Separating Sheet issues from Revisions?

[twollifur]

In previous projects (using CAD) we listed issues from top to bottom in the titleblock and listed revisions from bottom to top in the title block. Is there a way to create two different revision schedules in a titleblock, one for issues and one for revisions?

Thanks in advance!

[Scott Womack]

No there is not. You could create a series of isswue date labels in your titleblock sheet, with Yes/No (on/off) parameters for each, and then a revision schedule.

[AJGKennedy]

No there is not. You could create a series of isswue date labels in your titleblock sheet, with Yes/No (on/off) parameters for each, and then a revision schedule.

Could they not use the Revision schedule to record for the one (say the revisions) and actually make a schedule (a real schedule) for the other... and copy it from sheet to sheet...

Little bit more work than just the typical revisions schedule... but it would work...
I personally prefer the one schedule that serves as a "Issued / Revised" Schedule works for me.... :) but I have heard the other idea before.... more than once...

[AJGKennedy]

Please see illustration. Is this what you mean? If it is, create another revision schedule in the tittleblock family, with different fields. In the Formatting tab, set the revision schedule from bottom to top, and the other schedule (issue dates) from top to bottom.

Are these the same issue / revision numbers listed twice different ways?

This may or may not be what is being looked for...

if it is a separate list for issues and a separate list for revisions... then this would not work if this is a duplicate list just showing it in two different ways...

[Alfredo Medina]

Yes, it may not be. I am not sure if the OP is referring to a list of the dates when the current sheet has been issued, a list of dates of submittals of the project or a list of the dates of the revisions? If the dates he wants to list match the same revision dates this solution could apply, if not, never mind, then the information should be entered in labels, as per Scott's reply.

[AJGKennedy]

Yes, I am not sure either. Probably he is referring to a list of dates by issues of the set by percentage or by stage, going from beginning to final 100% submittal? Or is he referring to the issue dates of the revisions?

I have had the separate list requested before... one for drawings that have been issued... and one list noting that the drawing has been revised (not issued...)

In many cases drawing can be revised many times and then issued once... this allows drawings to track separately the two different items...

of course... I still prefer myself to do them together... I also prefer a numbering system consistent through the set... I like the fact that Revit recognizes that there are two standards out there... numbering per sheet... or per set... I like the per set... I like to know that revision or a issue number like 5 means the same thing on every sheet... so if you see the revision bubble and triangle with the number you can easily know what it is after a while of going through the documents...

Especially large complex documents...

[barrie.sharp]

I have had the separate list requested before... one for drawings that have been issued... and one list noting that the drawing has been revised (not issued...)

In many cases drawing can be revised many times and then issued once... this allows drawings to track separately the two different items...

of course... I still prefer myself to do them together... I also prefer a numbering system consistent through the set... I like the fact that Revit recognizes that there are two standards out there... numbering per sheet... or per set... I like the per set... I like to know that revision or a issue number like 5 means the same thing on every sheet... so if you see the revision bubble and triangle with the number you can easily know what it is after a while of going through the documents...

Especially large complex documents...
I agree with per set and using the one list. There has been much discussion in the office about how we should do this and why. We felt that Revit or CAD in general negates the need for old conventions and that each system should be assessed by modern merits.

The argument we had was actually over terminology. Revision works well but the first issue doesn't schedule and ticking Rev 1 doesn't make sense. I wanted to call it issue so that the first set said issue 1. However, some felt that issue wasn't appropriate because the date should tie up for each recipient. We almost need a new word to disassociate it from the old meanings. 'Publish' perhaps? Maybe not but something like that. Possibly 'Version'?...

[AJGKennedy]

I agree with per set and using the one list. There has been much discussion in the office about how we should do this and why. We felt that Revit or CAD in general negates the need for old conventions and that each system should be assessed by modern merits.

The argument we had was actually over terminology. Revision works well but the first issue doesn't schedule and ticking Rev 1 doesn't make sense. I wanted to call it issue so that the first set said issue 1. However, some felt that issue wasn't appropriate because the date should tie up for each recipient. We almost need a new word to disassociate it from the old meanings. 'Publish' perhaps? Maybe not but something like that. Possibly 'Version'?...

I was calling the schedule "Revision / Issued" but I just realized our latest title block is much cleaner... no title... clean... we have the headings only... "No.", "Date" & "Remarks" and under the remarks they usually start with "Issued for...." or "Revised for..." or in a rare case "Revised & Issued for..."

I think we have entered the realm of office standards folks... not how to get things done in Revit... ha, ha, ha.... and "how can you get Revit to do a trick..." like "provide the two list..."

Which still is a valid option... if your office really wants that as an office standard... and a few post ago I think there were some option given for this... would be nice if there were easier options than what has been given... (even if I like one list I still like to think it would be nice to have the option...) :)

[twollifur]

Thanks for all of the help and ideas! I was looking to list the project issues and associated dates at the top and the sheet revisions and the bottom. We can do it in one list, but I can’t get issues listed under the manage>issues/revisions dialogue box to show up unless there are associated revision bubbles.

Is there a way to have the listed issue (i.e. issue for permit, issue for tender, issue for construction, etc.) to show up in the titleblock without having to have associated revision bubbles?

I recently made a related post asking this question: http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=121232

The series of issue date labels on a titleblock sheet with on/off parameters , that Scott mentioned, would work, but how exactly would I do this? I don’t see any issue and associated date parameters available for labels in our titlesheet. Is the label that you are referring to something that links parametrically with information in the project or should I just type the text in the titlesheet family and just turn it on or off in the appropriate sheets.
Also, I am fairly new to this and am not exactly sure how to make on/off or yes/no parameters. Could anyone explain the process to me?
Thank you!

[Cbain]

We have done something similar to what you are describing twollifur. We work with several bid packages for the majority of our projects. For example, we will issue a footings and foundation package (Bid Package 1) and then possibly an addendum to that issuance (revision 1). The revision schedule gets complicated once we get to bid packages 2, 3, 4 (and sometimes more). Moreover, when we need to issue sheets "for information only" we need to show that in our index as well.

We have resorted to creating a sheet log both for populating our index and for keeping track of what has been issued and what hasn't. We create a series of yes/no parameters and calculated values for each bid package. The calculated value is simply a text parameter that shows a dot when the checkbox is checked. We can filter this to show us what our index looked like for any bid package or issuance. We didn't necessarily have to add the calculated value parameter but we did for graphical clarity. It's easier to look at a filled or open dot than a slew of checkboxes.

To create a yes/no parameter for a sheet you need to be in a sheet list schedule. Right click to "View Properties." Click on "Add Parameter." Type in a name like "Bid Package 1" or "Issuance 1." The parameter type will be a "yes/no." We will typically group these under "other" so they populate on the bottom of the properties list.

[3dway]

I always got stuck on the idea that:

A drawing can be issued but not revised.

A drawing can never really be revised and not issued.

This tends to be true after design. Design is the only time when I think you would need to track revisions in house. At least in the size and type of firms I worked in.

[AJGKennedy]

I always got stuck on the idea that:

A drawing can be issued but not revised.

A drawing can never really be revised and not issued.

This tends to be true after design. Design is the only time when I think you would need to track revisions in house. At least in the size and type of firms I worked in.

In our case...

a sheet may be revised many times during construction through addendums & site instructions in sketch forms (smaller sheets, faxed...) then issued in the larger form issued for construction, as builts... so yes a drawing can be revised many time and not issued for the revision... and then finally issued in another form...

it is the tracking of these forms that are critical...

I was just discussing one thought that in the tracking that we use (numbering the issued / revision per set not per sheet) that we would list for example "Revised Site instruction" first and then "issued for Site instruction" so that the original sheets can have the revised... and the issued sketches can have the issued... or any sheets that are issued...

At least this is the way we are doing things for now... until Revit gives us two list... or our office standards change :)

[3dway]

I guess I always looked at addenda and COs as documents of their own, and in kind of an old fashioned way, I think of the last issue of the full size set, as though I'd sat down and done all of the sketch revisions on the full size set in one sitting; even though we don't do it that way. The set gets revised in CAD and the sketches have their own layouts and at as built time, the final set just gets printed.

I see the value in tracking those. I always found, however that the fact that they're numbered as separate documents makes them take care of themselves, and once it becomes time to issue the "record set" nobody cares about tracking revisions of that set anymore.