Sharing coordinates outside the office

[DaveP]

As we start interfacing more with the engineers, we are needing more and more to Link in each other's models. Not a problem when we link two .RVT projects that are in our office, but when the Engineer is outside the office & we're ftping files back and forth, how do we Export Shared coordinates? We've only got a copy of their RVT file. Sharing with that file doesn't get it to the engineers. The file doesn't go back to them and is blown away with their next update.

[Scott D Davis]

At this point, its really about communication...no way of doing it unless you talk to your consultatns and say "We need your file to share coordinates, and we will send it back to you in an hour. Dont work on it until you get it back from us." Then make sure they know to overwrite their file with the new one you sent.

Wish it was easier.....still hoping to have a file server someday that lives on the internet, thats fast enough to actaully work out of on a daily basis. It would be great to have everyone involved actually working on the SAME data/models using worksets.

[DaveP]

Thanks, Scott. that's pretty much what I thought.

Wouldn't that be nice, though, to Export a little (2K) text file that contained the Shared Coordinates? Then the other firm could Import it to define their Shared Coords.

That would sure beat Importing an AutoCAD drawing with a Target Point at 0,0 :Oops:

[robert.manna]

Thanks, Scott. that's pretty much what I thought.

Wouldn't that be nice, though, to Export a little (2K) text file that contained the Shared Coordinates? Then the other firm could Import it to define their Shared Coords.

That would sure beat Importing an AutoCAD drawing with a Target Point at 0,0 :Oops:
Maybe this is what you're thinking, but I actually think you're on to something. With shared coordinates you can publish coordinates to a DWG file. So you could have a "shared coordinates" DWG to which you publish your coordinates. Send the 2K dwg to the engineer, and if they adopt/share the coordinates from the DWG, their file and you file should now agree. I realize that this is probably not quite what you were looking for, but I think it is a close second.

-Robert

[dhurtubise]

That works perfectly Robert. When we deal with engineer that have Revit, we give them our model as soon as our grid is on (asking them to wait to start the work) and they start they're project with that. That takes care of coordinates.
If it's too late, the DWG is the easy solution

[Wes Macaulay]

Couldn't the engineers just do this themselves? They would open the architect's (your) model (whatever age it might be) with their flavour of Revit, and link in *their* model using Shared Coordinates, move it into place, and then publish coordinates back to their own linked file. So they're just doing what you want them to do ;-)

[dbaldacchino]

I guess you need to use shared coordinates only if you want to report actual levels, correct? We don't do that in house and always start from 100'-0" as our FF Level 1. Structural does the same. What we really care is to link each other's project origin to origin.

I relocated the project inside our template so our levels and spot dims report the shared coordinates (I'd be drawing at 0 on the internal coordinates and the datums report relative to 100'-0"). But if I want to use actual datums on the site, then I mess up my project datums (shared). I'm thinking of actually starting our projects on the 100'-0" internal coordinate and not mess with the shared coordinates except for site. Then our datums in the project would read internal coordinates instead of shared, and drawing 100' above the origin is something Revit can handle ok (or so I read).

Didn't mean to hijack this thread, but it seems relevant :)

[robert.manna]

I guess you need to use shared coordinates only if you want to report actual levels, correct? We don't do that in house and always start from 100'-0" as our FF Level 1. Structural does the same. What we really care is to link each other's project origin to origin.

I relocated the project inside our template so our levels and spot dims report the shared coordinates (I'd be drawing at 0 on the internal coordinates and the datums report relative to 100'-0"). But if I want to use actual datums on the site, then I mess up my project datums (shared). I'm thinking of actually starting our projects on the 100'-0" internal coordinate and not mess with the shared coordinates except for site. Then our datums in the project would read internal coordinates instead of shared, and drawing 100' above the origin is something Revit can handle ok (or so I read).

Didn't mean to hijack this thread, but it seems relevant :)
David,

Shared cooridanates also assure that links will link in in the correct location. They also allow to reposition the same building multiple times in different "locations" (say if you were doing townhouses or apt./condo buildings). Shared coordinates also in the case of a master plan file, allow you to distribute true north to all your seperate building files, based on your master "site" file (which could be a DWG from a civil engineer).

I don't understand what you mean by this "I relocated the project inside our template so our levels and spot dims report the shared coordinates (I'd be drawing at 0 on the internal coordinates and the datums report relative to 100'-0"). " maybe I'm just missing somthing...

What is the logic for relocating to 100'-0"? (Just curious more than anything) I like to locate projects correctly myself relative to mean sea level (0'-0") (of course most of mine are pretty close to mean sea level.....) :).

Thanks,
-R

[dbaldacchino]

I understand the use of shared coordinates for multiple locations of same projects etc., and that's why I'm not sure if it's necessary to have Structural and MEP link in Architectural by shared coordinates. I think all they'd need is to link in Origin to Origin; that's what we've been doing.

In the template, in a section or elevation view, I relocated the project (moved it up 100'-0") and set "Elevatio Base" to read "Shared". This way we still draw at level 0'-0" (internal project coordinate system) while the levels read 100'-0" (level 1 finished floor) and upwards for levels above. We have always show levels like this, so if we do basements or split levels lower than finished floor level 1, we don't get negative values. We don't use real levels relative to sea levels in our drawings to keep numbers clean and consistent. We could easily use 0'-0" mean sea level, but in case of a basement, you get negative numbers. It's just a cultural thing :)

Now, since I would like the possibility to keep using our existing approach while also being able to show REAL levels relative to sea level, I would need to leave the shared coordinates alone in the template (not relocate the project up 100') and actually start drawing at Internal Coordinate level 100'-0". Then I'd leave the "Elevation Base" of levels and spot elevation to read "Project". Once we link in the building in a site project and move it up or down and publish shared coordinates to it, I can then use a different type of level/spot elevation that reads "Shared" as Elevation Base and will get real world levels.

[Wes Macaulay]

That's how we do it, David -- 100' in Project Coordinates is our main floor, and that relates to some elevation in Shared Coords that is the geodetic. The Z part is easy. And if you give the consultants your Revit file early on and they link it in origin-to-origin then everyone can use Project Coords to link files together; that aligns the X and Y coords too.

[dbaldacchino]

Great minds think alike ;) Thanks for chipping in Wes.

I have noticed something and am not sure if it's related or not. When I cut a section, the crop region goes down all the way to the 0'-0" project coordinate level, even though there are no model elements below the 100'-0" level. Do you have this problem too?

[Justin Marchiel]

I have experiences this proplem too. The problem is that i can't recreate this issue. It seems to vary from project to project.

Justin