Design Options - 2 projects in one file

[dbaldacchino]

Ok,

So I'm working on a project which will be re-sited in another location (I hate the word "re-site", but it's a fact of life in the architecture business). I didn't want to have two projects going on parallel to each other, so after exploring the use of Design Options and feeling comfortable with them, I thought of taking one project far ahead and then adding options for the second project and create two sets of documents for each project in the same project file.

Basically, the re-sited project will have different color brick, different window elevations (arched top vs just rectangular), interior materials etc. so that the look of the building is essentially quite different (one has more modern elements, the other more traditional). Yet, most details, structure, interior partition layouts etc. will be identical. So I thought that I'd set up my browser with an additional Views Parameter ("Project Name") and group by this first. Then I filter by family and by another Parameter "Sorter", in which you can type anything (EX: "Working Views", "Exterior Elevations", etc.) This works fine. Then later, when one project is almost done in terms of documentation, I'll duplicate views with detailing and set the design option for the second project (the modifications) and create a whole new set of sheets. If the team grows and is split in two teams, they can filter out the browser for their project (still using worksets in the same Revit model).

Has anyone ever tried this or know what pitfalls I should look out for? I'm assuming that since only "minor" things will be changing, the file size shouldn't double in theory. I'm also using groups on some elevation elements so I can duplicate and edit these and add them to the design option, which will then change the entire building window layout . My only problems will be the site plan (cannot have 2 different orientations!) and Materials. I think I need to ask for a wishlist item for that...currently it's not possible to change the material used for a brick wall to something else in an option. Am I correct? As for the site, we're doing site plans in ADT/DeadCad (our sites are as flat as float glass, so I don't need fancy contour tools :) ) so I can "fake" the orientation of my site plan somehow in ADT to make it work for me. Or export the outline of the building and compose the site plan of the second building entirely in ADT, and re-import in a drafting view to place on a sheet.

I apologize for the long post, but would appreciate your feedback and insight on this. Thanks!

[Steve_Stafford]

Other than having to put entire walls into their own design options to reflect different materials etc...you ought to be able to pull it off.

As for the site issue...

If you link the building project into a separate site project you can place the first building in the right spot. Make a copy and place the copy in the other location. Now you can use Shared Positioning to tell the building project file about each location. In the project file you can use Manage Place and Locations to tell Revit to display the position of each location individually, but only one at a time. So you'd have to change the location setting when you want to plot out doc's for the other et.

Check out the shared positioning features in help and pop back if you have questions afterward.

[dbaldacchino]

Ahhh shared coordinates....I knew I'd have to learn about those sometime :) Thanks for the tip, I'll do that and will come back and ask if I can't figure it out. I don't think I'll be duplicating walls just for materials. I can always change materials temporarily while making presentation images, then in the finish schedule I can have the field brick as BK1 in both projects etc. and just change the brick description in the finish schedule/legend.

[dbaldacchino]

Actually I did have another question regarding Design Options. I'm having a hard time figuring if anything is on an option or not. I mean, I can pick an object to see which option it belongs to, but I cannot figure out how to view JUST the items on an option and turn off everything else, including non-option elements. Is this possible? Basically 95% of my building is outside of an option. The model elements that will change between the projects will be on different option sets. So if a curtain wall will be configured differently, I'll select it and add to Option 1 and then will create a newly configured CW in Option 2. Then, Project 1 will have views set to Option 1 through V/G and Project 2 views will be set to Option 2.

[johnf.77896]

Is there a quicker way to do that for preliminary work that utilizes just design options for different building options other than having 2 files? I have been trying to come up with some different options for an existing house that has a new walk out basement as an option. When I add the site to a design option it complains so I end up having to copy paste it in. Then even if I put them on different phases I cant get the display to show correctly. It shows both of the sites in the display. Not to mention when I try to add a pad it wont let a new construction pad go to an existing topo. I am sure that I am not doing it properly but cant find a tutorial to walk me thru it. Any thoughts would be helpful.

John Fleming

[dbaldacchino]

I'm not going to use two files...the post is talking about using design options to have two projects with slight variations in one file. Have you gone through the tutorials/help on design options? Its quite easy to understand and some experimentation will get you there.

EDIT: Sorry, posted prematurely. In your case you would have the existing as the main model (not in option) and any additional modelling elements in the first scheme would be put on the first option. The elements for the second scheme would go on the second option and so on. As for site and phasing, I'm no expert as my current project has no phasing, it's all new, so I can't give advice there. Also, search this forum about posts on Design Options. That should get you some more knowledge. Post back with more detail and/or an example file to get more help.

[johnf.77896]

I'm not going to use two files...the post is talking about using design options to have two projects with slight variations in one file. Have you gone through the tutorials/help on design options? Its quite easy to understand and some experimentation will get you there.

EDIT: Sorry, posted prematurely. In your case you would have the existing as the main model (not in option) and any additional modelling elements in the first scheme would be put on the first option. The elements for the second scheme would go on the second option and so on. As for site and phasing, I'm no expert as my current project has no phasing, it's all new, so I can't give advice there. Also, search this forum about posts on Design Options. That should get you some more knowledge. Post back with more detail and/or an example file to get more help.
Yes have gone thru the design options tutorial and feel relatively comfortable with it. Have used design options on 3 projects so far. It is a great tool. You can only add too one design option set at a time. I have at a minimum 3 design option sets with 3-4 design options in each set. When I add the site to one set I cant add it to another site except by copy pasting it and that is when the problem occurs. It might be a timing issue as far as that goes. More investigating.

On the shared coordinates issue it sounded like Steve said to create a site project and a building project and then link the site to the building project- maybe I didn't understand it. Anyway the shared coordinates sounds like another interesting Revit tool for us to utilize.

Thanks for your help.

John Fleming

[Steve_Stafford]

...On the shared coordinates issue it sounded like Steve said to create a site project and a building project and then link the site to the building projectClose...I said to link the building into the site. This allows you to position it freely in all directions and then publish the building location to the linked bldg file. Then the building knows its true north positioning automatically and what the actual elevation as well.

You can link the site into the building now and use by shared positioning. The site will land in its proper location based on the work you previously did.

[johnf.77896]

Close...I said to link the building into the site.

I knew I would get that wrong.

[dbaldacchino]

Well, I've been reading about shared locations and coordinates and all that, and I find it really confusing. My ADT habits are hindering my progress as coordiates in Revit are so abstract, compared to DeadCad. Anyway....

Hopefully after some experimentation I'll get the hang of it, but there seems to be too many options and nomenclature in the host, the linked file etc. I don't know where to even begin to understand it.

Is it ok to link the central file to a site? In my case I'll link a dwg siteplan into an empty file and link the central file of my project (with the design options) into it. I can't beging to make sense of all the options though....each link has a Shared Location option under properties and you can select about 3 different options. Then there's the Publish or Acquire shared coordinates under Tools....oh I'd better stop, my head's exploding!

[irwin]

I have at a minimum 3 design option sets with 3-4 design options in each set. When I add the site to one set I cant add it to another site except by copy pasting it and that is when the problem occurs.
You can't add an element to options in different option sets. If you need to then it probably means that all of the options in these option sets should be in one option set. If that doesn't make sense then try to describe the different option sets, what each one does, and what is the element that needs to be in both.

[irwin]

Actually I did have another question regarding Design Options. I'm having a hard time figuring if anything is on an option or not. I mean, I can pick an object to see which option it belongs to, but I cannot figure out how to view JUST the items on an option and turn off everything else, including non-option elements. Is this possible?
While you are editing an option, everything outside the option is gray. If you want to turn off everything outside the option temporarily then edit the option, box select everything in the view (which will only select what's in the option), and Isolate Object.

[dbaldacchino]

Thanks Irwin. I wish in the V/G it was possible to JUST display the option objects and turn off also the main model.

[dbaldacchino]

John, it sounds like you need to just paste your site outside of the options (in the main model), unless you are trying to show different options for model placement on a site. But then, why not create a site file, link in the model and create different saved locations after sharing the host's coordinates (site model)? I think we need more specific info from you.

Welllll look at me now talking about shared coordinates :) I finally went through the tutorial and I think I figured it out. I might actually create a site model with two differently linked dwg site plans in two separate views, and then create different locations for my "two" buildings. In each view, I can then select which option sets to display, select the linked model and set it's location. That way, I don't have to switch locations around in the main file when printing, and it's easier to move the building around the site (selecting linked model and moving/nudging, rather than moving the linked dwg site under the model). The site sheets would need to be printed from then new site project.

I still have to try better understand Steve's suggestion in his previous post though, before going this route. I'll post back if I have problems. Thanks again!

[johnf.77896]

You can't add an element to options in different option sets.

that makes sense, now that you say it.


If you need to then it probably means that all of the options in these option sets should be in one option set. If that doesn't make sense then try to describe the different option sets, what each one does, and what is the element that needs to be in both.

I need to have the multiple option sets because they are separate options. ie, one is a dining room, one is a bedroom, one is a bathroom and the owner is basically able to pick and choose which ones they want, so they need to be presented as separate options. Meaning that just because they want to do the dining room doesnt mean that they want to do the bathroom. For us it seems to make things less confusing for the owners to pick what they want and less confusing for us to pick between them went producing them. I could have 3 different bathroom options and 4 different dining room options. And if you want to show all of the options on one plan it is nice to be able to pick and choose.

Thanks
John Fleming
GMK Architecture, inc.

[johnf.77896]

John, it sounds like you need to just paste your site outside of the options (in the main model), unless you are trying to show different options for model placement on a site. But then, why not create a site file, link in the model and create different saved locations after sharing the host's coordinates (site model)? I think we need more specific info from you.

Well let me start off with this. Trying to do "quick" preliminary plans to present to the owners. We dont always have site information when we are doing preliminaries. So we just make a site that is as close to reality as we can quickly and wait for the surveyors information when we get the go ahead. Also these are mostly remodeling projects right now. Sounds like I could do a linked site and then have different design option with the different site options in it. Irwin and Dave thanks for the input. Here are a couple of options from a projects that I did.

John Fleming
GMK Architecture, inc.

[irwin]

Suppose you have a project with two different versions of the bathroom, Bathroom A and Bathroom B, and two different versions of the dining room, Dining Room C and Dining Room D. The natural way to model this would be to have two different option sets, Bathroom and Dining Room, each with two options. But what if there is some element that needs to be in both, say a wall or a site topography? Then you can't use two option sets. One (ugly) way to handle it is to have a single option set that has combinations of options:
Option Set: Bathroom and Dining Room
Option1: Bathroom A + Dining Room C
Option2: Bathroom A + Dining Room D
Option3: Bathroom B + Dining Room C
Option4: Bathroom B + Dining Room D
Your client tells you which bathroom he wants and which dining room and you find the appropriate combination option. This approach can work in some cases, but it is cumbersome and gets out of hand if you have lots of combinations of lots of option sets. For example, if you have 3 option sets with 4 options each and you must combine them because of a common element then you'll need 64 combination options!

A better way, when it works, is to split the common element(s) so that there is no longer a common element. For example, if the bathroom and dining room option sets both need a wall because they change that wall slightly, but they change different parts of the wall then split the wall in two, with one part going in the bathroom option set and one in the dining room option set. (If an option changes only a small part of a big wall it is often a good practice to split out that part of the wall anyway so that changes to the rest of the wall don't have to be duplicated in every option.) A similar approach can sometimes work for other host objects: site topography, floors, ceilings, and roofs.

[dbaldacchino]

Irwin, that's hurting my head :) Although what you're saying makes sense, I doubt it's feasible. I'd just try isolate the unique elements and include them in the options and leave the common ones in the main model, or just duplicate some elements in the different options and option sets. I understand that John's problem is that he might have an option for a kitchen that is dependent on option "x" for the bathroom etc....that starts getting messy and I would say, it's time to go back to tracing paper! Then, once you narrow it down to a few options, you can refine and add detail, and options & sets become more manageable.

John, thanks for posting those pdf's. To make different site options, you can have separate project files, or you can start a site project file. The latter is my preference and then you have two methods to choose from:

a) draw as many schemes as you want side by side and then link your building model and copy it over and rotate as needed. You'd then have to copy the view over several times and use the crop region to "black out" the undesired schemes. Not very elegent in my opinion, but it works.

b) You can use design options to model your different site schemes in different options and in each, link your building model and rotate as needed. l almost wish that as part of design options, you were given the option to select a different location for your building. If that was possible, you could have your building as part of the main model and the location could be chosen within the option (locations would be created outside of design options). Anyway, linking models within the option achieves the same result. Now you can create multiple "site plan" views and assign the different options to them just like you do now.

In my case I'm drawing sites in DeadCad and link them to my site project file in the different options. I then link my building model in each option and rotate it as necessary. If the building has different design options (say, a large North wing in building "B"), you cannot turn that option on when linking the file. It defaults to "main model" and it cannot be edited. Bummer :(

[dbaldacchino]

UPDATE: Some good news perhaps....something tells me that in Revit 9 you'll have the ability to choose the design option you want to turn on in linked models :)

[johnf.77896]

That would be cool.

John Fleming
GMK Architecture, inc.

[johnf.77896]

I understand that John's problem is that he might have an option for a kitchen that is dependent on option "x" for the bathroom etc....that starts getting messy and I would say, it's time to go back to tracing paper! Then, once you narrow it down to a few options, you can refine and add detail, and options & sets become more manageable.

Thanks for the input guys. One of the biggest reasons that we switched over from ottocad to Revit was for the design options ability. To not only see it in 2D but more importantly to see it in 3D. We used to design it in Viz and bumwad and then start over by recreating it in ottocad. Drove my boss nuts, because it burned up so much time. So that is why we are using Revit now. I must say that it is great to be able to do the majority of drawing in Revit. Not to mention the building and destruction and reconstruction of cardboard models. It is such a benefit to be able to show clients multiple options in 3D to help them visualize what they are going to end up with. Sounds like I will need to try and wrap my head around the shared coordinates and linking of multiple files. With that said it is so nice to be able to use one program and end up with not only the 3D models but construction documents and streamline the process at the same time.

Thanks again
John Fleming
GMK Architecture, inc.

[dbaldacchino]

Ok, I guess it's time to revive this discussion a bit.

I'm now in the process of trying to set up the second project by inking in the first and turning on the design option for the appropriate project. Here's what I've done so far:

A) Since the first project was completed, all views and sheets were set up. So I made a copy and deleted every model element from the project and removed all links and worksets. This way all my views and sheets will be set up once I re-link the oriringal model. The first problem I encountered when linking the project was that Revit links don't come in with it. This isn't so bad as I only have one RS3 link. The bummer is that I have to go to each view were I want to see the casework dwg overlays and edit the visibility settings of the linked file. By default, the visibility settings default to "by host view" and in the host view, the Imported Categories of linked files obviously don't show up here. So I have a lot of clicks to go through to get this to work, but since I have used view templates extensively, I might be able to make changes there and pply the default view template to all views, and that should get me 90% there.

B) Now that my views show up the linked model as expected, the only things I lost were tags attached to walls, windows, doors etc and dimensions. Every other detail element, text, linework etc. still exists in this new host project (I only deleted the model elements). Since each view in the new host project is the same as my original project, I can copy and paste aligned all dims, but not tags. I'll have to change the V/G of plan views to be By Linked View and select the original view in the original file and setting the correct Design Option. This way I will end up with a Revit project set up exactly the same as my original but with the new design option, and I'll add/subtract the differing details.

C) Schedules were really easy to deal with....I just checked the "Include elements in linked files" option and there you have it!

D) Another problem I faced is level annotation in the linked model. The original levels with their edited extents were still in the new cleaned host project, but now the unedited (and duplicated) level annotation came in with the link. I did not want to go through each view and turn off this annotation as it would be very time consuming, so I made sure to unload the Shared levels and Grids workset in my original linked project. Luckily, the new host project remembers these linked workset settings and when I re-open the project, I won't have to set them each time.

Since the original project is now in the addenda phase, any changes we do on the original project will be automatically incorporated in the second project, and hopefully we will not have a single addendum on this one :) So far it looks promising and I think I'll go this route, rather than making a copy and have to incorporate the addenda changes in both the original project and the new copied project. That's my main goal. I'll keep this post updated with anything new.

[dbaldacchino]

Well, I hit a snafu. Because I'm using worksets and 3D views to document my window types (from curtainwalls), I cannot control those views in my second project with the original project linked in :banghead:

This has pretty much moved towards the top of my wishlist at the moment...being able to control the workset visibility of linked files within a view or have the "By linked view" option for linked Revit projects for views other than just plans views. Now I'm going to have to resort to some unBIM-like solution.