Copy / Monitor - Changing Types

[saeborne]

Hi All,

I'm having Copy / Monitor issues in a major way. Synopsis of the question:

I'm Copy / Monitoring the Structural Engineer's Concrete Slabs, that represent the column drops. If he changes the location or sketch, no problem. I can use coordination review to line up our models.

If the Structural Engineer makes a change to a drop, from type "CONC DROP 14" to "CONC DROP 16," I hit a wall. In my coordination review, I only have the following options:

Postpone
Reject
Accept Difference

As far as I can tell, "Accept Difference" means, "let's live with the fact that our models are different." But there's no option for, Change the friggin types to make them the same!

Am I really suppose to stop monitoring, delete, then re-copy / monitor? Cause that is crazy painful!

[saeborne]

I should say, in an ideal world, I wouldn't need copy / monitor, period. I could just link the structural model, and let his geometry represent his scope. This works fine for Structural Columns, Structural Framing, and Site Cast Concrete Structural Walls. But concrete slabs are giving me a TON of trouble.

The structural engineer needs to control the column drops, and the slab thickness. But I (the Architect) also need to control the slab. Why? For a couple of reasons:

I produce the Edge of Slab drawings, and control the relationship between slab to curtain wall / pre-cast panel.
The Structural Engineer is not modeling the drainage slopes in the parking garage. That's my scope.
The Structural Engineer is not modeling slab edge and curb conditions. That's me.


Here's what I tried to do... I tried linking his model in, and use view filters to manage what I see. I tried using visibility filters to hide floors that are not drops. But somethings don't look right regardless. In my floor plan views, I see a line that represents his drops! The drops won't join to the slabs! Because our materials are different, the cut patterns are different too!

I can control some of this with view filters, but not all. And now I need a unique set of view filters depending on the view type. Overall, I am finding this to be EXTREMELY frustrating!

I would appreciate any advice. Thanks in advance.

Bryan

[Craig_L]

Interesting problem you have there.
I have never seen something like that happen, however there could be a few possible causes.

Did you, or the structural team update your build of revit since last time you co-ordinated?
To find this info, go to the Help button at the top right of your revit window, and click the little arrow beside it for the drop down menu. Then select "about". The build number will show in the top right of the window that appears. If you are on different builds this can "break" your copy/monitor link, so check that first and find out what build they are on, make sure you are using identical builds and if possible, ideally don't upgrade either software until your project is done. If you do, ensure you let your sub consultants know, and they also upgrade before the next co-ordination issue.

If those match, ask the engineer if they deleted the element and modelled a new one, rather than simply modifying the existing element. This also will break your copy monitor link for that element.

If it's neither of these, its pretty hard to diagnose without being actively investigating your project in Revit. Those would be my first two check points though.

Also, try applying a solid hatch to the linked in model. What I tend to do is make several 3D images, and also "co-ordination" plans. I dont do any detailing in these at all, they are purely for visual checks. In the 3D view I isolate for example slabs. I show all my slabs normally, and all linked slabs in solid red this easily shows me any that do not match. I do this for each element, so 1 for slabs, 1 for walls, 1 for columns.

It's also important that you negotiate with your structural team about ownership of elements. Not only ownership, but transition times. You may also find that this changes through the project, depending on the complexity of the project this may be something you or they are unwilling to change. However, I find it's best usually to allow the architect control of slabs walls and columns right up until tender. Then once that has gone out, engineer takes control and any changes -should- be minor. At any rate if you have both copy/monitored elements, you should get reports that these have altered, and this shouldnt stop you working on and changing a slab to suit your new needs. The key is communication and so tell the engineer you have changed the outline to external slab on grid blah blah, level 9, and that they need to update theirs to suit your new.
It's a good idea to outline this at the start of your project. Get the design teams to meet, and negotiate the best times for these handovers to occur, which elements will be handed over, and which team will control them. If you tell the structural team that it's best for you to retain control of slabs until tender because otherwise they will be doing alot of rework on the slabs then I think more than likely they will readily agree to you initially controlling them.

One thing that bugs me with 2 way collaboration is that people seem to get the idea that Revit will do all of their communication for them, and forget the old methods of talking. You should both still be providing clouded hard copy markups, in conjunction with the co-ordination review documentation that revit can produce. Don't rely just on revit to get it right for you.

[Scott Womack]

One thing that bugs me with 2 way collaboration is that people seem to get the idea that Revit will do all of their communication for them, and forget the old methods of talking. You should both still be providing clouded hard copy markups, in conjunction with the co-ordination review documentation that revit can produce. Don't rely just on revit to get it right for you.

I actually agree with everything you said, except for one item. That item is the "hard copy markups" statement. Before anyone jumps down my throat, I certainly agree with the sentiment. However, we have found that when working with a design team scattered all over North America, we have found that using DWF files marked up is cheaper, faster, and, IMHO actually more productive. We've gotten the team to get DWF's out of there Revit files, and emailed back and forth, then only the mark-ups appear back in our own individual Revit files, Hence the "faster" work flow. I'm not trying to "translate" from a hard copy back to the file, etc.

[saeborne]

Interesting problem you have there.
One thing that bugs me with 2 way collaboration is that people seem to get the idea that Revit will do all of their communication for them, and forget the old methods of talking. You should both still be providing clouded hard copy markups, in conjunction with the co-ordination review documentation that revit can produce. Don't rely just on revit to get it right for you.

Thanks for the reply. Here's the thing, I'm not asking revit to do all of the coordination for me. The second revit does that, I'm out of a job!

But I do want revit to allow me to do my job. If my structural engineer has told me that the type of one object changed, and I want to absorb that change, I need revit to allow me to update my model easily. Not this ridiculous process of Stop Monitoring > Delete > Re-Copy/Monitor.

[twiceroadsfool]

You know you can use Monitor without Copy, right? Theres no need to delete anything.

[saeborne]

You know you can use Monitor without Copy, right? Theres no need to delete anything.

Thanks for your reply. I don't understand how just monitoring will help my situation. More specifically, just monitoring still doesn't get around the problems I listed in the second post of this thread:


I tried linking his model in, and use view filters to manage what I see. I tried using visibility filters to hide floors that are not drops. But some things don't look right regardless. In my floor plan views, I see a line that represents his drops! The drops won't join to the slabs! Because our materials are different, the cut patterns are different too!

This has been quite difficult to contend with.

[twiceroadsfool]

JUST monitoring deals with you Stopping Monitor, deleting, and re recopy/monitoring. Just click the Monitor heartbeat so its not monitored anymore, and then remonitor. Though im not even sure you have to do that. Accept Difference means it will now monitor the NEW version of his item. Of course its not going to change the type for you: The CM dialogue has Original Type and Copy type, meaning types arent always the same. You want it to guess for you? Its alerting you to the change, thats what its supposed to do.

Regarding the materials: It wont join anyway. Items in Linked models dont Join geometry. So even with the same "concrete material" they wont join.

[saeborne]

The CM dialogue has Original Type and Copy type, meaning types arent always the same. You want it to guess for you? Its alerting you to the change, thats what its supposed to do.

Well that's the question that started this whole thread. The CM dialogue only gives me these options:

Postpone
Reject
Accept Difference

I don't get options for Original Type or Copy Type.

[Scott Womack]

These are settings in the Copy portion of the Copy monitor command. This is where you set the different type of family you want when you copy monitor.

Also, you states something that does not make alot of sense to me. If the structural engineer is not modeling the drainage slopes, is it being done with a topping slab, or are you using his "structural thickness as the thinnest part of your slopes?

Scott

[saeborne]

Right. I modeled the slabs first. I did "Modify Sub Elements" to represent the slope to drainage. Then the structural engineer Copy / Monitored my slabs. But "Modify Sub Elements" does not translate through to copy monitor.

We had several conversations on how to compensate for this. In the end, structural said they didn't care, because they typically don't model drainage anyway. Although they will tell me the required thickness of the concrete slabs, chances are very good that I (the architect) will be manipulating the slab edges and drain locations much more frequently than structural will change the thickness. So that's why I own the slabs.

The concrete drops over the columns, on the other hand, structural wants to own. That's what's getting us into trouble.


These are settings in the Copy portion of the Copy monitor command. This is where you set the different type of family you want when you copy monitor.

I'm familiar with the settings you are referring to. But these only affect the objects as you first copy them, correct? Changing the settings will not go back and modify existing types, will it?

[Craig_L]

Thanks for the reply. Here's the thing, I'm not asking revit to do all of the coordination for me. The second revit does that, I'm out of a job!

But I do want revit to allow me to do my job. If my structural engineer has told me that the type of one object changed, and I want to absorb that change, I need revit to allow me to update my model easily. Not this ridiculous process of Stop Monitoring > Delete > Re-Copy/Monitor.

I guess this is what I am saying. Revit will do what you want it to, the problem is the process you have used in doing it. You can't simply delete without breaking the monitor first or it will cause problems.

There are some workflow effects that will be inherent in deleting and adding new objects or falls in slabs etc. The real issue is knowing what the effects will be and having strategies to over come them. Slabs is one annoying thing, the modify sub-elements does not go thru a copy monitor and so you are left to model in the points again (which is painful!) or - break your copy/monitor and simply copy/paste them, which defeats the purpose of a linked model. If you allow the structural team ownership (or yourselves) total ownership of the slab, consider not even copy monitoring it, but simply utilising the link to show it. Allow one team full control of that element, and the other team simply links it in to view it. This can be painful for engineers if adding beams to slabs etc, so its best to let them control it. Of course this isn't ideal either...but it's an option.

Oh and to answer Scott in regards to the DWF markups, I think that's fine. I still consider them to be a "hardcopy" markup, in that its not an inherent co-ordination tool in revit. What my point was really is not to rely totally on revit to be an all in one problem solver. Sticking with the older system of co-ordination with seperate documents, clouds, and comments, will make the co-ordination process smoother and more efficient and less prone to error, and I have worked with architects before that decided to fore-go the usual process and it was a nightmare.

[saeborne]

I guess this is what I am saying. Revit will do what you want it to, the problem is the process you have used in doing it. You can't simply delete without breaking the monitor first or it will cause problems.

I understand what you're saying. But no one is deleting anything. The structural engineer has changed a slab from one type to another. Nothing deleted. Nothing new created.

In the copy / monitor dialogue, I don't have an option to update my slab object to match his type. That is the crux of the issue.

Stop Monitor > Delete object > Re-Copy Monitor is a terrible work around that effectively makes this a deal breaker for me.

[Craig_L]

Give this a shot, and see if it works for you.
Copy his slab with copy/paste. Paste it into your project and delete it immediately (all we're doing is importing this new "type" into your project.)
Now try and modify the element to that type you just imported.
I don't understand why it won't recognise the new type and import it for you.
Also, in your copy/monitor process, go to "options" when you select the link to copy monitor.
Go to the "floors" tab, and find the "new type" that the engineer has introduced and tell it which "type" you want to force on it, ideally, force the type you just imported on it.
If none of this works, close without saving ..or maybe best to detach or create a separate file first.