same building layouts in several different files

[Martin P]

Looking for some advice on how best to tackle this.... we have a 2 storey 1 bedroom block, and a 2 storey 2 bedroom block. There are 5 different combinations of these blocks on the site - all of them will remain the same internally no matter which combination they are in. ie some will have 4x1 bed and 4x2 bed - others willl be just 4x1 bed etc etc.....

I am TOYING with the idea of saving the internal layouts as groups ( uh-oh!!) and loading the internal layouts of these groups into each combo. I am also toying with the idea of linked RVT files. And I am also thinking I might just be safer to copy and paste them and have 5 completely separate files, which is fraught with danger to my mind if we forget to follow changes through all the files.

Anyone done any of this? what works or not? any tips on doing this would be appreciated, before I start!!

[hand471037]

Why not use Design Options? If you have issues with clean-up, you can always 'snip' just a bit off of where the Option hits the rest of the model so that you still get a good wall cleanup...

[sbrown]

If you don't need the data scheduled, linked rvt would be more reliable than groups, but there are some limitations. right now this is the biggest area of problems in revit. What I think I would end up doing, is placing the units(interiors) on a workset so that I can copy paste everything from one file to another(if the groups fail), then when they change do it again by opening up only that workset, deleting everything and copy/paste again.

[Wes Macaulay]

For what's worth, I wrote a little help document on groups which y'all can have a look at and critique.

Martin, maybe it will help you... I don't like to throw out groups because it's better than the other options! ...even if it's laborious to use.

Have a boo.

PS: edited the white paper to include a few more thoughts.

[Martin P]

Read through that Wes, and it is pretty much exactly what I was thinking of doing, I like the mirrored group being a different group - that seems like a good idea, I hadnt thought of that! thanks for posting it :o) I must admit being bad and mixing drafting lines sometimes!!

It is a little annoying that I have to SAVE and LOAD groups though (or cut and paste), it would be nice they behaved more like an xref - ie I could link them. seems to be an area that Revit could do with a bit of a boost. something in between a group and a linked file seems to be what we need - ie a linked file that room tags etc will work in.......

I am even now thinking about just doing an "exemplar" type drawing ie just detail up the 2 bed block and the 1 bed block once at a decent scale and fine detail - all the different options can be at 1-100 and coarse filled!! not sure it will be accepted, but it would save me a load of time.........


Worksets may be a good option - only problem is I would have to learn how to use them!! I have never tried, and as ever this is a rush job...

[Steve_Stafford]

...Why not use Design Options?...Design options don't work when linked to a site campus plan as you have no control over which design option is displayed, only the primary is displayed.

You can work around this by having versions (copies) of the model(s) that have the design option(s) you want set as primary, then link those versions but never actually edit them. Only design/edit using main model with design options, then over write/replace the alternate versions (using the same name) and set the options to primary as required. The campus plan will update accordingly.

[stuntmonkee]

I would suggest what i think you have already though of. Instead of trying to make the software work for you, why not change the layout of your drawings to work for you. Do a single internal plan, and then do all the seperate exterior plans. . .maybe shade the areas that they are to be used and note "Opposite Hand". . .and so on. I don't see why they couldnt be accepted, but that all depends on the luck of the draw I guess.

[rhys]

I would suggest what i think you have already though of. Instead of trying to make the software work for you, why not change the layout of your drawings to work for you. Do a single internal plan, and then do all the seperate exterior plans. . .maybe shade the areas that they are to be used and note "Opposite Hand". . .and so on. I don't see why they couldnt be accepted, but that all depends on the luck of the draw I guess.
Martin
I agree, with stuntmonkee , I do a lot of repeat units like this . If units are exactly the same then my approach is draw it once AND show it once. Use smaller scale drawings if necessary as Keys to location and handing. Think ahead though as even with identical internal layout there will often be building elements that vary just a bit - drainage stack positions etc. They will have to be separated and copied around. Schedule just the one unit windows door etc. It is a real weakness in Revit but that said I remember Acad 9 without xrefs! Then I aways avoided copying things around too. I even avoided wblocks- why show the same thing twice just because its possible.Think of hand drawing, certainly avoided it then.

[Wes Macaulay]

It is a little annoying that I have to SAVE and LOAD groups though (or cut and paste), it would be nice they behaved more like an xref - ie I could link them. seems to be an area that Revit could do with a bit of a boost. something in between a group and a linked file seems to be what we need - ie a linked file that room tags etc will work in...One of the reasons Revit is so successful is that all the data is in one file. The problem with any multi-file system is that you have to develop some sort of communication between files to make the parts behave as a whole; an example of this is that if you xref a unit plan in ADT, only one instance of the xref can clean up with walls in the host file. That's unfortunate.

I figure if groups can be made to work in a more palatable fashion, we won't be crying anymore. I don't cry much about this since I've developed some intuition as to what works and what does not with regards to Revit, though I can't always explain why it works!

[Chad Smith]

Design options don't work when linked to a site campus plan as you have no control over which design option is displayed, only the primary is displayed.Damn, just came across this limitation today.

You can work around this by having versions (copies) of the model(s) that have the design option(s) you want set as primary, then link those versions but never actually edit them. Only design/edit using main model with design options, then over write/replace the alternate versions (using the same name) and set the options to primary as required. The campus plan will update accordingly.Good suggestion though.