multiple townhouses

[cr_gixxer]

I'm working on a project where there are 17 separate townhouse blocks on a single site.
Every block will need its own IFC set
I have 8 basic unit types(drop, superdrop, split, etc....), some with 3-4 upgrade variants which are interior plan changes only.

Prior to coming onto the project, someone else in our office has created each individual model groups of each type (including variants). they are grouped by floor (basement, main second). these have been then grouped into a larger "stacked" group which allowed me to build my block plans relatively easily. We used sketchup to quickly more through the architectural controls stage where we had to mess around with alot of window sill, shadowboards, and column details.

there needs to be a couple variants of about 3-4 of the types. these are exterior changes such as bumpouts on the main or second floor, and a material change.

Right now everything is in one model, and its getting a bit slow. I think I need to break it up, and possibly link things back in, but I don't know how to get any sort of variety with groups. Obviously the more groups I have, the less the efficiency of using groups in the first place.

Every set will need to show the basic floor plan and all variants from each type that is contained within that block. Every type will also need a typical building section that does not need to relate to the unique roof conditions of each block.

My issue is that since 75-80% of the work is also done in autocad, I feel I might as well stay there, and abandon the revit work thus far. This forces us to use sketchup again to get those 3d shots, but this might be less work that having to deal with the "everyone is beautiful and unique" mentality that revit lives in

Perhaps I just don't have the knowledge needed for this kind of project in Revit, or perhaps, this is a project that Revit isn't good with?

Any advice would be much appreciated.

[markusb]

sounds like a job for design options

"everyone is beautiful and unique"?

[michelleo]

hey i'm having a similar struggle right now trying to find ways to make drawing townhouses in revit more productive. The architect that works on them now has a unit central file where she keeps every single design option possibility. Then has a building file, where she links in the views she needs. Problem with that is it is extremely time consuming. To change or add a new elevation option you have to go into the unit file, duplicate the view of that elevation, duplicate the design option, then make the change. Then you have to go back to the building file and reload, then select the appropriate linked view in the visibility graphics of every view that has been affected (if you change a window you have to remember to change/add views for plans/sections etc.). I would not recommend heading down this path. It's confusing, takes way longer and the chance for error on your drawing set increases substantially.

I'm trying to rework the model using model groups as well. I've heard a problem with that is the file size due to the amount of model groups that end up in a project. My one solution was possibly a separate file that could be used as a library to store model groups not used in the project. Then you could purge out ones you don't need but still have them in a separate file if the client would like to go back to them.

The question that constantly pops into my mind is does it take more time to create all these design options/model groups/linked views then what it would take to just make the change directly to the model?

I'd be interested to find a successful townhouse project.

[damon.sidel]

cr_gixxer, I'd agree with markusb that this is a perfect opportunity for Design Options. 8 building types = 8 files. Each can have all the design options you want, interior or exterior. You can document each within the file and then link them into a site model and document site conditions.

Once you get going with options, they are really quite nice as a way to design and organize. In my office, you can't simply "just make the change directly to the model". We spend most of our time designing multiple options for every aspect of a project. And we have to be able to compare options side by side. As for cr_gixxer's situation, it sounds like the variants are not for study purposes. If all the variants have to be documented so the developer can sell (and then build) upgrades, then they should all exist simultaneously anyway.

Furthermore, there is a lot of discussion about problems with groups. I've experienced those problems myself. They just don't always work well. Personally, I'm going to avoid groups whenever possible.

[simong]

I don't have much experience with design options, so I'll stay away from that one...but I have had a lot of experience with groups vs. linked models. And yes, groups can be very problematic, especially the more advanced your documentation gets. Myself, I'd be getting those groups out and back in again as linked files then doing some serious purging to cleanup the main file.

And I'd be doing some research into design options...they sound perfect for what you're after, especially if you are doing construction docs in AutoCAD.

[LP Design]

My issue is that since 75-80% of the work is also done in autocad...

Well, THERE's your problem! (sorry, too much mythbusters). It sounds to me like you need to make a clear separation in your firm between Revit projects and CAD projects. I definitely agree with the suggestions about design options and linked models, but imho you should not even go down this path if your main purpose in using Revit is to make a rendering of your site plan that could also be done using SU.

If you already have 80% of a project in CAD, it makes more sense to me to finish the last 20% in CAD rather than re-do 40-50% in Revit. Just don't get stuck in that mental trap where it's "easier" just to keep doing what you are used to doing in order to avoid the growing pains of transitioning to a new system. For the NEXT project consider doing the whole thing in Revit right from the very beginning rather than a hybrid approach.

-LP

[damon.sidel]

One thought on the "75-80% still in CAD": to keep things going without duplicating much work, you could use the CAD for interior plans and then do the shells in Revit. Recently I got put on a project during late schematic. It was all in CAD, but it was truly a mess in terms of XREF organization and precision (all those lines just SLIGHTLY off axis or missing the mark by a teeny tiny bit). We created a Revit model for the shell to coordinate structure, the interface of building and landscape, and for exterior renderings. For all the plans we imported the CAD unit plans. At first, we continued to use the CAD elevations as the model got up to speed, then we ditched those when the Revit model was developed enough.

It was all about timing on our project. It really helped with coordination right when we really needed it. We duplicated some effort, but the payoff was worth it. Now we're submitting a DD set on December 31st that is 100% from Revit. A lot depends on the project and the project team, but transitioning a project from CAD to Revit can be very effective and it doesn't have to happen all at once.

[Revitaoist]

Perhaps I am just impatient, but I really don't like working with groups or linked views because of the time it takes the computer to process. My method is to do all the views and construction documents in each individual building file. It takes some coordination between files, but if you are worth your salt, it is not a problem. If you need a shot of everything together, do it from the site plan with all the buildings linked in, but leave them unloaded so you can work on the site without loading a bunch of buildings. I also use a hybrid CAD/Revit system sometimes because not everyone in our office uses Revit. I set up a 'dummy' detail sheet which matches a CAD sheet of details, so I can call out details in Revit and a CAD monkey can do the details 2D in CAD. Since the 'dummy' sheet has no model information in it, you can 'insert from file' the whole sheet into other projects and reference the details there, too.