Collaborative Links - Lost Host Problem

[jason.combs]

Following is a collaboration scenario between an architect and electrical engineer. However, this could be between two architects, so please do not dismiss this issue.

1. The architect creates a model in Revit. Floors, walls, doors, etc... and saves.
2. The electrical engineer links in this model and begins placing receptacles on walls using Revit. Saves their project and goes home.
3. The architect links the electrical engineer's file to collaborate. Then needs to place a door where there is a receptacle. Revit allows the architect to place the door with no errors or warnings. The architect saves the project and goes home on vacation.
4. The electrical engineer comes back after the architect has added the door and begins to open their project. However, they cannot complete opening the project unless they delete the conflict between models based on the error:

"Instance origin does not lie on host face."

They can either delete the element (receptacle) or close the project.

5. Since the architect is gone, there is no way to remedy the situation without deleting the element.

What is the solution to this? Is there a better way to work? Help!

[Eric Wing]

Revit allows the architect to place the door with no errors or warnings
Is the host element (wall) being watched? Are you using worksets?

[jason.combs]

We are not using workset to avoid mixing disciplines.

The files are being linked to each other.

[dbaldacchino]

Jason,

I don't understand what you mean by "to avoid mixing disciplines"....using worksets (or worksharing for that matter) shouldn't cause confusion between disciplines. Each discipline is working in separate files and they're linked into each other, so the worksets reside in each model.

Anyway, as for this scenario, which I suspect has happened to you, is it possible to get an object ID from the warning dialog? If that's the case, write that down and don't finish opening the file. Open the project again without opening the linked model. To do this, you could temporarily rename the other project or the folder containing that model. Once open, find the element with that ID so you can trace where the problem element is and move it. Re-load the linked RVT.

Sounds like a lot of work, but I can't think of any other way. As long as the family is wall hosted, it's going to complain if it has been cut.

[jason.combs]

To clarify, mixing disciplines as in architects and engineers (MEPS) working in the same project.

Worksets with a central file appears ideal, but I have not heard positive feedback when using them across disciplines as described above.

[lev.lipkin]

Please look at Copy Monitor for coordination. One of potential schemes would be for the electrical engineer to copy (and watch) wall, then put receptacle into copied wall.
After placing door by Architect and reloading link, the electrical engineer would get warning and could review changes.
If Architect wants to see receptacles, he would need to copy them from linked file.
Another way to check for conflicts is to run interference checking.

[jason.combs]

Thanks, Lev. That would work for that particular scenario. However, for engineers to collaborate using Revit Systems, they need to be able to connect to objects that have connectors to create their systems. Objects like water heaters, sinks, water closets, etc... are objects that architects would place, but engineers would connect to.

Copy/Monitor will not let you select those types of objects.

[dbaldacchino]

You can only copy/monitor walls in this situation, and if something (ex: door) cuts this host and a receptacle was in the cut area, it would cause a warning. But I don't see this as a feasable solution, although I have not collaborated with Revit Systems yet.

Jason, when this happens, both disciplines are working in the same Central or in separate centrals that are linked together? When this scenario happens, does Revit give you an element ID?

[jason.combs]

David :),

My last post was slightly off track, but closely related. Staying with the subject, copy/monitor would work for the original scenario.

The related issue is tied to RB and RSY collaborative projects. RSY allows engineers to create systems based on connectors. These connectors can reside in families that can be used RB. However, the connectors are null for RB users.

The collaborative issue is that someone using RSY cannot connect to a water heater, for example from a linked RB file that contains said water heater.

Therefore, the apparent solution is to use worksharing to allow RSY and RB modelers to design together.

And then the fun begins...

[dbaldacchino]

Ohhhh so you mean they BOTH have to work in the same model? That's a problem if you have external MEP consultants. Sounds like that only works if you have everyone in-house. Didn't see this coming!

[jason.combs]

Oh, we have a full-service group here! That's the fun I am talking about! ;)

[dbaldacchino]

Yep I remember, but I thought you guys might be working in separate files. Even though we have ion-house structural, we still worked in different models. At least to have some control over file size. We'll be doing an all Revit based project soon and I did not know that it's not possible to "attach" RSY objects to a linked RB file. Not good.

[Steve_Stafford]

If I actually understand this thread it sounds like your MEP team is placing objects in their model according to the FACE of objects in the architectural model? While this might seem the obvious choice so that should a wall move so will your fixtures, the actual implication of this choice is that you may, or more likely will, lose work when instead of a wall just moving the wall is deleted to make way for a different wall.

The copy monitor tool is intended to give you your own copy of the wall(s) involved so you can place your objects as needed and if the wall changes give you a chance to resolve it. In practice though this is cumbersome too because this means you very nearly have to C/M every wall in the project when you consider the E part of MEP.

Therefore it may actually be a better practice to place the MEP content according to a work plane instead of by FACE. This means that all your components are not going to move when a wall does but it does mean that you won't lose a single piece of work either.

Regarding RB components and those of RSys, once the MEP content is placed any architectural objects should be removed so the MEP versions can take over. So a water heater might be placed initially to establish where the architect wants it, but once it is designed and "connected" into a Rsys system it should be removed. In a similar fashion to structural elements in the RS model.

For a firm that actually has all the trades in-house I'd think the notion of a single model for all is worth at least exploring for the virtue of eliminating duplication. At least until performance begins to rear its head?

Autodesk needs lots of information to help map out these workflow issues so feel free to submit support requests to document how the software either succeeds or fails to enhance our collaboration.