Visibility of Section, and Plan Callouts in Linked file

[mhenderson]

My firm is working with an associate architect on a project that has multiple 'buildings' that touch at a common construction joint. Until this point in the project the associate firm has had control over all of one of the buildings. For the remainder of the work we are dividing the project so that we are designing/detailing the envelope of their building and they are designing/detailing its interiors.
- The original model has been split so that the envelope portion and interior portions are now separate and linked together. The assoc. arch. owns the interiors model, we own the shell, and transfer copies weekly.
- The associate architect is going to control the plan sheets and show the envelope work using the 'by linked view' strategy in visibility graphics which has been discussed in the forums referencing Scott Brown's AU presentation so that our annotations related to the envelope appear in the plans.
- We intend to have one set of plans rather than separate interiors and shell packages as this is the way the project will be constructed.
- We control wall sections and envelope details and own those sheets.

I'm wondering how best to deal with Wall sections and callouts for envelope details? They apparantly don't show up using the 'by link view' strategy through the link (lame). Or maybe they do and I'm missing something?

The workaround we're considering is creating detail groups that look like dumb section or callout bugs that would live in our envelope model next to the live version. We'd have a different group per section and paste-aligned the group on each level the section cuts. We'd have to manually update the detail group each time the view moves or changes location on the sheet, but it should appear in the linked file that is controlled by the associate architect. Thoughts?

The project is in Revit 2010.

[Scott Womack]

I'm wondering how best to deal with Wall sections and callouts for envelope details? They apparantly don't show up using the 'by link view' strategy through the link (lame). Or maybe they do and I'm missing something?

The workaround we're considering is creating detail groups that look like dumb section or callout bugs that would live in our envelope model next to the live version. We'd have a different group per section and paste-aligned the group on each level the section cuts. We'd have to manually update the detail group each time the view moves or changes location on the sheet, but it should appear in the linked file that is controlled by the associate architect. Thoughts?

There is no good work-around, other than learning to work with the linked files in what is becoming the industry standard. Using the detail groups will only lead to a lessor coordination of the documents, and problems down the road. Personally, it sounds like more work than doing it the way I described.

That is, you'll need to duplicate the sections, details and callouts in one of the two sets. Then those are done using "Custom Setting in the link, of By View, and then that view is placed on a sheet. This way, the information, notes, dimensions, etc appear through the link. The only items that will not, are anything referencing a view.

There have been numerous threads on this issue if you search this forum.

[twiceroadsfool]

- The associate architect is going to control the plan sheets and show the envelope work using the 'by linked view' strategy in visibility graphics which has been discussed in the forums referencing Scott Brown's AU presentation so that our annotations related to the envelope appear in the plans.
- We intend to have one set of plans rather than separate interiors and shell packages as this is the way the project will be constructed.
- We control wall sections and envelope details and own those sheets.


Thats really not the intent of using/working with Linked Files. You will never get view callouts and annotations t show up across linked files. One big reason that makes a lot of sense is that you and the other firm may both have a view A3/A-101. If thats the case and everyones view annotations showed up, that would be a disaster.

The intent is youll cut the sections in your project as well, then set their linked MODEL in YOUR section to By Linked View, to get their notations/dimensions/detailing, and youd place your section on a sheet.

If youre both looking to "Reference" each others sheets, i would set up the views in both models. Although even at that point, itll be a manual coordination when one firm moves a detail or drawing off one sheet to another.

Personally, id pick one office to have the ENTIRE "document set," and set the other firms model to By Linked View and have all the sheets created and view marked in one office.

[ckc.mike]

Thats really not the intent of using/working with Linked Files. You will never get view callouts and annotations t show up across linked files. One big reason that makes a lot of sense is that you and the other firm may both have a view A3/A-101. If thats the case and everyones view annotations showed up, that would be a disaster.

The intent is youll cut the sections in your project as well, then set their linked MODEL in YOUR section to By Linked View, to get their notations/dimensions/detailing, and youd place your section on a sheet.

If youre both looking to "Reference" each others sheets, i would set up the views in both models. Although even at that point, itll be a manual coordination when one firm moves a detail or drawing off one sheet to another.

Personally, id pick one office to have the ENTIRE "document set," and set the other firms model to By Linked View and have all the sheets created and view marked in one office.

No offence, your answer is half wrong.
notations/dimensions/detailing from Linked Model can be shown on the Host Model. That is the "By Linked View" in Host Model used for. However, there have a condition in the Host Model must comply. Create a Section and the view depth of the section in the Host Model must cover the section in the Linked Model, then can use "By Linked View" to show the content on the section in the Linked Model, the notations/dimensions/Detailing from the Linked Model will show on the Host Model. However, any View Tag in the Linked Model will not show on Host Model. You got that "One big reason that makes a lot of sense" correct. So if the detailing was done in the Linked Model based on Callout, and make sure the Callout in the Linked Model is Section View Type not Detail View Type. Then similar to create Section show "By Linked View" as mentioned above. Create a Callout in Host Model, the location of the Callout in Host Model need to be approximately the same location of the refer Callout in Linked Model, and make sure the View Depth cover the Callout from Linked Model, use "By Linked View" in the Host Model and choose the co-response Callout in the Linked Model, then the contents in the Linked Model will show on the Host Model.
Sound very complicated, but once you done the 1st, the rest are the same process. Prepare yourself that will involve a bit double handling in terms of creating Section and Callout.

[mhenderson]

Thats really not the intent of using/working with Linked Files. You will never get view callouts and annotations t show up across linked files. One big reason that makes a lot of sense is that you and the other firm may both have a view A3/A-101. If thats the case and everyones view annotations showed up, that would be a disaster.

The intent is youll cut the sections in your project as well, then set their linked MODEL in YOUR section to By Linked View, to get their notations/dimensions/detailing, and youd place your section on a sheet.

If youre both looking to "Reference" each others sheets, i would set up the views in both models. Although even at that point, itll be a manual coordination when one firm moves a detail or drawing off one sheet to another.

Personally, id pick one office to have the ENTIRE "document set," and set the other firms model to By Linked View and have all the sheets created and view marked in one office.

OK, well that's what I was afraid of. We were trying to divide the work more equitably though, and one firm being responsible for setting up duplicate views and all of the sheets seems to be quite a bit of work....and redundant work at that.

I'm not sure the problem of duplicate drawings (the A3/101 scenario you mentioned) is really that huge of an issue though. It seems pretty easy to assign responsibility of a given sheet to a particular firm. If that sheet only exists in one model there's no way the other model can reference it. For instance, the interiors architect will have the A-700 series for interior details, we'd have the A-500 series for exterior details. The callouts I'd want to show up in the Plan sheets (being created from the Interiors architects model linked from our model) would be exterior plan details which will only appear in the A-500 series. Similar issue with wall sections exterior wall sections which will only appear in the A-300 series. The interiors guys may have their own walls sections to show interior information, but they should also only appear in the A-700 series.

So that's how I'd invisioned this relationship working. To me, it seems much easier to coordinate sheet numbers than it is to coordinate exact locations of callouts and section cuts and then have to coordinate every linked view associated with them.

I'll play around more with the method you and Scott are describing...maybe with more experience it will seem less high-maintenance.

[twiceroadsfool]

No offence, your answer is half wrong.
notations/dimensions/detailing from Linked Model can be shown on the Host Model. That is the "By Linked View" in Host Model used for. However, there have a condition in the Host Model must comply. Create a Section and the view depth of the section in the Host Model must cover the section in the Linked Model, then can use "By Linked View" to show the content on the section in the Linked Model, the notations/dimensions/Detailing from the Linked Model will show on the Host Model. However, any View Tag in the Linked Model will not show on Host Model. You got that "One big reason that makes a lot of sense" correct. So if the detailing was done in the Linked Model based on Callout, and make sure the Callout in the Linked Model is Section View Type not Detail View Type. Then similar to create Section show "By Linked View" as mentioned above. Create a Callout in Host Model, the location of the Callout in Host Model need to be approximately the same location of the refer Callout in Linked Model, and make sure the View Depth cover the Callout from Linked Model, use "By Linked View" in the Host Model and choose the co-response Callout in the Linked Model, then the contents in the Linked Model will show on the Host Model.
Sound very complicated, but once you done the 1st, the rest are the same process. Prepare yourself that will involve a bit double handling in terms of creating Section and Callout.


I wasnt saying the ANNOTATIONS wouldnt show up, or the detailing, i was saying the VIEW ANNOTATIONS such as the Plan Callouts, Section Markers, Elevation Markers, which most certianly will not show up in any view from across a linked model, regardless of whether or not it is set to By Linked View.

Expanding on that, be very careful with any By Linked View condition that involves sloping elements, that you cut the details and sections in the identical location, lest you end up with text/tags/notes that arent sitting on the sloping objects.

[twiceroadsfool]

OK, well that's what I was afraid of. We were trying to divide the work more equitably though, and one firm being responsible for setting up duplicate views and all of the sheets seems to be quite a bit of work....and redundant work at that.

I'm not sure the problem of duplicate drawings (the A3/101 scenario you mentioned) is really that huge of an issue though. It seems pretty easy to assign responsibility of a given sheet to a particular firm. If that sheet only exists in one model there's no way the other model can reference it. For instance, the interiors architect will have the A-700 series for interior details, we'd have the A-500 series for exterior details. The callouts I'd want to show up in the Plan sheets (being created from the Interiors architects model linked from our model) would be exterior plan details which will only appear in the A-500 series. Similar issue with wall sections exterior wall sections which will only appear in the A-300 series. The interiors guys may have their own walls sections to show interior information, but they should also only appear in the A-700 series.

So that's how I'd invisioned this relationship working. To me, it seems much easier to coordinate sheet numbers than it is to coordinate exact locations of callouts and section cuts and then have to coordinate every linked view associated with them.

I'll play around more with the method you and Scott are describing...maybe with more experience it will seem less high-maintenance.


Its not that bad at all, doing it the way i mentioned. Some people really hate Links, but in 2009 with the advent of Elevations and Sections being able to be By Linked View (pre 2009 it was plans only), Revit became much more scalable, in my opinion.

Ive got projects with as many as 14 models linked together, and once the proejct team is educated with how to work within the Links, weve had very few issues, save one annoying bug about By Linked View, view workset editability, and multiple users in the files together.

But, to be fair, i typically dont work on projects where different drawings are being done by different offices. Thats a bit of strange one for me.

On the subject of the Interiors issue you brought up, i would want the Interiors callouts being shown on an Interiors Plan, instead of on the Architectural plan, and so it would be a nonissue if organized that way. Even doing it your way, their "Finish plan" would have callouts for enlarged finish plans and elevations.

But, Architecture / Interiors feels like a more natural division than Plans / Elevations...

[mhenderson]

Thanks for your responses.

Aaron, I'm certainly not in the camp with those that hate linked models. They're a nice way to limit file size and project team members fumbling over each other. I just wish there was a little more flexiiblity to allow different workflows. It seems there could be a toggle somewhere in the Visibility graohics dialog that would allow a user to determine whether callouts (sections, wall sections, plan callouts, etc.) would appear from the linked view. This would allow a lot more flexibility in how the program can be used.

In the end I think our work-around for this issue will be setting up views that only show the callouts for each plan. Exporting them to CAD, and then linking in the CAD in each plan view. This way we don't need dumb view bugs and don't have to do manual updates per se. We would just need to re-export the callout views at each milestone for printing or review.

Quote: "But, to be fair, i typically dont work on projects where different drawings are being done by different offices. Thats a bit of strange one for me.

On the subject of the Interiors issue you brought up, i would want the Interiors callouts being shown on an Interiors Plan, instead of on the Architectural plan, and so it would be a nonissue if organized that way. Even doing it your way, their "Finish plan" would have callouts for enlarged finish plans and elevations.

But, Architecture / Interiors feels like a more natural division than Plans / Elevations..."


We decidied to divide the project in this way as a a way of capitalizing on the expertise of the different architect offices. The project in question is a performance hall and the associate architect is far more experienced in that realm than us, which is why they're on the job. On the other hand we are local and are more in tune with the code and environmental constraints of our area...plus we're stamping the drawings. Due to the project type, we felt that there would be very little information regarding the 'architectural' aspect of the building to show in plan view, and that duplicate plans would be redundant and confusing to a contractor. Unlike an office building or hotel, the division between what might be considered 'architectural and what might be considered 'interiors' is much less defined (you may disagree, and if so I'd love to hear your thoughts). The style of our two offices is also very much about the expression of structure and systems, which also causies a lot of overlap between 'architecture' and 'interiors'.

That being said, the plans are really the only area where we foresee see our efforts needing to overlap in revit (where one office will need to show the work of the other in and there own in the same drawing). Otherwise, we should be confined the design specific systems and elements (rather than certain drawings) it just works out that the sheets will largely be in there own series' due to the natural division of work.

Quote: "Ive got projects with as many as 14 models linked together, and once the proejct team is educated with how to work within the Links, weve had very few issues, save one annoying bug about By Linked View, view workset editability, and multiple users in the files together.

But, to be fair, i typically dont work on projects where different drawings are being done by different offices. Thats a bit of strange one for me."

I'm curious, in projects where you do this, do you make a point to avoid pulling details from a certain type of drawing? For instance...You callout a wall section on your plan (or building section) in your wall section you call-out a section detail, and from that detail maybe there's some specific detail that gets referenced from there. So all the callouts live in on file even though the model information doesn't...meaning your flipping back and forth between the master file (which conatins the callouts and the sheets) and one of the links in order to keep the callouts coordinated? Or do you organize your model divisions so that the majority of callouts are in the master anyway? Can you give a for instance?

[twiceroadsfool]

Thanks for your responses.

Aaron, I'm certainly not in the camp with those that hate linked models. They're a nice way to limit file size and project team members fumbling over each other. I just wish there was a little more flexiiblity to allow different workflows. It seems there could be a toggle somewhere in the Visibility graohics dialog that would allow a user to determine whether callouts (sections, wall sections, plan callouts, etc.) would appear from the linked view. This would allow a lot more flexibility in how the program can be used.

In the end I think our work-around for this issue will be setting up views that only show the callouts for each plan. Exporting them to CAD, and then linking in the CAD in each plan view. This way we don't need dumb view bugs and don't have to do manual updates per se. We would just need to re-export the callout views at each milestone for printing or review.

Quote: "But, to be fair, i typically dont work on projects where different drawings are being done by different offices. Thats a bit of strange one for me.

On the subject of the Interiors issue you brought up, i would want the Interiors callouts being shown on an Interiors Plan, instead of on the Architectural plan, and so it would be a nonissue if organized that way. Even doing it your way, their "Finish plan" would have callouts for enlarged finish plans and elevations.

But, Architecture / Interiors feels like a more natural division than Plans / Elevations..."


We decidied to divide the project in this way as a a way of capitalizing on the expertise of the different architect offices. The project in question is a performance hall and the associate architect is far more experienced in that realm than us, which is why they're on the job. On the other hand we are local and are more in tune with the code and environmental constraints of our area...plus we're stamping the drawings. Due to the project type, we felt that there would be very little information regarding the 'architectural' aspect of the building to show in plan view, and that duplicate plans would be redundant and confusing to a contractor. Unlike an office building or hotel, the division between what might be considered 'architectural and what might be considered 'interiors' is much less defined (you may disagree, and if so I'd love to hear your thoughts). The style of our two offices is also very much about the expression of structure and systems, which also causies a lot of overlap between 'architecture' and 'interiors'.

That being said, the plans are really the only area where we foresee see our efforts needing to overlap in revit (where one office will need to show the work of the other in and there own in the same drawing). Otherwise, we should be confined the design specific systems and elements (rather than certain drawings) it just works out that the sheets will largely be in there own series' due to the natural division of work.

Quote: "Ive got projects with as many as 14 models linked together, and once the proejct team is educated with how to work within the Links, weve had very few issues, save one annoying bug about By Linked View, view workset editability, and multiple users in the files together.

But, to be fair, i typically dont work on projects where different drawings are being done by different offices. Thats a bit of strange one for me."

I'm curious, in projects where you do this, do you make a point to avoid pulling details from a certain type of drawing? For instance...You callout a wall section on your plan (or building section) in your wall section you call-out a section detail, and from that detail maybe there's some specific detail that gets referenced from there. So all the callouts live in on file even though the model information doesn't...meaning your flipping back and forth between the master file (which conatins the callouts and the sheets) and one of the links in order to keep the callouts coordinated? Or do you organize your model divisions so that the majority of callouts are in the master anyway? Can you give a for instance?

Main File: Has ALL of the sheets, the entire drawing set.
Bldg Link: Has a wall that needs a wall section.

In Bldg Link, there is a Wall Section Cut. (Its not on a sheet in Bldg Link, there are NO Sheets in Bldg Link). In that wall section, it is detailed, annotated, dimensioned, etc. Section details are taken of necessary, as are other views if necessary.

In Main File, the same Wall Section Cut is made, and is set to "By linked View: (Name of section from Bldg Link)" Ditto for Section details, and any other views. In MAIN, THAT section gets dropped on the sheet, and everything works perfectly.

No need for view references to come in from linked files. If you have a good naming strategy or office standard, keeping track of everything is a cake walk. Weve done plenty of projects like this, with very little incident. What incidents we DID have, werent because of confusion or complication across the Linked Files. With 5 entry level users and myself, once i taught them the system (took (1) 2.5 hour session) we were literally off to the races.

Im doing it currently with some brand new users as well.

[Alex Page]

Mhenderson - we always seperate "interiors" from "shell" as you are doing, whether in-house or because of collaboration with different firms - mainly from our inhouse 'responsibility matrix".
Our attitude is that if one group of people are responsible for modelling and detailing one part of the building, then they should certainly be responsible for the Sheets they go onto. They should also be responsible for revision clouds, notes etc and issuing those sheets.

So, like yourself, we have interiors sheets (range of numbers) which are in the interiors revit file and exterior sheets (different range of numbers) which are in the exterior revit file.

I cant see any reason, in your case, why one would try to join them together - it makes responsibility of who is in charge of what extremely difficult.

[mchouinard]

Main File: Has ALL of the sheets, the entire drawing set.
Bldg Link: Has a wall that needs a wall section.

In Bldg Link, there is a Wall Section Cut. (Its not on a sheet in Bldg Link, there are NO Sheets in Bldg Link). In that wall section, it is detailed, annotated, dimensioned, etc. Section details are taken of necessary, as are other views if necessary.

In Main File, the same Wall Section Cut is made, and is set to "By linked View: (Name of section from Bldg Link)" Ditto for Section details, and any other views. In MAIN, THAT section gets dropped on the sheet, and everything works perfectly.


Wouldn't it be easier to cut your section & details in the Main File, so you don't duplicate work? I haven't had to do this yet, so I'm not speaking from experience.

[twiceroadsfool]

Wouldn't it be easier to cut your section & details in the Main File, so you don't duplicate work? I haven't had to do this yet, so I'm not speaking from experience.

Currently you cant tag/edit cut profile, or otherwise manipulate things that are in Links. So it doesnt work too well to simply cut the section in Main, unless you only want unintelligent Text and dimensions in your wall sections.