Schedules, links and rooms

[jcdecastro]

Is it possible to have numerous pieces of casework in one file linked into another file with rooms and have a schedule show what room each casework is in?

[dhurtubise]

Can you explain the puropose of it ????

[Steve_Stafford]

Objects must be in the same project to know what room they belong to.

[jcdecastro]

I was hoping that the rooms being volumetric now, they would be able to let you know what components are inside them. With file size growing we had to split our model. And the down side is everything that is now split from the main model
a) cant be scheduled with room information
b) cant show tags in interior elevations

I hope this changes soon, maybe in a 9.1????????? :mrgreen: . Expecting everything to be taggable and everything to update is definately what most new users like about Revit so hopefully that can soon be said about linking in revit.

[Steve_Stafford]

Put them back in the project in their own worksets.

[jcdecastro]

hmmmm,
I'll try that, and keep the fire extinguishers next to the revit team....not for the computers..... for the team :lol: . We will be up to 160 MB. Still some purging to do and some work to do on the worksets.

I'll see if i can get the file size down and try it.

[greg.mcdowell]

I understand the Workset trick (create a bunch and don't turn them on so Revit works faster) but I'm having trouble with a couple things...

1 - Deciding what worksets to use (a couple are "obvious" but I quickly run out of ideas)... perhaps if there were a "best-practices" or something in this regard... or am I just thinking too hard?

2 - Keeping in mind what my current workset is and being sure that what I'm creating goes in the correct workset. So far it seems that with options and phases changing a bunch of objects en-masse is difficult to say the least. I find that we are typically working all over the model and it's only on things like furniture that I can say with any assurances that seem appropriate for worksets right now. I'm thinking that this might be a sign of sorts that we're just not ready to create a workset system with much granularity. I also think that it would be good if the tools to help keep your current workset in mind were a little more robust... or at least more consistent.

Thoughts?

[Steve_Stafford]

I use three criteria for creating worksets: Performance, workflow and visibility. If I can segregate elements into separate worksets so I can turn off an entire portion of unrelated project elements, that is my performance motivation. If I can make it easier to work on a portion of the project from the perspective of a single person's responsibility then it is a workflow advantage. Finally if I can control the visibility of an entire collection of elements efficiently then that qualifies as a visibility advantage.

Workset can evolve, fewer in the beginning, more as you add team members and fewer in the end perhaps, so no standard really applies well except for perhaps shell, core and interior as typical assumptions.

The active workset is your "nemesis" in the same way the current layer in Acad was...so good habits prevail until some wise bugger creates a better method. Perhaps an awareness of scope boxes that define what workset elements should belong to by default...just a thought.

[ejburrell67787]

The active workset is your "nemesis" in the same way the current layer in Acad was...so good habits prevail until some wise bugger creates a better method..Haha that is so true Steve! I usually end up doing a workset clean up every week or 2... good thing that there is the filter button for selected objects though!

We put casework on a fixtures and fittings workset and wherever possible group them (eg for a kitchen type).