Multi-building set: best practice

[ron.sanpedro]

Here is my scenario:
* Three buildings, each in a separate RVT file, and each a separate construction "set". This requires dedicated detailing for each building, but we think that might actually end up as a plus.
* A separate Site file, with all the buildings referenced in and located properly.
* The site referenced back into all three building files.

How will shared coordinates work? Do I pull all three buildings into the site, and move the three buildings to get them located right? When I reference the site back in to each building, will the site move in the Z appropriately for each building?

When I bring the site back into each building file, will the other buildings also come with? Or can I link them separately, and on different worksets? I would like to have the option, in Building A, to see the site but not buildings B and C. Just not clear on how nested links will work in this case.

I believe I can import the sheets from each building file, so that I can make a master Sheet Index. But can I do this on worksets, so that the sheets are no always loaded? Or are the sheets lightweight enough that in won't really bog down the site file?

And lastly, anyone see any potential for problems here?

Thanks,
Gordon

[chodosh]

One thing you want to do before you Publish Coordinates to the three models, after placing them on the site appropriately, is to Specify Coordinates at a point if you know them for your site, or can get that information from your site/civil.

You can/should probably link the each file on its own workset, including the site. That has been successful for us with much more than three or four files.

Remember that when you do the shared coordinates, especially when importing, that it is done by one person since it will check out the Project Info workset in the file being linked. If that workset is checked out already by someone else doing the same thing in a different building file, you will not be able to link by shared coordinates.

And yes, you can link the sheets from each to make a master sheet index, just create a new sheet parameter and push that around using Transfer Project Standards.

HTH,
LC

PS
Make sure you have good machines with good hardware before you try this!

[dbaldacchino]

Unless I'm misunderstanding.....you don't need to add any parameters for building a sheet index from sheets residing in linked files. You just need to check the option to include linked files in the sheet list schedule. That's all.

As to linking, if you want the links to come in with their host when the host is linked into another project, then make them as attachments. If not, make them as overlays so they'll only show up in the host. With this in mind, you should be able to get any result you wish.

[luigi]

[quote=dbaldacchino;747955]Unless I'm misunderstanding.....you don't need to add any parameters for building a sheet index from sheets residing in linked files. You just need to check the option to include linked files in the sheet list schedule. That's all.
quote]

Are you sure you are able to have the sheet info from a linked file? It sounds weird if that is allowable....but would be cool....if you don't confirm, I will try to check, for that would be really cool...

:)

[Scott D Davis]

Are you sure you are able to have the sheet info from a linked file? It sounds weird if that is allowable....but would be cool....if you don't confirm, I will try to check, for that would be really cool...

:)

confirmed; you can create a sheet index from linked files.

[dbaldacchino]

Yep, that's what we've been doing with our Structural linked file. We've also been creating a dummy project containing consultant sheets and linking that in. It keeps the main Arch. project less cluttered. In smaller projects it makes sense to add dummy sheets in there directly.

[twiceroadsfool]

Im curious for plotting out the different sets... Are you just going in to all of the different models and plotting from there? Yo ucant actually plot all of the sets from one model, correct?

We have a smallish project coming up, but its a renovation on about 6 buildings, all of which i *think* are similar in construction. Theyre small enough that we may put them all in one file, as im pretty sure its going to be one set of documents. So we will probably just break them off with worksets, allthough the possibility for linked files is there too, to keep the overall size of the central file down.

But, if its one set of documents, i dont want it turning in to a giant pain in the arse because theyre seperate models. Having to go in to model 1 for sheets a2.1, a3.1, etc, and model 2 for a2.2, a3.2, etc...

[dbaldacchino]

If size is the issue, I would do separate models as a last resort, especially if you have one document set. If they're separate sets, then it makes sense to have different models since you cannot have the same sheet number used again in the same project.

[luigi]

You bring up a good point...if in the linked file I have an A101 and in the main project I have an A101, do they both get scheduled?


If size is the issue, I would do separate models as a last resort, especially if you have one document set. If they're separate sets, then it makes sense to have different models since you cannot have the same sheet number used again in the same project.

[dhurtubise]

Yes they do

[twiceroadsfool]

If size is the issue, I would do separate models as a last resort, especially if you have one document set. If they're separate sets, then it makes sense to have different models since you cannot have the same sheet number used again in the same project.


This kicked us in the nuts on a project recently, lol. We had an existing mall (all one building) that we were converting to an open air center, which turned it in to 7 buildings. But, since it began as one entire building, we did it as one model. There were 2 sets of drawings (phase 1 and phase 2), so we used Revit Phasing for it.

We had to have Sheets 1A2.1, and 2A2.1, and so on, because both sets of drawings were in the same model.

It also became such a hassle that once they built Phase 1, and the demolition was done, we did a save as, and broke them out in to separate models. that was more that we have some lower end workstations lurking around that couldnt handle the STC on the model...

But the sheet number thing is a pain if you work someplace where they wont go for the prefixes, lol...

[dbaldacchino]

Haha yep, prefixing is the only way, but one might be out of luck if your client/PM doesn't want that. I mean, you can create a parameter for sheet names which will enable you to repeat "sheet numbers" (text parameter), but then what happens to the referencing? You'd have to do fake tags everywhere!

Luigi, as Daniel said...they get scheduled anyway.

[dhurtubise]

You can also include the Link file name in your schedule, that should allow you to schedule them without having to use another paramter.
Note that this parameter is not available for the file your are linking in (obvisouly)

[twiceroadsfool]

Haha yep, prefixing is the only way, but one might be out of luck if your client/PM doesn't want that. I mean, you can create a parameter for sheet names which will enable you to repeat "sheet numbers" (text parameter), but then what happens to the referencing? You'd have to do fake tags everywhere!

Luigi, as Daniel said...they get scheduled anyway.

I had a PM and a project team that didnt want the prefixes, and the debate got pretty heated... Right up until i suggested that they take charge of managing and updating two separate models as the Demise wall location and leasing information changed on the flyr gith up through construction... All in the name of avoiding a sheet prefix.

That argument ended quickly. :)

It was a shame that we ran in to the Hardware problems that we did, the phasing really worked wonderfully...

[andrew.brister]

This is great but I have another issue related to the OP.

I am currently working on a similar project. 8 buildings all linked into a the host "garage/foundation" file. Also linked to the host file is the "site/civil" file.

Now, since this site is monstrous, and I need to do some work in the site, I need to be able to link the "garage/foundation" file back into the "site/civil". Here's where I'm having the problem. All is well in the "garage/foundation" file, everything matches fine and all is happy and jolly in the world. However, when I linke the "garage/foundation" back into the site, I cannont place it by the shared coordinates. Well, I try, but it turns out wrong. [There are pics below that show this condition]

[edit before I post]

Well, I'm going to post this info anyway, but a helpful individual here and I have figured it out, and all I can say is.

BEWARE: Be aware of "project north" if the auto cad file is rotated out of "world ucs" the linked file that you bring in will have project north oriented to that change in the ucs. So, this is what was making my plan turn.

In a sense, my plan wasn't turning, my site file was already turned. So, when I brought the garage file into the plan file it auto-rotated adjusting from project north to true north.

So, watch what you are importing.

I am now a bit wiser...

[end edit]