part of... And they ONLY display view references for THAT SET of docs in the model. Views that dont have a set filled in get treated as unreferenced views.

That would be sweet....

[eldad]

Thalim
instead of duplicating your view, create a new one (you will need to untick duplicate views) the problem with duplicating as you found out is that it will refer all your sections and elevations to the original view.
create your sections and elevations and change their type to the package you want, again duplicating an existing section might cause a problem, but check that.
like twiceroadsfool said, now you can controll sections and elevation in the filters! which is a great new feature in 2010 :)
I'm sure you may already know that, but just in case :) you can select multiple view and apply a view template to all (with the filter you have created) :) that way you can hide any other sections or elevations you don't need to show...
hope this helps.

[dgreen.49364]

Its not trying to force a system if you need the documents to be different, because theyre different documents. Now granted, you could just number them all differently so subsequent sets wont HAVE an "a-101", but there are caveats to doing it your way...

A design change that occurs while under construction and which means revisions to past sets of drawings will be a pain in the butt for you. If it doesnt happen on your jobs, thats great... But it happens to a lot of us, hehe.

Now that we have FILTERS that can pick up TYPES of views, this looks like it should be a no brainer. Views have an ID parameter for which "set" in the model they are a part of... And they ONLY display view references for THAT SET of docs in the model. Views that dont have a set filled in get treated as unreferenced views.

That would be sweet....

Aaron, we certainly do have changes while under construction that affect past drawings. We deal with them with an ASK 8 1/2 x 11 sketch the way we would with any field change. It's pretty simple, really.

[davidcobi]

What we did was, at each bid package, we printed a pdf set, archived the pdf set and moved on with the model and the next bid package. Being at the end of that now and well within construction administration, we have no regrets about doing it that way. It worked out fine.

We also plot a PDF for each set we issue. And we archive the Revit file so if we need to edit one of the issued sets we have that option.

We wrestled with parameters and duplicate views three years ago and kind of abandonded it (http://revitbeginners.blogspot.com/2006/06/sort-by-submittal-package.html).

[thalim]

It cant be done, without sacrific Revits ability to track the actual view names and sheet numbers. You can only use a sheet number once.

In the past, ive managed to compromise with some project managers to do a:

1A-100
2A-100 and so on. But its that, or:

2. Use a linked file for the documentation.
3. Use a seperate model entirely, for the different sets...


Thanks for your reply.
If we maintain separate model, while the Foundation Permit Set is being reviewed by Building Department, the project is moving forward for the Foundation Bid Set. Once we are done with Foundation Bid Set, we are moving forward with the Building Permit Set. By that time, we get comments back from Building Department regarding Foundation Permit Set. We have to reply and resubmit the drawings. At the same time, we received comments from General Contractor which are bidding on the Foundation Bid Set. Then, we have to submit Building Permit Set and move on to Bid Set.
What we want is to maintain one model that can cover all Submittal Packages. I just can't imagine if we have to maintain 4 different model at the same time.

[thalim]

We also plot a PDF for each set we issue. And we archive the Revit file so if we need to edit one of the issued sets we have that option.

We wrestled with parameters and duplicate views three years ago and kind of abandonded it (http://revitbeginners.blogspot.com/2006/06/sort-by-submittal-package.html).

Thanks for your reply.

We used to archive the Revit file as well as the PDF for every submittal (Schematic Design, Design Development and Building Permit, Construction Document Packages) as our record. Assuming there will be minor changes after we sbumit Building Permit Set. So even when we receive comments back from Building Department, we can go back to Building Permit Set Revit archive file and make changes for the comments. But for this particular project, the client wants different submittal packages.

[thalim]

Thalim
instead of duplicating your view, create a new one (you will need to untick duplicate views) the problem with duplicating as you found out is that it will refer all your sections and elevations to the original view.
create your sections and elevations and change their type to the package you want, again duplicating an existing section might cause a problem, but check that.
like twiceroadsfool said, now you can controll sections and elevation in the filters! which is a great new feature in 2010 :)
I'm sure you may already know that, but just in case :) you can select multiple view and apply a view template to all (with the filter you have created) :) that way you can hide any other sections or elevations you don't need to show...
hope this helps.

Thanks for your reply.

We are trying not to upgrade to Revit Architecture 2010 yet due to recommended hardware requirement. May be, we will have to consider it if 2010 can perform what we need.

[twiceroadsfool]

Thanks for your reply.
If we maintain separate model, while the Foundation Permit Set is being reviewed by Building Department, the project is moving forward for the Foundation Bid Set. Once we are done with Foundation Bid Set, we are moving forward with the Building Permit Set. By that time, we get comments back from Building Department regarding Foundation Permit Set. We have to reply and resubmit the drawings. At the same time, we received comments from General Contractor which are bidding on the Foundation Bid Set. Then, we have to submit Building Permit Set and move on to Bid Set.
What we want is to maintain one model that can cover all Submittal Packages. I just can't imagine if we have to maintain 4 different model at the same time.

Sorry, i wasnt clear. I keep it all in one model, but i also save off Archive Copies of the model. For the reasons you mentioned:

As the design goes forward, what is present on the "Foundation Bid Set- Foundation Plan" may have changed entirely.

Now, if there is a minor issue, such as a note the govering bodies want changed for peace of mind, but they dont want to see all the new design changes (maybe theyre getting handled in a revision later?), then we would open up the archive model to change the note. But no, we do not MAINTAIN all fo the archived models... They just sit, dead in the water, as they were on the date of issuance, in case there is a need.

Otherwise, we put prefixes in front of the sheets, as i said, and make them all in one model...

[USMCBody]

How are you all archiveing the revit file? Is there a command for it like in Autocad?

Basically, I'm looking for a way to archive the file like archive in Autocad where it would look at everthing used and package up all x-refs and support files into one zip file. I understand that Revit has all of the support files in the file itself, but the linked files are not per say because it is still looking in certain aras for the linked files (which could be a problem if your trying to see what exacly was submitted for that revision)

[twiceroadsfool]

I copy everything over to the archive directory. That means the Models, all linked Models, all linked DWG's, etc.

Then i open it with DFC, create a new central file, and go to manage links and repath them to the copies in the archive directory.

[USMCBody]

Ya that is what I figured would happen. It's funny how Revit promises alot and gives alot, but the way the program was setup is not as refined as AutoCAD... You think Autodesk would take a hint and get the same basic stuff like Archive into revit. I mean they do have alot of experience with the construction process you think they would put that into all their programs.

But you know, If I ran the world there would be a whole different set of problems...

[twiceroadsfool]

Its nowhere near as simple as it sounds. AutoCAD "Bind" and such basically smash everything together in one file. Right now, im not even able to get a 50 MB model to bind without crashing. I would hate to think of what would happen if we told revit to *archive* 6 models stitched together.

And what do they do with things like VG controls of Linked files? Suddenly things that were By Linked View or By Custom Catagory Override would need a new setting, or something. What about when the Links are worksetted, what happens to the items? Do they get put on active workset, or does it create all those worksets the way acad does with layers? And phases? And design options of Linked Files?

Not that im saying it WOULDNT be possible, but it would take a TON TON TON of work. They had a post on Inside the Factory about "Big task / little task" or something. I think (personally) this is one that would turn in to a huge task if you uncovered all the issues that went with it.

[USMCBody]

I'm thinking you don't know all of the functions of archive command in AutoCAD. Granted, there are a few different options to pick from (one being bind x-refs), but the way I archive I don't bind anything. Basically I say, "go outside of the file and grab all materials related to this file and put them in a zip folder at this location". I don't change anything because I need the exact snapshot of the file as is. That would be a simple task for a programmer. Espically in Revit where the only thing outside of Revit are linked files...

Granted going this route will start to look in a certain location for backgrounds, but if you unzip to your desktop or some far away location AutoCAD will look where you told it to first and then defalt to the location it is in (which is where all your x-refs are). The trick is to set all the locations to Relative path rather than Full location or just repath to where you are using the referance manager program (look in you start-program-autodesk-<version of autocad you are using> and you will see it here. A very handy tool.

All I'm saying is that AutoCAD seems more well thought out than Revit. I know Revit is a baby comparied to AutoCAD, but the same company ownes both.... One would assume that autodesk is smart in the ways of how the program is used by now. But everything in that catagory is low in the priority I'm sure. They have a lot of other things to update and fix.

So far overall I like the concept of Revit, but I don't think the program was not all that well thoughtout for anyone other than a one stop shop that only uses one file...

And we all know that we all are one stop shops right... And Autodesk for sure knows that so that is why they tailered the program that way... (for all of you reading this and new to drafting/modeling or didn't see the sarcasm in my typing... one stop shops are an exception to the rule and autodesk has to knows this)

[twiceroadsfool]

Alright, granted i havent used AutoCAD for production (though i administrate it) in a few years, but even so its STILL not as simple as you make it out to be.

I grab my Revit model, and hit the new magical *ARCHIVE* button where i tell it to replicate everything exactly as is, in a zip folder in another place. First thing that comes to my mind is Worksetted projects: They know their exact Physical Address on a network. So when it goes to make the *archive* how is it to reconcile which is a Central model and which is a local? Or, does it just disregard that and stuff it in the zip file which means when you unzip it you have to decalre a new central anyway? Linked Models would it just recreate any and all directory structures that are in between the central model you are archiving and the linked model? Or would it pull them directly in to the directory of the zip file? If the former, how does it reconcile where those directories land when its unzipped? (Someone using Extract Here vs. Extract here to folder comes to mind). If its the latter, would it go in to the new central file and repath under manage links?

EDIT: I see your point about just "making everything relative," but with Central Files its not really that easy. Maybe it is for the Linked Models relationship to the model you are archiving, but it still wont address how it HANDLES a central file upon archive.

Again, dont get me wrong. I wouldnt mind a simpler way to archive stuff either. But what i DONT want is another half baked tool that we (the users) ask them (the Factory) for, without knowing what we want, so we get half baked **** that we then dont use anyway. Im not asking to be a prick, im genuinely curious how you (and any other users) would imagine this stuff being handled. :)

[patricks]

I copy everything over to the archive directory. That means the Models, all linked Models, all linked DWG's, etc.

Then i open it with DFC, create a new central file, and go to manage links and repath them to the copies in the archive directory.

An API plug-in to automate this process right here would be really handy.

The problem is that our office manager often archives entire project folders by just moving/copying the folder to the archive hard drive on the server. So then all kinds of links and things end up broken if anyone has to do anything with it.

[twiceroadsfool]

Thats basically what they do here, thats why i have to harp on them to be meticulous about taking the time to DFC, reload links, etc. Otherwise theyll open the archived MODEl with DFC, but all the links will still point to the regular file directory, LOL...

[patricks]

Well our office manager doesn't have or use Revit, nor could the machine probably even handle it. So that's the problem there.

[USMCBody]

Going back a bit. (my disclammer here is that I know more about Revit than I did so I appoligize if I'm contradicting myslef. I still don't concider myself a 3d drafter 'modeler?' but I'm working on it... and I'm still learning Revit MEP 2010)

Where the workset files are concerned I concider them trash. The workset files seem to be only one persons file that they use. I know that means that if they need to revive the files then it means that each individual that was using a workset file needs to make another. It is a fairely simple process to make a new workset file and from what I understand it need to happen every day anyway (the worksets tend to get biger than needed because they have 'extra' stuff in them.) At least that is what I've been told.

On the magical archive button. From what I understand the only thing outside of the revit file is any linked files and that is what I would be concerned about grabbing. Sure the manual way would be ok to. Keeping the linked files in a common folder would help alot, but it seems that it would be nicer if revit did that. I'm just trying to take the human factor out of it and trying to avoid the call back to the architet saying "It looks like I need a few more linked files to..."

On the relative path. Revit can use the relative paths or absolute paths. Even if they were still trying to look on the architects servers and couldn't see them I could just as easily repath to my locations of the linked files. I also hope that Revit will do like autocad and say, "I can't find them where I've been told to look so I'm going to look where I am for them." That way putting them in one file (like autocad) makes more sence. Also, the relative path is a window's thing (I think it comes from dos). You may even be able to type in ..\ which means up one file folder from where I am and then. Ex. ..\..\..\arch\links (up three file filders and then down arch and down links folder) I know it works in AutoCAD. It's the trick to make it a relative path if the path is fixed.

Now that I know a little more about Revit I'll say that it look like it was designed by a database guy and an architect. It is almost like they didn't get any drafters heavely involved. Again, I do love the concept of Revit and it is a baby still, but you think the adult here 'AutoCAD' would teach it's kid some more things about basic electronic drafting... Bad AutoCAD... Just learning from your kid and not helping 'it' along... :)

I do also agree that I don't want anything half baked, but then why would we ever buy the next years program if they fixed everything this year.... Food for thought.

[twiceroadsfool]

You completely missed the point about the magical archive button, and the "path and location" of the Revit file. I am not discussing Revit Local Files, i am discussing the Central File itself.

According to our "Magical Archive Button" its going to zip this stuff up? Well, the zipped file is going to be confused the moment it is UNzipped, since IT wont know where the central file is. EVERY time a Revit (Central) files location is moved/altered/repathed/changed, it needs a process done to it to turn it in to a central file again, or it THINKS its a local copy. THAT is what im addressing. Go to a Worksetted project on your network, and change the name of the folder its in, then try to open it. Youll see what im talking about. If you disregard that and leave it up to the user to reconcile, then i guess its no different than zipping up the entire Model directory of your project (replete with linked files, etc) and sending it away?

Also, the issue still exists of what happens to all of the Design Options / Linked View settings / Linked Model Overrides that happen in every view of the "Magically archived Revit model." But since youre talking about relative and absolute paths, i gather now that youre considering including the linked models, but not binding them in to the magically archived link.

All in all, i think once you get more in to the complexities of how Revit works, youll better appreciate why i say its not as simple. But now were so far off topic its not funny, from what the thread was originally about. :)

[USMCBody]

correct. Revit should have a way to know that this is an archived file "do you want to make it a central file." From what I understand makeing a file a central file is simple.

Making it worksharing correctly again... That I don't know enough about. All I'm really worried about is the data that is in there. What happens when your file is corrupt or unusable or you went to far in the wrong direction or what ever and you have to go back to another version without waiting a week for the network guys having the time to restore the file. If haveing to set up worksharing again is my only trouble than so be it. At lest the data is there.

Also, me being on the consultant side I'm not sure if I need to make it a central file anyway. I just need the main file and any linked files from what I understand. So far I have not had the need to pull in an architects file that came with any amount of linked data, but I do see a need to in the future. Arch / electrical / structural / whatever I can find for collsion detection... But then agian maybe it will turn into something the architect finds and then tells us what the probelem is and solve it... But then the revit process is not yet fully tested it the way the real world used it. I say that knowing that a few people do know, but I'm talking about the industry as a whole... Or maybe I'm the only idoit that doesen't know.. so far that is not the case, but one can never rule that option out...

Basically, I'm not looking for a complete restore. Just an easier way to store the data that is there for what ever reason. Legal snapshot of what was sent out, backup of a backup, what ever. So I can look at it and say,"what did this set look like at this point in time."

Sorry for not catching that from your previous post (I still don't have the time to look back) Since the people that can do work has shrunk, I think the rest of us that have jobs still are bogged down with the work that is there... Either that or the architects actually have the time to look at the sets and say "what is that???" :)

[twiceroadsfool]

"From what you understand making a central file is simple..." is Correct, but ONCE its a central file, MOVING it/ALTERING it/Changing its Physical (or apparent physical) path and/or location becomes not simple. Or rather, its simple to us as users, but for an automated process, im still curious how exactly it would work. What youre also missing is that a lot of us USE central files, and once a file is Workshared, it (and any copy of it) will never be unworkshared again. So its not an issue that just goes away because you dont use worksets...

As for your desire for a "Legal snapshop" its still there, we just Copy everything manually, detach from central, remake central, and repath links when necessary.

Anyway, to reiterate... Were dancing in circles. Im not saying your desire is unfounded, im saying (and still supporting my opinion) that its more complicated then you think. Work with worksets and central and local files for a few weeks, then report back.