Multiple design options

[patricks]

If I have certain elements that I want to be on more than one design option, but not in all design options, do I have to copy/paste the elements and create duplicates on each design option?

For example I have 4 design options, and there are certain exterior walls that will be on 3 of the design options but not on the 4th. Do I need to create duplicates of those walls in all of the first 3 options?

[sbrown]

Click the objects, then the add to options button. Select the options you want them added to.

[patricks]

okay that works.

Now what I had been doing was go into edit mode of a design option, then select objects in the main model, cut, then paste in same place into the design option.

Now the problem happens when I go to another design option, and do a Paste Aligned again so that I can edit those same objects in the other design option. I get all kinds of warnings about things being overlapping and things being double-counted in schedules and stuff. Does the Add to Option button avoid warnings like that?

[patricks]

So if I'm using design options to explore different ways to lay out the building entrance, then I need to put everything, including all adjacent walls, etc. affected by the different options, into a design option set, is that right?

i.e. the main building walls adjacent to the entrance... since their mitering at the walls of the entrance will be affected by different options, then those main walls need to be a part of the design options too, since Revit doesn't seem to be smart enough to adjust mitering, etc. to fit with walls on different design options.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

That's right patricks. Anything that is influenced by a change needs to be part of the design option.

[Rols]

You're on the right track, Patrick.
Like Scott mentioned, it's much easier to just select the objects and then pick the "add" button off of the design options toolbar. That way, you can actually add those items to any or all options at once (and without warnings).

[D.Williams]

Adding to that...Instead of copying the entire wall that is affected by the wall join (but otherwise doesn't need to be part of the option set), I just split the wall about 2 feet back from the join and add the resulting small part to the option set. This saves from having many other wall joins further along that wall from then being affected as well.

[agu]

Sorry to interfer in this old matter. I am rather new in revit and I use revit architectural.
The problem for me is to add elements into new design options. Elements I already have added to one design option. An error accurres and say that the element already is a part of the design option -but it is not. Because if I cpoy/paste it from option no. 1 to the main model, delete it fra option no. 1, and then add the element to both the options at the same time it works. Can it be true, that I can`t make new design options but I have to make all of them at once?

Anne

augi nordic

[dhurtubise]

Copy/Paste from different options works well. You have to be careful that you aint copying elements taht would be hosted.

[agu]

Thanks. It works. Just use past aligned -current view from the pull down menu.

[andrew.brister]

What about levels and grids for columns and beams and the like. I am generating a new building [essentially] and was hoping to do that in design options, so I would keep my links. The new building is on a slightly modified grid from the first buiding. Is this going to be a "OH NO! What was I thinking?" moment? Or is this considered an acceptable method for what I'm trying to do?

AB

[aggockel50321]

You should be fine. Grids, if placed when the option is active, will reside within the option, and not show up in others.

Levels will not, but you can easily control their visibility in the options' views.

[greg.mcdowell]

I tend to look at Options for more isolated conditions. If the building is, as you say, essentially different I think I would be inclined to SaveAs and revise in another file.

If you do put both buildings in the same file let us know how it turns out...

[andrew.brister]

I actually decided against doing what I was asking about. Sorry I didn't let everyone know.

Here's the deal. This buiding is BIG, large even. And because I had already built lots of objects, moved stuff and generally had the problem solved I decided to detach from central and saveas a new file called "B." I didn't know how the drawing would fare if I actually did the deisgn options. If I had known how many options I was going to create in the begining I think I would have been fine... BUT transfering almost 60,000 objects and model groups into 3 design options was

1. taking forever even on my quadcore uber-machine with dual monitors and a lazy optical mouse.
2. complex and frought with minor errors
3. dificult to move because relationships between objects were getting screwed up.

Because of number three I was actually taking much more time than I should have. I would still be trying to get everything correct between all the design options. Whereas now, I've got three different options. All the links, worksets and relationships are correct and when the client actually decides on something I can blow the other two into the archive folder and have just 1 file again.

All in all, my idea was a good one, I think... you know, cause it was mine. But in truth, at this stage of the project - even though we are still in SD's, well Pre-Design more like it, it would have taken much more time than I had initially planed on. So, I'm glad I decided against it.

And yes, I will use design options, but for much smaller problems. That is until AutoDesk comes up with a better method for associating an entire building with a design option... well, one that's not potentially fatal to your project because you still have that "new-reviteer smell."

ABB