multiple models in one file

[comhasse]

As far as i understand, the only way to document campus type projects with multiple instances of the same building is by linking files, which obviously somewhat contradicts REVIT's single-file logic. Has the option of having multiple models (or model spaces, if you will) within one file been discussed before?

Obviously this would create a number of new issues, but wouldn't it be great to be able to instance anything. We could even model half of a symmetrical building and have the other half as a mirrored instance. This could possibly replace groups as well and solve some of the issues around them in many instances. To put it differently, these "model spaces" could be like in-place families but containing any other nested family (system or other).

[Chad Smith]

Has the option of having multiple models (or model spaces, if you will) within one file been discussed before?I don't think it has, but it sounds like an interesting idea.

So I guess your suggesting having a 'Master' model space, and then have as many 'Sub-Model' spaces as you like. You would then insert the sub-models into the master model space to become part of the project. But, you could still dimension up and annotate the sub-models on views to be part of sheets.
Mulitple instances of each sub-model could even be inserted into the master model space as you were suggesting. The Master model space and Sub-Model spaces would have their own worksets, and you could choose which model spaces you want loaded into your session to improve performance.

[robert.manna]

I don't think it has, but it sounds like an interesting idea.

So I guess your suggesting having a 'Master' model space, and then have as many 'Sub-Model' spaces as you like. You would then insert the sub-models into the master model space to become part of the project. But, you could still dimension up and annotate the sub-models on views to be part of sheets.
Mulitple instances of each sub-model could even be inserted into the master model space as you were suggesting. The Master model space and Sub-Model spaces would have their own worksets, and you could choose which model spaces you want loaded into your session to improve performance.
While I think this sounds like a good idea in theory, I would be concerend about the size of the file. At the end of the day I think your "sub spaces" would end up being seperate files that are more tighly integrated then a simple "link". My concern about size is I feel warranted since there are a number of large buildings now that have to be done as seperate files. We've had several projects set-up like this, and the best example would be the Freedom Tower with what? 7 models or something like that... I think that Autodesk would need to greatly overhaul how worksharing and borrowing works as at least in our experience we've found that the general limit of the number of users in a single Revit model is around 6-7 (granted with slightly better hardware we might be able to push that number). What you're talking about would require perhaps dozens of people interacting with a single database. Wherease if they are still seperate databases (just more tighly linked) that problem would be eliminated.

-R

[comhasse]

I don't think it has, but it sounds like an interesting idea.

So I guess your suggesting having a 'Master' model space, and then have as many 'Sub-Model' spaces as you like. You would then insert the sub-models into the master model space to become part of the project. But, you could still dimension up and annotate the sub-models on views to be part of sheets.
Mulitple instances of each sub-model could even be inserted into the master model space as you were suggesting.
Yes, that's pretty much what i was picturing

The Master model space and Sub-Model spaces would have their own worksets, and you could choose which model spaces you want loaded into your session to improve performance.
I have to admit i didn't really think into depth about the implications on worksets. But this sounds like a valid approach.

[comhasse]

Thanks for everybody's input!


While I think this sounds like a good idea in theory, I would be concerend about the size of the file. At the end of the day I think your "sub spaces" would end up being seperate files that are more tighly integrated then a simple "link".

Isn't this how worksets work already now (only the parts of the file chosen by the user are loaded into memory) with the huge benefit that a: the user doesn't have to keep track of multiple files and b: changes are automatically propagate in real-time all the time.


My concern about size is I feel warranted since there are a number of large buildings now that have to be done as seperate files. We've had several projects set-up like this, and the best example would be the Freedom Tower with what? 7 models or something like that...

i realize projects of that size may require splitting just because of their size. I am looking at a fairly simple residential projects (6 identical multi-family buildings with 7 apartments each) My building model is about 18 mb, the site model about 8 mb. The complete model should then not be much larger than 30 mb (this is design develpment phase)


I think that Autodesk would need to greatly overhaul how worksharing and borrowing works as at least in our experience we've found that the general limit of the number of users in a single Revit model is around 6-7 (granted with slightly better hardware we might be able to push that number). What you're talking about would require perhaps dozens of people interacting with a single database. Wherease if they are still seperate databases (just more tighly linked) that problem would be eliminated.


Btw. i am working on this project by myself, work sharing is not really an issue. So i guess my point is: What i am asking for has not much to do with file size, but with the possibiliy to simplify the workflow in projects with multiple instances of the same building. And naturally i don't care much if the software handles this with a single file or say with a bunch of files that are compressed into one zip-file for example, so that it only appears to me as one file in explorer.

I still agree that this would probably require a major overhaul and i don't expect this to be available anytime soon. Still i think in someway it is quite an obvious idea that is worth considering.

[comhasse]

from: Knowing what you don't know about cad (http://knowingwhatyoudontknow.blogspot.com/2007/02/snooping-under-tree-for-revit.html) about REVIT 2008:

Revit Groups, also known as repeating units, provide a modular design technique ideal for building types comprising of many rooms of similar size, shape, or configuration; such as, hospitals, hotels and apartment buildings. New workflow enhancements include the ability to load an RVT file as a group, save a group as an RVT, or change a group to a linked file. Additional enhancements include a new Group Edit Mode, which provides for the creation of elements while editing a group, numerous user interaction improvements, and the ability to exclude elements on an instance basis to accommodate special conditions.

Sounds like this is the answer! Can't wait to have it. :lol: