Two Projects - One Document Set

[lhanyok]

We are working on a hospital interior renovation project in Revit. Work is being done to two areas that are in two separate buildings. I recommended doing them as two separate files, which is what we have done. The project manager now wants to combine the drawings for both areas into the same drawing set, ie. plans for both areas on the same sheet (or more than likely he knew from the start that he wanted them in the same set, but didn't make that clear).

I had two initial thoughts. The first was that we screwed up and should have initially combined them into one project - which I think would be kind of clunky. The second thought was that we could link the two files into one master file. I haven't used file linking extensively yet, so before I dive in does anyone have any recommendations or better ideas? Thanks in advance!

EDIT: Now that I'm actually looking at the projects, a good deal of work has been done to one of the projects - elevations have been created, tagging, etc. And I'm reading more about the limitations of linking - so should I just go ahead and copy/paste the less developed project into the more developed project file and work with them as two separate areas within the same file?

EDIT AGAIN: Just talked with the project manager to clarify that everything will be scheduled as one project.

[luigi]

If the 2nd project doesn't have much of views and annotations set up, and it isn't too much of a burden to copy and paste that into the first project (remembering that rooms aren't selectable in 3D, you will have to select them in your floor plan views and paste them in....)

You could link one into another and cut sections and callouts, etc in the main project (or have 2 seperate projects linked in a 3rd "container") You will be able to schedule the whole content...just making sure to check the box in each schedule....sheets would be in the main project that has the links and all the documentation would happen in the same file....

Although this second option is feasible, I would still prefer the 1st option and seperate the 2 projects with worksets.

I wish I could have more of a dialogue...hopefully it works out for you.

later,

Luigi

[lhanyok]

We've decided to take the both projects in one file route. Linking just seemed like it would be too much of a headache for our situation. Hopefully this works out.

[Dwane Lindsey]

I hope I'm not too late, but you could link the less developed into the other and bind the Revit link, which turns it into a group and then of course you can ungroup it. It may be a quicker way of copying the information over that using copy-clip and paste.

[dfriesen]

I hope I'm not too late, but you could link the less developed into the other and bind the Revit link, which turns it into a group and then of course you can ungroup it. It may be a quicker way of copying the information over that using copy-clip and paste.
What happens with grids and levels from the linked project?

[Dwane Lindsey]

What happens with grids and levels from the linked project?

When you bind the link, it will prompt you with the option to include the Attached Details, Levels and Grids (seperate check boxes). If the levels are all the same, you should't have to include them in the bind. The grids on the other hand, you'll have to be very careful that they are not named the same from project to project. If you have grids that are named the same, the bind won't work since it cannot create the "new" grids.

edit: The bind option apparently doesn't work consistently. I tried binding another project with similar grids and it worked just fine. I'll keep testing and post any findings.

[luigi]

That is a valid aproach, but binding doesn't always work...actually, 3 times I have tried to bind a project in very different stages (CD, SD, DD) in that order, and it never worked. For the CD project it just kept going and going for few hours...I then quit.
The other 2 times it went for hours and then it gave me a message that it couldn't bind it....
But when it works it is less steps, but am not sure if it is less time.

Good that you brought up the bind option...

When you bind the link, it will prompt you with the option to include the Attached Details, Levels and Grids (seperate check boxes). If the levels are all the same, you should't have to include them in the bind. The grids on the other hand, you'll have to be very careful that they are not named the same from project to project. If you have grids that are named the same, the bind won't work since it cannot create the "new" grids.

[seandburke]

If you skip the link/bind option and go directly to File > Load from Library > Load file as group... then you'll more than likely avoid the heavy processing the bind tool requires. Before you ungroup, be sure to attach details to the views you desire to recapture the annotation.

[lhanyok]

We've decided to take the both projects in one file route. Linking just seemed like it would be too much of a headache for our situation. Hopefully this works out.

There was actually a lot less work done than I had expected, so copy/paste wasn't that bad. A few tricky things with phasing, but it probably only took me about a 1/2 hour.

So it's been rolling along just fine for the past week and a half, until today when we find out the project manager now wants the projects in their own individual sets. It's now beyond copy/paste since there's been alot of interior elevations made and annotations, so we decided to keep them in the same file.

The first little hiccup we ran into was the project title on the titleblock - so we just made new titleblock families and included the project title and address as text. The second hiccup was sheet numbers - but we just decided to include a space in the sheet numbers for the second project.

Does anyone forsee any other bumps along the way?

[Dwane Lindsey]

So it's been rolling along just fine for the past week and a half, until today when we find out the project manager now wants the projects in their own individual sets.

Does anyone forsee any other bumps along the way?

First off, I would tell the PM to make up their fricken mind so you can get your work done efficiently!!! :)

Otherwise, something that pops up off the top of my head would be schedules; including the sheet indexes...they are going to be fun. Unless you have a good naming/numbering convention, filtering is going to interesting...but required regardless. I think just organization in the browser so you know which project views belong to might be a bump in the road. Oh, the PM. :) If you have grids, making sure they don't want a column line 1 in both projects...can't be done in one file.

If I think of anymore bumps, I'll post them.

Good Luck!

[ejc]

I have done the 2 projects 1 file before. The biggest problems where what Dwane touched on:

You can only have 1- A1.1, A1.2, M1.1 etc.
You can only have 1- project number

Project Linking Option.

We have a huge multi-building, multi-phase project. Taking this on is not for the faint of heart, but can be done. The main thing is that those working on the project freakin do what they are told to do!!!

Assuming you store files on a server, and copy local files down:
-Each building is its on MODEL, not project! (read that agian slowly)
---Each model contains only the model elements and the phases.

For example: the campus consist of buildings 1 thru 5. We must assume that all 5 buildings have had all of the "existing" model componets created (in the "Existing" phase).
--Phase 1 will include the following remodled areas:
----Building 1 -- Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3
----Building 2 -- Level 2 and Level 3
----Building 3 -- Level 3

The project number for Phase 1 will be 8008.01.

1. Open the Building 1 Model file, and create the 8008.01 Phase. Demo and create all of the Model elements (this will be an ongoing). Do the same for Building Models 2 and 3.

2. Create a Project File and Link in Buildings 1, 2, & 3. Name this file something that includes 8008.01 number in it. Link in the 3 buildings. This project file will have all of the project information, its own Sheet names etc.

3. Setting up the Views in the Project File:
- the views will need to be customized to "View" the linked models in the correct phase.

All modeling in the model files. All dimenions notes and detailing in the project files. Anyone working on the job MUST create model elements in the correct phase. Anyone working on the job MUST know how to use worksets and have a little more advanced view control skills.

The end result will be a series of models that can be viewed at any stage. Exsiting, phase -1, etc.

There is a lot more to this, and I hope to write-up something offical when i have time.

Someone just did something stupid, i have to go!

ejc