Design Options in Workshared Model

[jagostinho]

hello all,

How can we keep the "SaveAs different filename" for alternate design options on a Worksharing enviroment?
I am aware of the Design Options feature but I find it too non-user friendly to be used.

Many thanks,
J

[damon.sidel]

IMHO, you'll really want to start using Design Options. It definitely can get clunky and confusing, but careful planning and good team education are all that's needed to maintain good workflow with Design Options. It also depends on the stage of the project and what kinds of design studies you are doing. In my experience, Design Options are great for things like canopies, balconies, furniture layouts, etc. They are OK for things like facade studies and small/medium space-planning options, but they are bad for overall massing or model manipulations. It's a judgment thing: the more you use it, the more you are able to predict what kind of studies are suited for Design Options and which ones require a Save As.

Ultimately, if you are Worksharing, once you do a Save As (detach from central), those two files have nothing to do with each other. If it takes a while to make a decision and you keep those two (or more) files going, they'll become more and more different. In which file do you make other changes? They get out of sync and you have to redo work when a decision is finally made. Many times Design Options allows you to avoid this.

[MikeJarosz]

We too have found design options unfriendly. I actually have correspondence from Autodesk that explains that design options was intended by Autodesk for one user only. Two users attempting to work on the same design option in a work-shared project will unleash a save/relinquish war between the two.

Instead we create multiple files, named by scheme: A, B, C.... etc. The team is responsible for knowing what option each scheme represents. Each file can be work-shared. Eventually, one option wins out and we proceed from there.

[damon.sidel]

Eventually, one option wins out and we proceed from there.

Even in early schematic design, I often find that we are making changes we definitely want in ALL the schemes. Do you make those common changes to all the different files or do you redo that work once you've chosen a winning scheme? When we have a study that will affect more than Design Options can handle, we do use multiple files, but clearly acknowledge that those are snapshots in time. Our original file continues to be developed as the main model and any changes we decide on based on the other schemes/files are then redone in the main model. For us, we try to make that the exception, not the rule.

Full disclosure: we don't do conceptual design in Revit. We use a combination of Rhino, physical foam models, and ACAD for conceptual design, so perhaps we are talking about different workflows/stages of the project.

[dhurtubise]

The worksharing "issue" was always there for Design Options but i've never seen a situation where we couldn't work around. Having several model is a lot of work. If you REALLY need a 2nd person to work on a design options you could most likely split it into 2.
But definitely not 2 files

[damon.sidel]

How can we keep the "SaveAs different filename" for alternate design options on a Worksharing enviroment?

So to answer the original question: You can Save As and detach from central to create an independent file. Both the original and the Save As version will be workshared, but have no relationship to each other.

As for Design Options, I think it's safe to say that there are different opinions whether or not to use them. If you are interested jagostinho in trying to use them, perhaps some more information about what you are trying to accomplish or what "non-user friendly" behavior you have encountered would make this a more useful conversation.

[jagostinho]

My notion of non-user friendly concerns a too much complicated process to handle major Design Options at a Conceptual Stage.
I understand those are much more manageable if the Design Options are kept simple, e.g. a different roof shape, but not to a considerable change in multiple locations in a building.

[Norton_cad]

I suggest matching gross areas to work groups, and using design options per gross area. It makes it simple and manageable.

[damon.sidel]

a considerable change in multiple locations in a building.

In my office, if we are at a conceptual stage where we are moving the building around, it is probably a fairly basic massing model and it is enough for one person to be managing that model. That would mean we wouldn't need Worksharing and Design Options would be fairly simple. Out of personal interest, could you be even more specific about what you are doing? Your workflow? What level of development your model is at, etc? Working in Revit for conceptual design is an interesting topic with which I've had limited success, so I'd like to hear more.

[jagostinho]

damon.sidel

Nothing much, really. Her were just testing some geodesic shapes for a building with different settings for each. Each version was being copied to the side on the same file and each view had its own setup to display each version. as lots of versions started to populate (different heights/footprints for each dome set) it started to become challenging to manage.

I considered creating different files for each version but thought on having additional feedback on what the community was doing first as best practice. I can relate to the stand of using Design Options feature for just minor alterations. Not for complex conceptual layouts.

Not much of a workflow, at least for this job. Just testing out shapes.

[damon.sidel]

Each version was being copied to the side on the same file and each view had its own setup to display each version.

I understand. Well, even for projects with "not much of a workflow", there are benefits to figuring out the pros and cons as you are doing.

Since you are just moving things to the sides, you're essentially duplicating a lot of stuff anyway. This is the scenario I'd probably opt for:

- One workshared file with Design Options.
- Each Design Option is an entire "building" scheme".
- Fixed origin and general location of the "building" with one set of views with different Design Options turned on. For a new option, create a new Design Option and duplicate the typical views.
--> This way when you compare, you are sure to get the same views, same graphics, etc.
- No two people ever work in/on the same Design Option.
--> This way you use team management to avoid technical issues.

With multiple options in one file, you could easily compare views, areas, volumes, etc. and have some universal graphics and organizational settings.

I'm not saying multiple files wouldn't work, and perhaps just as well. Usually, I'm willing to difficulties with Design Options because I think the pros outweigh the cons.