Windows, Doors, Openings and Phasing

[VinceFerrero]

I having a lot of trouble trying to work this out. Something with Phases and colliding openings which is really troublesome.

I have existing building, demolish some WDO's (windows, doors and openings) and then add new WDO's (in new construction).

In some instances I want to demolish a W or D and have the O remain. In order to compensate for the automatic infill generated when something is demolished in a wall I have to use a W or D family (formed as an O). Families have to be used rather than the 'Opening' Modelling tool directly within the project file as Revit won't allow you to change the phase settings of the opening; they are locked to same phase as the object that you use them on.

In other instances I want to demolish a WDO and have a new W, D or O placed either adjacent to the demolished WDO or overlapping it to some degree.

I'm finding that the graphics are aren't working properly; most times line work is missing when objects are overlapped. Some times walls won't demolish or fill properly.

Anyone else having trouble with this. I can't find a workaround to the problem.

[twiceroadsfool]

Ive found as much of a pain as it is, when i need to do something like this, i duplicate the wall and edit the profile so that the item in question (Window or Door), its on its own wall. Then i can demo the wall too. It works pretty well, and im going through a project right now with identical circumstances:

Im demolishing a 7'-0" door, and putting in another door, but they overlap, and are not completely in the same place.The new door is also recessed with a higher ceiling, so i needed to demo out to 8'. I separated the walls, and it works fine, as long as everyone knows how to put it together...

[VinceFerrero]

Thanks for the reply Aaron.

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow.

Is this the process where you would then replace the entire length of wall (because it's all been demo'd say for 1 window) with another existing wall and then join them??

Or do you add a new wall?

Either way wouldn't it just end up giving you the same result? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

[twiceroadsfool]

Thanks for the reply Aaron.

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow.

Is this the process where you would then replace the entire length of wall (because it's all been demo'd say for 1 window) with another existing wall and then join them??

Or do you add a new wall?

Either way wouldn't it just end up giving you the same result? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

No, but i apologize for the confusion.

Let me try this again:

I have a door that is 3'-0" x 7'-0" that i need to demo, in a much larger wall. I will duplicate the entire wall, but then edit its sketch so that "wall" is only 3'x7'. Then, i will edit the profile of the original wall, so it DOESNT include the 3'x7' piece. (If youre using phasing, be aware of which view you are in when you duplicate the wall, or its phase will show as new work... But it needs to be existing).

Then, i will demo the door, and the 3'x7' wall, so the entire thing is demo'd. Its certainly not a perfect solution, but its getting the job done for us currently...

[VinceFerrero]

OK I get it know. Thanks.

So this is where we have the need to leave the opening and it doesn't require us to add the new Window or Door Opening family in place of a demo'd unit.

You're right it does work well. Do you also use this for where you need to place new doors and windows partially within spaces of demo'd windows and doors. I suspect you need to create the new wall bits manually.

[twiceroadsfool]

OK I get it know. Thanks.

So this is where we have the need to leave the opening and it doesn't require us to add the new Window or Door Opening family in place of a demo'd unit.

You're right it does work well. Do you also use this for where you need to place new doors and windows partially within spaces of demo'd windows and doors. I suspect you need to create the new wall bits manually.

If its demo-ing the original window, and then replacing a window partially in the opening, then yeah. I have fragments of new wall infilling the rest, with their profiles matching whatever size needs to be infilled.

It sounds like a pain in the arse, but it documents very nicely.

My wish though, is that where a demo wall meets a remaining wall, that the demo linetype would override the remaining one. Because in elevations, i have to line tool all of these "joints", as the remaining walls edge covers the dashed line...

[ron.sanpedro]

Vincent,
I just wanted to chime in with my feeling that the "new" opening approach has benefits. In my experience when that door is demo'd and the hole is going to be left, there is still some finish and trim work to be done at the "new" hole. Even if the hole is just wrapped in gyp, there is "new" work there. So by creating a simple opening with a different type for gyp wrapped, simple wood casing, etc, I get a schedule that is useful from a pricing standpoint. It is a little extra work, but it results in a more useful BIM. In the case of a simple gyp wrapped opening the idea of a family as an "object" falls apart, but it is still viable as a discrete countable unit of work, so I let the conceptual problem stop bugging me. Oh, and it is pretty easy to then create two different schedules, one for "real" doors, and one for "cased openings." Even in all new work there is some value in that, where one schedule is all the doors the contractor has to order, another is all the windows the contractor has to order, and one is all the cased openings (be they "windows" or "doors") that the contractor just has to schedule finish carpentry on. I haven't tried it yet, but you could probably even use a different tag for cased openings, which would further differentiate those very different conditions.

Just my $0.02 anyway.

Best,
Gordon

[VinceFerrero]

Thanks for your message Gordon,


the "new" opening approach has benefits
Has something changed in RAC2008?

I understand the benefits of the seperate components for better BIMing. It's just that this problem (visiblity of linework) seems more like a bug than anything else. It really is an issue that the factory should resolve. Has this been a problem before or is it new to 2008?