Linked Files and Room Bounding

[jhalaby]

Is there any way to make the walls of a linked file act as room boundaries for the host file? My structural engineer has all the shearwalls in his model, but I need them to be room bounding when linked into my model. Can Revit do this?

[sbrown]

two ways, bind the link, this makes it a group andthe walls will be room bounding. Or use room separation lines.

[Scott D Davis]

Or you can copy elements from linked files now. Select the walls in the link you want, copy to clipboard, then paste same place. Structural walls are now a part of your file.

[bowlingbrad]

Do you mean there is NO WAY to use a linked files walls to bound rooms? This is crazy!!! :banghead:

I have a shell building linked into an interior fit-out. Isn't that the prototypical way to use a linked file other than multiple buildings on a single site?

[Calvn_Swing]

Or you can copy elements from linked files now. Select the walls in the link you want, copy to clipboard, then paste same place. Structural walls are now a part of your file.

Scott, I may be missing some intelligence in Revit that happens when you do this, but now you have two identical objects in the same place. I would then assume that this "duplicate" wall:

1) shows up in clash detection
2) shows up in material quantities
3) exports to other formats

If so, this isn't really a solution to anyone using Revit data downstream. I don't know if the OP is or is not, but we are at our office. Having two duplicate walls would really screw up our estimating process, and the thought of AutoDesk describing this as a solution to this particular problem worries me. I like the ability to copy between linked files, but if there isn't some intelligence that prevents downstream data errors, it seems rather pointless.

If there is, let us know because there are several categories I can't copy-monitor that I'd like to have the same functionality. If this is a workaround, cool. I just don't think it is...

Thanks!

[Scott D Davis]

Scott, I may be missing some intelligence in Revit that happens when you do this, but now you have two identical objects in the same place. I would then assume that this "duplicate" wall:

1) shows up in clash detection
2) shows up in material quantities
3) exports to other formats

If so, this isn't really a solution to anyone using Revit data downstream. I don't know if the OP is or is not, but we are at our office. Having two duplicate walls would really screw up our estimating process, and the thought of AutoDesk describing this as a solution to this particular problem worries me. I like the ability to copy between linked files, but if there isn't some intelligence that prevents downstream data errors, it seems rather pointless.

If there is, let us know because there are several categories I can't copy-monitor that I'd like to have the same functionality. If this is a workaround, cool. I just don't think it is...

Thanks!

If you run interference checking and tell Revit to show the walls in one file that interfere with walls in the linked file, then yes, they will show up. I would tend to think you wont run a "walls to walls" interference check too often.
If they are linked models, and the schedule is being told to not show walls from linked files, then they only get counted once.
When exporting to CAD formats, you probably only want to export your information in your file, right? Turn off the linked file in the view then export, and you will only get the one instance.

[Calvn_Swing]

I'm not being difficult, I promise! But, No, No, and No!

1. Since we routinely have structural consultants (and when our consultant is in CAD we model the structure in house anyway) in separate linked files. We also model any masonry structural walls in the structural file since we build them at a completely different time than any other veneer or interior walls. So, we frequently do wall to wall clash detection to make sure structural walls aren't interfering with our veneer or interior walls.

2. We need to schedule the walls in the structural file since we are building them (design-build firm here). So, we can't just tell it not to schedule them. This means I have to write a filter to hide certain walls, and that the parameter used to hide these walls is going to be based on user entry, not some inherent property of the wall resulting from it being copied from one linked file to another - so, we've got a large propensity for user error. Especially since there is no copy monitor feature on these copied elements! Now, I have to keep track of both walls and make sure they're coordinated! I thought the whole point of Revit, Linked Files, and Copy-Monitor was to do that for me...

3. Once again, since we're usually the GC on jobs we're estimating, it means we want the elements from all Revit files: Architectural, MEP, and Structural. So, we want ALL the information that is pertinent for a complete estimate.

I guess my point (and my frustration) is that a lot of the "viable" workarounds to issues like this essentially negate the ability to use information downstream effectively. Which means our firm can't use them. Which means there is no workaround for us. So, that sucks. Ultimately, the effectiveness of BIM in the building industry is dependent upon the ability to use the BIM data downstream where 90% of the money is spent (and wasted). All I'm saying is, don't forget about the data being important after the documentation phase of a project. The workaround works (not even that well for documentation for reasons mentioned above) for people who still send their documents off on a sheet of paper to everyone else on the project...

[dbaldacchino]

You bring up some great points. However in your case, the real workaround is to use room separation lines and not to copy walls. Functionality with regards to elements in linked files needs to increase.

[Scott D Davis]

Kelly,


Thank you for the insight and perspective. Since I came from an Architect-only background with outside consultants, sometimes I don't understand all the other possibilites out there! This is great stuff to pack into the ol' knowledge base when I'm out there with customers of all types.

[Calvn_Swing]

You bring up some great points. However in your case, the real workaround is to use room separation lines and not to copy walls. Functionality with regards to elements in linked files needs to increase.

Amen,

Don't get me wrong, I was thrilled with the improvements in the 2008 release! But, it still has a long way to go. I agree that in this case, the room separation lines is the best workaround, bot once again, that blinking "workaround" term is deserved...


This is great stuff to pack into the ol' knowledge base when I'm out there with customers of all types.

Scott, thanks for listening! I get a little frustrated on these forums because I frequently run into "unusual" problems coming from a design/build background and most of the posters here aren't. As a result, I get a lot of "help" with the best of intentions but that don't really solve the problem. It worries me sometimes because I feel like the majority of the feedback Autodesk is getting is from architecture-only firms using Revit. The problem is that BIM is not about Architecture only work.

Actually, you could make a version of Revit that couldn't do ODBC exports, had no other export formats either, and most Architects would be just as pumped about it as they are now with absolutely no potential to use the BIM information downstream. All the architecture-only firms really gain from Revit is document coordination, and some level of design rigor that was not present in a non-BIM software like FormZ or 3D CAD. At that point, I don't even feel like it would be fair to call it BIM anymore because you are basically throwing away the information after design is "complete." It is really just "IM" because you aren't using it for building at all! ( I know, I know, in the common definition of BIM the B is there because you're modeling a building, not a car for instance, but I think my definition is better! )

Point being, don't forget about the design/build firms. We have different needs, and in general I think it is fair to say BIM is about integration of our industry as well. Revit can't afford to forget about that aspect, or ultimately it won't succeed the way AutoCAD did. And I want it to! So, if you ever wonder what a design/build perspective on a particular issue is, just let me know. I've got all sorts of crazy ideas!

Thanks,

[sbrown]

Exactly, I have NEVER used the export to ODBC. I understand the Design/Build situation and think its the best firm fit for Revit initial vision. However they(autodesk) has now made it extremely difficult for multiple discipline offices to use Revit.

Revit NEEDS to be ONE package, not 3 or it will not really be possible to do BIM. the Structural engineer needs his own Worksets, not his own Model. Same with MEP. But you need the tools from all 3 packages. This is the hugest issue in my opinion that will cripple the implementation of true BIM delieverables.

Having to deal with copy/monitor, Struct. walls vs arch.columns walls etc, MEP lights, fixtures ,etc vs Architectural lights, fixtures is NOT going to work in the long run and needs to be rethought significantly for the advancement of the idea of Revit.

[Calvn_Swing]

I both agree, and disagree, and it is because of the kind of "multi-discipline" office I work at I'm sure. So, to preface my comments with my bias...

I work for an integrated real estate-architecture-estimating-construction firm. This is opposed to an integrated architecture-engineering firm, or an amalgamation of them all. The reason we've selected not to bring engineering on board as part of our in-house capabilities is that we predict engineering firms (at least MEP) will go the way of the dodo and be integrated into fabrication companies rather than integrated into building design companies. Basically, the knowledge is so specialized that it is difficult to manage in a "completely" integrated firm at this point in time. In 20 years, who knows... We can see structural going either way. What we're trying to do is build partnerships with fabrication companies (steel, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, etc...) that have in-house design services at the quality we're expecting. Meanwhile, we still have a significant volume in all of our "divisions" of third party work. So we're trying to implement BIM across three disciplines and four processes. It is all we can handle at the moment!

As for my "disagreement" with your comment:

I think Autodesk needs a more wholistic approach to designing in Revit where both firm models can be successful. What made AutoCAD such an amazing program is that it could work for almost any firm structure. It was just a tool, like any other tool, but it was an amazingly adaptable tool. The "swiss army knife" of CAD tools.

The problem with Revit isn't neccesarily that there are separate files for MEP, Arch, and Stru, but that the interface between the files and the disciplines hasn't been thought about carefully enough to make it work for an integrated firm. Though, quite frankly, it doesn't work that well for non-integrated firms either. So, I'm not feeling like the abandoned child here, just the one that isn't getting heard and is worried about being abandoned in the future.

On all our jobs I really like having separate files that are linked together. Now, the issues you pointed out are definite shortcomings in the process of linking these files, but there are plenty of legal, and work flow benefits to having them as separate files. On our last job since we were modeling the structure ourselves (the consultant was CAD only and we were the Architect of Record and didn't get to pick the structural firm). So, we originally tried modeling the structure in the architectural file. Big problems! Walls would join to beams and columns, and if you moved the wall, then the beam moved to. In some structures this is desired, in most commercial work where there is no relationship between the partitions and the structure, it's a pain in the you know what. We could not (and we tried for two weeks) to find a way to prevent this from happening. I put the structure on it's own workset and locked it to a ghost user. Still joined things together. I tried editing each element to prevent things from joining, but new elements would then attach to structural elements. It was a complete nightmare. I spent a good 60 hours just fiddling around trying to make it work. I then spent about 30 minutes pulling the structure to a new file, linked it in, and no more problems for the entire project. Point being, they could fix the issues you mentioned without forcing me to combine all the files and loose the advantages too.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I have no issue with the idea of separate files or separate worksets, or one file, or separate interfaces, etc... My problem is that it just doesn't work well for anyone right now.

I think there are a hundred ways to do this, the trick is picking a decent one and then making it work. I feel like AutoDesk hasn't picked a bad path, but that they're just not very far along the path yet, and they might be veering off to a bad path. Enough metaphors. They've made a choice, but haven't made it work yet . Either start from scratch with a more flexible strategy, or make the one you've got work well for everyone. Please circle A or B...

[Alex Page]

Now, in 2009, there is a check box for the linked file to be room bounding - Works as required, but we are finding that when we save to central, a message comes up that all our rooms are non bounding and it doesnt save, hit the save to central again and it works the second time. A pain, but at least it works!

[thillhouse]

Yes we are running into this same issue... Using Revit 2009 and the linked file (Shell) as room bounding. When we save to central the shell dissapears. We get a message about rooms not being bounded, we hit ok and the link/shell comes back. Save to central again and it works... Its getting pretty annoying since it takes 5 - 10 mins to save to central for some, and we try to save every 1 hr.

Is there a fix for this? I'm about to go in and put room bouding lines an all floors around the perimeter...but I would rather not.

Tim