Previous Project as Existing

[rsavola]

I’m using Revit 2010. I need to use an old projects Revit file as the existing building for my current project. I’ve started by link the old Revit project into my current project and putting it on an existing phase. My problem is that due to the heavy remodel I want to easily demo the existing building elements in my current project. I’ve tried binding the link, but all of the demolition work from my old project shows up. Do I have to manually remove all of the unwanted demo? Am I missing an easier way of doing this whole process?

[cporter.207875]

Make sure the phasing in the linked file and the current project match. Then create at least two new phases. One each for Current Demo and Current New Construction. You might create another one for Latest Project Completion. Anyway, the idea is to have all your phases set-up so that current work doesn't get lumped in with old work. Make sense?

Also, while others may disagree, I don't think you necessarily have to link the old project into the current project. If you are demolishing part or much of the existing building, you might as well open the old project and Save As to create a new project, add your new phases, and get started working. Be sure to clean out all the extraneous views and families that don't apply, in order to keep your initial file size as small as possible.

[rsavola]

I have identical phases and everything works and looks great when it is linked. I still have the problem if I try to bind my link. Demo walls that were not showing up in the view when the file was linked now suddenly appear after it is bound. I was attempting to link the file to easily remove the old sheet and views and then bind the file so I could easily demo the existing building in my current file. Apparently that is not going to work. Looks like I’m going to go with your Save As method and manually remove any extraneous info. Thanks for the post.

[wmullett]

Why don't you create a phase called demo where you only show items that are demoed? Then using a full 3D view, turn on everything, set the view to demo, select all and delete them from the file.

Now you have a clean file of existing. Window everything left and set it to existing and start your project from this file.

[twiceroadsfool]

First, Demo isnt a phase. Its something that happens IN a phase.

Having said that, i would just go IN the old project. Create a Phase that happens AFTER that project, and do the demo there.

Then when its Linked in to your NEW Project, as long as the phases align and the Phase filter is set correctly, everything will work fine.

I guess if you really want to you can save as and do the same thing, but i dont see the point?

[wmullett]

Your right - demo isn't a phase ... I should have used the term phase filter and set the VP to show the newly created phase filter called demo. But anyone reading that should have gotten the drift of what I was saying.

[patricks]

First, Demo isnt a phase. Its something that happens IN a phase.

Having said that, i would just go IN the old project. Create a Phase that happens AFTER that project, and do the demo there.

Then when its Linked in to your NEW Project, as long as the phases align and the Phase filter is set correctly, everything will work fine.

I guess if you really want to you can save as and do the same thing, but i dont see the point?

Doing a Save As and just having a new phase in the project will definitely make things easier in the design process, since the client may change things that get demo'd or not in this current phase. Otherwise the OP will have to constantly open and close the linked existing building and update the link in the project file.

IMHO linking in an existing building that's already in Revit when there is extensive interior remodel work happening isn't the best job for links.

[dgreen.49364]

I know this isn't popular here, but sometimes Demo is a phase. We have had projects where there is lots of demolition and showing the demolition and new construction together can get muddied and messy.

There are times when creating a Demolition phase does make sense. The times I have done it, it has worked out very clean. It is an option worth considering.

[patricks]

I know this isn't popular here, but sometimes Demo is a phase. We have had projects where there is lots of demolition and showing the demolition and new construction together can get muddied and messy.

There are times when creating a Demolition phase does make sense. The times I have done it, it has worked out very clean. It is an option worth considering.

We don't show demolition with new construction. We show it with existing, using phase filter set to Show Previous + Demo and the phase of the view set to New Construction.

We've had Revit n00bs do demo as a phase on projects and things got royally messed up with regards to what showed up and what didn't, and how things were displayed. I mean, to show an object as demolished, it has to be created in any phase prior to the view's current phase, and then demolished in that current phase. So why not just have the objects created on Existing and demolished on New Construction, and set the view to Show Previous + Demo?

In the situation of the OP, I would take the old Revit file, save it as a new project, change the New Construction phase name to something more descriptive of that prior work (Phase 1 or whatever) and then make a new phase called Phase 2. All new views would be set to Phase 2, and objects that get demolished in this phase are demolished on Phase 2. A demolition view would be set to Phase 2 and Show Previous + Demo. That way it shows any existing objects created prior to Phase 2, and any objects demolished on Phase 2. Pretty simple, really.

[cporter.207875]

We don't show demolition with new construction. We show it with existing, using phase filter set to Show Previous + Demo and the phase of the view set to New Construction.

We've had Revit n00bs do demo as a phase on projects and things got royally messed up with regards to what showed up and what didn't, and how things were displayed. I mean, to show an object as demolished, it has to be created in any phase prior to the view's current phase, and then demolished in that current phase. So why not just have the objects created on Existing and demolished on New Construction, and set the view to Show Previous + Demo?

In the situation of the OP, I would take the old Revit file, save it as a new project, change the New Construction phase name to something more descriptive of that prior work (Phase 1 or whatever) and then make a new phase called Phase 2. All new views would be set to Phase 2, and objects that get demolished in this phase are demolished on Phase 2. A demolition view would be set to Phase 2 and Show Previous + Demo. That way it shows any existing objects created prior to Phase 2, and any objects demolished on Phase 2. Pretty simple, really.

Good Clarification. This is what I was trying to say, although I flubbed up the phase/phase filter terminology.

[twiceroadsfool]

Doing a Save As and just having a new phase in the project will definitely make things easier in the design process, since the client may change things that get demo'd or not in this current phase. Otherwise the OP will have to constantly open and close the linked existing building and update the link in the project file.

IMHO linking in an existing building that's already in Revit when there is extensive interior remodel work happening isn't the best job for links.

Its personal preference, i guess. But its the ONLY way i would do it... IF the new project is a demo/reno and additional work adding on to it.

Even when i WOULD do a save as, that was just so the referencing file was divorced from the old project. And i only do that for other peoples peace of mind.

If its all-inclusive demo/reno, im not sure why you wouldnt just do it in the original project file, except for Project bloat and sheet numbering... Which is why i link it in.

But, i tend to like Links way more than most people here. :)

[rsavola]

I generally prefer links as well. That is the first thing I attempted, but because of the heavy demo work I don’t want to open and reload the existing building every time I make a change. Binding the link seemed to be a bust; all of my old phases got jumbled up after the bind. Using the “Save as” method works. It is a bit of a pain taking out all of the extraneous data from the old project, but the end result is workable.
Thanks for the input everyone.

[Alex Page]

The best advantage of using links is that you cant move/delete an existing wall/ceiling/floor etc etc which seems to happen to us all the time - especially existing ceiling grids setouts - they seem to move when moving a new wall (not an existing) which has been a nightmare.

[ghale]

I'm going to bring this post back to life, as I want to make sure my view of how this should work is intuitive. I've attempted the same thing (binding a link of a previous project to start a new phase of a building). In K-12 there tends to be a lot of renovations and additions over the years. Project files need to reside as a static generation of the project as it was built. Using a "Save As" methodology is intuitive, however it can bring with it lots of baggage and old standards from years past and is a PITA to clean out and purge. I've tried several methodologies including combining phases before and after, linking, and "Save As", but I believe linking should be the answer that resolves this.

While trying to bind a link of a previous renovation project, the link's phases get bundled into a single phase when it is "grouped" into the project even though the phases are mapped between files. This gets real screwy with renovation/demolition within any of the phases. If we can map the phases for the link then they should be preserved when the link is bound. Right? Am I crazy? If we could do this then we could bring in only the necessary modeled geometry and none of the documentation. As Revit grows in popularity and time goes on, this will become a bigger and bigger issue.

[twiceroadsfool]

<shrug>

Its only a problem if youre binding the link, which i still dont see much of a reason to do.

I guess if youre pretty bent on binding the link, you could kludge through it by making a couple of different copies of the old one by doing save as, deleting the different phaes respectively in each, and binding all of them, lol.

But id leave it linked, and call it a day. :)