Options

[stuntmonkee]

I'm using the design options just as that. Set of track homes, with diff floorplan options.

Seems to be working ok, the only problem I'm seeing is this for example.

if I have a wall and the option is a door. I get an error saying that I cant place a object from one option in a wall of another option. . . Even though I have that wall "checked" to be in all of the options.

Has anyone done a significant amount of with construction docs and options. . .not just schematic design.

[stuntmonkee]

K, this is odd.

For my visibility settings -

i create a view around the area of the option, and place appropriate object in the right options.

then to get the option to not show i have to change in the option view to not show in all views. . .but then that gets rid of the call out in the main view, so then i change it back to show in all views. So then the view bubbles shows, but none of the geometry. . .which is what I want, but doesn't seem like the right way to do it.

[irwin]

I'm using the design options just as that. Set of track homes, with diff floorplan options.

Seems to be working ok, the only problem I'm seeing is this for example.

if I have a wall and the option is a door. I get an error saying that I cant place a object from one option in a wall of another option. . . Even though I have that wall "checked" to be in all of the options.

Has anyone done a significant amount of with construction docs and options. . .not just schematic design.
Sounds like there are probably two walls on top of each other, perhaps one in an option and the other in main model.

[narlee]

Here's another tip, unless you guys covered it. If you have an option wall that joins into a main model wall, that main model wall is "contaminated." You must "disjoin" the option wall from the main model wall. Why? Hey, the factory ain't perfect. It just is. No big deal. While the client is still deciding, that join isn't totally "clean."

[irwin]

Here's another tip, unless you guys covered it. If you have an option wall that joins into a main model wall, that main model wall is "contaminated." You must "disjoin" the option wall from the main model wall. Why? Hey, the factory ain't perfect. It just is. No big deal. While the client is still deciding, that join isn't totally "clean."
This isn't entirely correct, so let me explain what is going on here. A wall in main model can only have one actual 3D shape. If it is joined to different walls that come out at different angles in the different options, the main model wall can only have the correct shape for joining to one of them -- it uses the one in the primary option. You needn't disjoin it, but when you look at the join between the main model wall and the wall in a secondary option it won't necessarily look right. It will be fine provided that the wall in the secondary option is in the same position as the one in the primary option in the vicinity of the main model wall. One solution is to add the main model wall to the option set. You won't have to add the walls that one is joined to as well, since the different versions of the wall you just added to the option set are all in the same place.

[Roger Evans]

With respect the above is a prime example for an avi ~ I rest my case m'lud.

[stuntmonkee]

Hey guys, thanks for responding, I have been in the heart of central Mexico for the last week, so i missed everything goin on.

Anyway

I think you guys or some of you are missing what I'm talkin about a bit. The reason being is the way the design options were "advertised" I guess. . .maybe. . . .anyhow, the way I am using the is not for the client to make a choice in the SD phase and then eliminate one of the options.

The project is for a multi home project. . .3 basic plans on 50 sites to be exact. Our client is the developer. Their clients will have the choice to add a fireplace, or change a room to a den, or add a sink or any number of things.

What I need to do is to be able to show the plan options as part of a construction document set. So what I'm looking at is that the main floor plan is the basic stripped down version. Then I throw a call-out view around the area, drop that view on a sheet and the new partial plan will show what the plan would look like if the "fireplace option" was used.

So it really has to work. And its not a question of clean ups.

The problem that I'm having is that if a wall is constant in both plan choices, but the door in that wall isn't, then it will not let me place a door in that wall. So what it is telling me is that a object that is placed in a wall must be in the same design option.

I need to find a way around this, or find a new way of showing these plan "choices"

[sbrown]

You have to get that wall into all the design options.

[stuntmonkee]

it is in all of the design groups. . .I'm attaching the example

for instance.

In this plan option we have the choice to add on a den to the floor plan. After adding on the den you also have the choice to add a closet/full bath in that room.

SO. . .what I need to do in the event that this room is added on, I have to install a door from the entry area to where the den would be. but if i insert that door, and then add it only to the den options, I get a warning, and am forced to delete it or leave it in all the options where at that point it shows as a door going to the deck in the basic plan.

The only way that I got the window to show for the option if there is a bath was to overlap 2 walls, but this way is goin to make a mess of things.

[aggockel50321]

You would have to have an option for each instance, i.e. an option for just the den, then an option with the den and bath/closet, etc, as opposed to having one option & then adding another option to the original option.

In each option, you have to include any walls, roofs, etc. that will be hosts for doors, etc.

Once you get that straight, you'll find it works great.

[irwin]

I looked at the file. The design options and option sets need to be set up completely differently to accomplish what you want. It looks like you are thinking of design options as doing something different from what they actually do. How they work is stated in the Help file, but since a few people have gotten confused on this let me explain what we were thinking when we created design options. (I was recently using design options to design my own house, so it's an issue near to my heart. :grin: )

The various options in a design option set should be competing alternatives. In other words, each option should be able to stand on its own -- it should make sense if you deleted all the other options in that option set. Note that this means that there will usually be some elements duplicated in several options of the same option set. The option must include any elements that only exist in that option or that are different in that option from at least one other option. Furthermore, that means that if you want to be able to independently choose alternatives in different areas of the building then they should be in separate option sets.

In the example posted by stuntmonkee, there is one option set with 4 options:
- Option 1 is empty as far as I can tell.
- Extra Den includes the new walls needed for an extra den, but not the changed exterior wall between the house and the den.
- Den Bath or Clst includes the walls of a bathroom and a door that leads out into nowhere.
- Fire Places includes fire places in a different section of the building.

Here's how this should be set up and why.

Fire Places is an independent decision. (I'm assuming that whether the house includes the fireplaces or not is independent of whether it has the den since the fireplaces are not in the den). That means it should be a separate options set. To determine what options there should be, ask how many different alternatives there are for the fireplaces. There are two: either there are fireplaces or there aren't. To determine what elements there should be in each of these options, think about what the building would look like if it is built with this option and ask yourself what elements exist that don't exist in at least one other option or that are different in this option from at least one other option. That means you get:

Option Set Fireplaces
- Fire Places Not Included (primary) -- this option is empty. If the house doesn't include the fireplaces then there are no elements that don't appear in other options.
- Fire Places Included -- this option includes the fireplaces

Now, regarding the den, there are three alternatives: no den, den without bathroom, den with bathroom. Imagine that you designed the complete house in each of these cases in a separate Revit file and ask yourself what elements would be different in each option from at least one other option. You get:

Option Set Den
- Den without bathroom This option should includes all the walls of the den. It must also include the wall between the house and the den, since it is different from the case there is no den (it has a hole for a door).
- Den with bathroom This option should include all the walls of the den, all the walls of the bathroom, and the wall between the house and the den.
- No den This option should only include the wall between the house and the den.

When Design Options were being designed, we considered creating a notion of suboptions whenever certain options only make sense in the presence of another option. That would have allowed you to have an option set, Den, with two options, Den and No Den and a "suboption set", Den Bathroom, of the Den option, that would have had two options Bathroom and No Bathroom. This might be nice since it avoids duplicating the walls of the den in the Den with bathroom option. However, we didn't think that suboptions would be worth the added complexity.

[stuntmonkee]

THANK YOU SO MUCH IRWIN.

That was awesome. I just got around to reading this, so please don't take the late response as un-appreciation.

I think I will need to read it again and test your explanations a bit, but I have a much better understanding.

I'm hoping I don't have to recreate all of the information in "my version" of using options, but I was getting an error when I would try and add object to a group after they had already been added. . .not sure really.

Anyway, thanks again. When I get done, I'll try and repost the file so that we can compare the difference between right and wrong.

Thanks Again
Jasen