Multiple Buildings

[mmaxwell]

Ok I have been searching the Revit forum for about 6 hours straight to try to find some insight to this problem. I am working on a new school campus that has 5 buildings.

One option that I have found is to do everything in one file and set up worksets and scope box's. That would work great if I had rectangular buildings and there was not a chance of a building having to be moved, but as it is I have irregular shape buildings and when I draw scope box's around the buildings a couple of the scope box's overlap, and of course as this industry is prone to making changes in the middle of CD's theres a good chance of having to move a building, which I read that theres not really a good solution for that. (moving the topo doesn't make sense if I only want to move one building and keep the others in place)

The other option I found was to have each building be a project of its own and then link them into a master project for the site plan and schedules, that way I could manipulate the positions of the buildings without a problem. Heres the catch, I would have to have 5 sets of detail sheets (one for each building) because details cannot be linked. So I thought well I only really need to make one set of details sheets for printing reasons which I could set up in the master project file or one of the building project files and then in the other building project files I could set up dummy detail sheets and for each detail that I need to reference I could create a dummy drafting view put some text in the drafting view and then place it on the dummy sheet change the detail number to match the master set of details, then I could goto the sheet where I need to reference and then reference it like I normally would. But hey thats alot of work. Can you imagine the the additional work required if you needed to manipulate the detail sheets. You would have to do it 5 times. 5 times the work.

For as smart as Revit is this seems to be retarded, or I am. I see Revit 9 is about to hit the shelves and I can only hope that this has been addressed. Can anyone help me out on this. I am hoping I just didn't look in the right spot or didn't search for the right keywords.

[iru69]

For as smart as Revit is this seems to be retarded, or I am. I see Revit 9 is about to hit the shelves and I can only hope that this has been addressed. Can anyone help me out on this. I am hoping I just didn't look in the right spot or didn't search for the right keywords.
No, it's not you, it's Revit. If you really have been searching the forums all day, you should be fairly depressed right now. And if you want someone to cheer you up, just jumpt to the last line of my post right now and skip the rest of it.

Revit is a disaster at multiple buildings whether all in one file or using the freaking nightmare that is known as linking. It's alleged that R9 does have some improvements to linking, but we'll have to wait to see how much better they can make things... I have a feeling, like most features in Revit, it's going to be a long series of incremental steps rather than getting it "right" and being done with it.

Assuming that this all needs to be part of one giant contract set, I would suggest keeping everything in one file.

Use worksets extensively to control any visibility issues.

I'm not sure what you're comment about the scope boxes is in regards to.

Having a huge file might slow things down a bit, but so does linking.

Having dozens of levels divided up among several buildings is a bit of a challenge... do whatever is practical to limit that from getting out of control.

The biggest obstacle is if you need to move buildings vertically in relationship to the site or other buildings. Revit doesn't do anyone any favors (which is completely inexcusable - and please spare me the half-baked "Relocate this project" feature/work-around). This becomes even more difficult with multiple buildings. There are techniques for moving a building up or down, but they often break something... how much your model breaks seems to depend on the complexity of the model. Usually it just means fixing a few sweeps or trim pieces. I haven't had as many problems moving a building around laterally.

However, if you can nail down the building level elevations early in the design process before the building models become very complex, then I think you'll be okay. :)

Good luck!

[Scott D Davis]

Two Words: Revit Nine.

We do a ton of school campuses, and ran into the same dilemma you describe, and ended up creating a set of details and then "dummy tags" in the other buildings....blech. so Un-Revit like!

So here comes Revit 9.0. Linked files now have much more control over visibility, in fact, full control just as you would in the file. Plus, all tags, annotations, etc, can be displayed from a linked file in the host file!

So here's what I'd do: Create each building in its own file, and model them and create dimensions, annotations, etc in the separate files. Link the buildings into a "master" site file, then produce your sheets, details, sections, elevations, etc. in the master file. This way, everything is live, and you only make one set of details, and they are all coordinated.

[scott.neumann]

Scott,

Just wondering if you have had a chance to try out this feature in Revit 9?? Is it really as functional as you say it is? If so, it sounds like it could be the answer to a lot of our issues as well.

Thanks!

[Scott D Davis]

I have done some minor testing, but it all seems to work well so far. We could schedule across links in 8.1, now all the tags come across as well! So a door schedule in the Master file will schedule all the doors, and the tags from the individual files will be displayed.

[scott.neumann]

Excellent. Can't wait to try it!

Thanks!

[YCHEN]

Just to follow up on the discussion above, I am wondering if you all have gotten to test out sheet generation and scheduling in R9 or whatever version you are working with. After reading this thread and other threads regarding multiple buildings a couple of months back, we opted to go the linking method thinking that it would make things easier for making one master package (5 building campus) rather than separate packages for each building. What we came across recently is that the visibility options are still quite limited in R9. I can't seem to get the option to specify display according to linked view for sections and elevations. We have been able link Plan views (non Area Plans) correctly. We are pulling our hairs out with the process since we managed to go through SD on CADD just to find ourselves trying to regenerate our SD package (very crudely still) in Revit with much difficulty. And time is running low for meeting our DD deadline.

Area Plans, which were helpful for Code Analysis cannot be linked into the master linked file; the fill patterns do not come in correctly. The problem with elevations and sections as aforementioned; i.e. how do you deal with grid lines in the linked file? in the linked view, we have grid bubbles running into each other because they cannot be manipulated in the linked view, and there is no option to just display what we have graphically solidified in the building model. We keep having discussions about wether to keep going with the linked method or to break it up into 5 packages and just deal with the sheet numbering through a modified numbering convention. Yesterday, we decided to abandon the linked method... as we see the potential of many obstacles ahead. At least with the sheets being dynamically linked to their respective building models, we will not have to deal with the can of worms that are associated with the model linking method. As is, each model is a can of worms to be resolved...

Your thoughts on the above are much appreciated.

[dbaldacchino]

I wouldn't abandon linking, I think it's a bad idea. I don't understand why you're having problems with views from linked files. We are working on a project with a linked Revit Structure model and we can display our grid exactly as it appears on the engineer's rvt project views, including broken grids, dimentions etc.

Go to Visibility/Graphics and select the "Revit Links" tab. Then under the rvt project that contains the view settings you want in your current file, click the button under "Display Settings". By default views are set "By host view" and you don't want that.....select "Custom". Now you have more options available. Under "Linked View", select the view you want to replicate together with any of the other settings that apply. In your Model and Annotation Categories Tabs, also select "By Linked View".

The only thing you have to adjust is your crop region and you should end up with an identical view as your linked project. It's almost as if you're x-refing a dwg. Since you can schedule across linked models, you can put your schedules in a master project or any of your linked projects. If your details are in dwg format, you could even have another rvt project containing just the 2d detail sheets. Then you can insert these sheets into your master file (File-->Insert from File) so you can reference correctly. There's several ways of doing this. Also, in your master file you can create the entire sheetlist which will draw the sheets set up in the other rvt projects.

[YCHEN]

David,

I have done exactly as you have mentioned

Visibility/Graphics -> Rvt Links -> Display Settings -> Custom -> Linked View

, which works fine for all floor plans, rcp, rp. For some reason we have difficulty bringing in fill patterns into the Area Plans when we try to display them via Linked View.

For elevations and sections, The option to specify Linked View as well as View Range are grayed out so they are not even available. I don't know how to make those options available.

We have not gotten far enough to do schedules yet, so I don't know how to do that exactly across the five buildings in the master file.

Thank you for your comments!!!

[dbaldacchino]

As for schedules across linked files, it should be really easy...it's just a check box that you select ("Include elements in linked files"). And with the new feature of saving view templates even for schedules, you can start setting them up in each project and then transfer these templates through "Transfer project standards" in your master and place them on sheets.

As for the options "By linked view" in elevations, you're right, I have no idea why it's greyed out. I didn't notice that. Unless someone can enlighen us as to why, I suggest you file a support request on this. The view range being greyed out makes sense as it doesn't apply to vertical views.

I did a test and was able to set a view "by linked view" and the filled regions in it showed up fine (it was a code sheet view showing fire rated decks etc.). So I don't know what might be causing this problem on your side. I didn't try filled regions in elevation/section view. The other thing you can do is to leave vertical views "by host" and transfer the view templates from your original projects and apply them to the appropriate views. This way at least the annotation and model categories' visibility is the same across all linked projects and master project.

[mmodernc]

I had problems with filled regions coming accross in 8.1
Have not tried 9 yet
has the linked file speed thing been fixed again yet?

[bowlingbrad]

Just now beginning a project with multiple buildings linked into a master file.
My question is with regard to revisions...
We like to do revisions per project. If we have multiple "sets" of sheets in the same project, how do we track revisions for each set/building?

[JohnASB]

Hey Scott,

Now that you have some experience with this process of setting up your elevation and section tags in the Master File for linked buildings please let us know what if any issues you have encountered. I am about to decide the process on a 5 building project.

One in particular: How do you do Elevation Linework on the file you are linking?
Perhaps if I could only hold out for Revit 10 (I can't) ;((, then they would have completed the linking tools and allow elevation and section views to be referenced from the linked file?

Better to make an image of your linked building elevations and bring that into the master file for detail tagging?

Any other clues before I launch?

Thanks,
John

[dbaldacchino]

I found some serious setbacks with the linking approach.

First of all, the fact that you don't have the "By Linked View" option for views other than plans is the greatest problem. If this was available, then one could make linework edits in the parent projects and these would show up in the host project containing all the links. I don't know about you, but I found linework editing to be essential, as there are always things to clean up in sections and elevations (especially interior elevations). This is a major setback as you also cannot make linework editing within linked files. This would be huge if we had this capability.

If you can live with things not looking right in section/elevation, then linking will work for you. If not, you need to find another way. I had to......

[lhanyok]

We are starting a new project in Revit. It encompasses approximately 3 city blocks with 3-4 townhome types (which adds up to about 120 townhomes) as well as one 3 story 30-unit apartment building. The CD's will be going out in two packages. I have faith that I can accomplish this in Revit because although the site is large, the variations in architectural work between types is fairly small - they will all be of the same type of construction with the same details and more than likely similar floor to floor heights

I want to make sure that this project goes smoothly, so I want to make sure I start it right. I've read this thread as well as several others about working with large projects in Revit, and from what I can tell this would be a project suitable to linking. However, I have never used file linking and from what I've read in David's last post, I'm concerned about the lack of linework capabilities in linked files. So I thought I could do it all in one file. I would only need to model one of each townhome type plus the apartment building, which I think would be manageable with worksets. If the client wants 3d site views, I think I could get away with just using mass objects. Does anybody see any problems with this approach? I appreciate your help.

Thanks,
Laura

[JohnASB]

For detailing in multi-building projects my current thinking is:

1. Do details in a separate file including sheet layouts.
2. Save detail sheet views and load into each bldg and site file (with detail drafting views)
3. Make a view template to turn off model and annotation objects in detail drafting views in bldg and site files (so they don't get printed or otherwise refered to). leaving the detail title and number.
4. Tag away.

-Limitation: All detail placements on detail sheets must be finalized before exporting and importing to project files since changing this and reimporting will screw up your tag numbering (though you could add a detail to the end of a sheet if needed).

lhanyok -just keep your Bldg & Unit floor plans, elevations and sections sheets in your Bldg file. Only use linking for site plan drawing, and schedules. While you could do your Bldg floor plan sheets in the Site file as well, you still need to keep elevation and section sheets in the Bldg file, at this point (maybe 10.0 will bring fullfillment), and open both files for printing as well as the issue above, so what's the point.