PDA

View Full Version : RAC 2010 - Multiple room boundary representations



designviz
2010-01-04, 07:41 PM
We are doing some apartment buildings and need to represent room areas in two different ways, Unit Plans and actual Room Plans. In the first case we need a room boundary around an entire apartment unit and labeled with a Unit Name (typically just UNIT), and a unit/room number and in some cases possibly SF, along with a corresponding schedule.

No big deal. However, at the same time, we also need to show in different views the individual units themselves with actual room names, numbers and SF, along with the corresponding schedule.

We have determined two methods so far to deal with this:

1) non-BIM method - If there is no need to calculate and display the SF on the plans and no schedule is actually required, we simply created an annotation tag that allows the user to modify the Unit Name and Number as needed.

2) BIM method - Using Area Plans and not to allowing Revit to automatically select wall edges when initially creating the plans, we manually place Area Separation Lines to establish all the desired edges. We then created Area Tags similar to our Room Tags that would allow us to display the tag information in various ways. This also allows us to schedule these areas with SF, etc. if desired. The only inconvenience to all this being that Area Plans by default get created in their own category in the Project Browser and thus any common annotations between these and the normal floor plans have to be copied around accordingly, which at times could pose some coordination issues.

We did also consider creating filters to turn on/off specific room separation lines based on Unit or Room to then be able to create Rooms accordingly. However, we were unsuccesful in figuring out a way to create such a filter, and somehow creating a visibility parameter and assign it to room separation lines. We thus abandoned this in favor of method 2 above.

Therefore, just curious if either or both of these methods make sense, are in keeping with Revit's intended design, if there are ways to improve these methods and/or if there are other best practices for dealing with this?

lhanyok
2010-01-04, 07:56 PM
What I've done in the past is used Revit Rooms to define the entire unit. Then I've created a generic model family "Room Marker" that I've placed in each room within the unit (Kitchen, Bath, etc.), and then I can tag that component in my unit plans. The only advantage to this over your annotation method is that the generic model can be part of a group. This was advantgeous for us, because we had used nested groups within unit groups.

Dimitri Harvalias
2010-01-04, 09:09 PM
I tend to prefer method 2. Since the only info you really require is the area boundary and tag (maybe not even the boundary) I would simply turned everything off I don't need in the area plan and placed it on the sheet view aligned with the floor plan. The area plan is never referenced from anywhere so there are generally no cross referencing issues and the unit areas can be scheduled independent of the rooms.

twiceroadsfool
2010-01-04, 10:54 PM
Im with Dimitri: Areas for the entire unit, Rooms for regular Rooms.

It would be ideal if all walls and objects had an "Area bounding" yes/no property just like Room Bounding elements. It entirely stinks that areas are limited the way that they are. Of course, it would also be seriously awesome if Rooms were aware of which Areas they are in.

Weve been squalking about that one for years, and i know it has HUUUUGE potential.

designviz
2010-01-05, 04:25 PM
Im with Dimitri: Areas for the entire unit, Rooms for regular Rooms.

I would simply turned everything off I don't need in the area plan and placed it on the sheet view aligned with the floor plan.


This does seem a good way to go about it, than I originally considered. I like it too rather than having to copy or transfer dimensions and other annotation type items from my normal floor plan views.

I thought dependent views may be a way to deal with having a working view to show my walls, etc. However, I guess about the only thing you can separately control with dependent views is the crop regions. Scale, VG, etc. effect all views the same. What a bummer.


It would be ideal if all walls and objects had an "Area bounding" yes/no property just like Room Bounding elements.


Agreed.

BTW, is there a way to create or modify the various Area Types? This could be useful for creating Colored Plans based on in our case Unit designations.


it would also be seriously awesome if Rooms were aware of which Areas they are in.


One thing I considered based on this, what about using Departments for the Units. Each normal Room could be assigned to a particular Department/Unit. We could than create a Shared Parameter for the Unit Type/Number. We could then modify our Room Tag to have options for displaying Department versus Room info. This way we would not have to mess with the separate Area Plans and could easily color code plans based on Department/Units or Rooms. This seems more involved and I guess less desirable really than method 2, but is there any merit in this approach as another/third method.


Weve been squalking about that one for years, and i know it has HUUUUGE potential.

How can we SQUALK LOUDER and get Autodesk to take some action on this?

twiceroadsfool
2010-01-05, 04:33 PM
One thing I considered based on this, what about using Departments for the Units. Each normal Room could be assigned to a particular Department/Unit. We could than create a Shared Parameter for the Unit Type/Number. We could then modify our Room Tag to have options for displaying Department versus Room info. This way we would not have to mess with the separate Area Plans and could easily color code plans based on Department/Units or Rooms. This seems more involved and I guess less desirable really than method 2, but is there any merit in this approach as another/third method.



You can do that already, with the Parameters that are in Rooms. They have Department, and a few other parameters. But, they wont report theyre total Area, which is why i like the Area functionality seperately from the Room functionality. You can get the Departments Area as a TOTAL in a schedule, but you cant use it anywhere, since its a total, and not an actual value. Areas have areas. Rooms have Areas. Its nice to have more than one way to define a space. (Speaking of Spaces...). There are kludgy workarounds to get the areas in the tags, but none that are really robust.

Squalk louder? Try the wishlist. Its something i would like, but i dont think its really critical on the list...