Phasing Question

[bcgatti]

I’ve looked at a number of threads about phasing and I did not come across any that address my non-standard scenario.

I have a situation where we need to “roll back” a Revit model to a date prior to when some Bulletin specific revisions were made. It has been requested, after the fact; that we show these items in a phase while keeping the original model intact. After restoring the older version of this file (intact original model - prior to modification) we will need to try to "capture/insert/integrate" the Bulletin specific revisions as a “phase” into the older file so that we do not lose the modifications that were done in the Bulletin – hopefully without too much of a duplication of effort. We will be adding more phases as we go forward.

I don’t think that there is a clean and easy way to accomplish this.

My thoughts are that I will need to have both files open (old and revised) and then choose items that I wish to retain from the newer revised file and then copy them and paste them into the appropriate view(s) in the older file. Then I will select these items and add them to the newly created phase in the older file.

I was thinking that I will lose most of my sheet specific information and that I will probably have to duplicate this data.

Am I thinking along the correct lines with this or is there an easier / cleaner way to accomplish this? I also know that I may not have clearly explained my request for information and if I did not please let me know.

I am using RAC 2008 – Build: 20080101_2345.

Any thoughts and / or feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Brett

[patricks]

These Bulletins, are those like change orders or something that happened during the construction process?

[bcgatti]

On this project the term Bulletin simply refers to a released revision to the project.

[patricks]

Well, why can't you just take your revised project (perhaps make a backup copy of it first), and create your Phases in there and then move the objects from each revision into each particular phase? Why the need to "roll back" the project?

[bcgatti]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but I think that we are stating the same thing - from opposite directions.

I'm talking about starting with the older file and in some way "merging" the modified walls, windows, etc.. into it. It sounds like you are suggesting (this is what I may be misunderstanding) that I start with my newer file and in some way (copy / paste, etc..) "merge" in my older data (original walls and wall locations, windows and window locations, etc..) or re-edit my walls, windows back to their original states.

We need to show both options - before change and after change but the before change geometry (original walls and wall locations, windows and window locations, etc...) has been modified in the newer / udpated file. I was hoping that this could be accomplished with a minimun of "duplication of effort". Ex: Copy / Paste as opposed to remodifying walls, etc.. back to their original states.

Maybe I'm expecting this to be more difficult than it actually is and I am looking at it from the completely wrong perspective.

[patricks]

I wasn't talking about copying anything (although some of that may have to be done regarding notes, etc.). Your latest file, with all of the changes made so far, is a complete file I assume.

So make new phases and call them something like "Original CD Set", "Bulletin 1", Bulletin 2", etc. or whatever you need to call them.

So then everything in the model should be on the "Original CD Set" phase. I'm assuming that there is no existing construction we're dealing with here. So then if you have something added with Bulletin 1, select those objects and change their Phase Created to Bulletin 1. It will then disappear from whatever view you're looking at.

Then what you will have to do is create new plan views (just Duplicate your original plan view(s) ) and change the phase of the view to Bulletin 1. Most likely you'll have to cut/paste any notes regarding the changes made with each Bulletin. Cut them from your original views and paste them into the new views specific to each Bulletin.

No matter what method you choose, your way or my way, you'll still have to create the phases and create the views for each phase. But this way you shouldn't have to copy/paste a bunch of the model stuff, and you also won't have to go back to any previous versions of the Revit file.

[Gadget Man]

I wasn't talking about copying anything (although some of that may have to be done regarding notes, etc.). Your latest file, with all of the changes made so far, is a complete file I assume...

If I understand correctly BCGATTI means that they don't have anymore their original structure in the latest file - they modified it, overwritten it, lost it. However they have all that data in a back-up copy which fortunately was saved before all the changes to the structure were made. And now they are looking for a way to "merge" data from these two files - to show the original structure in an "existing" phase and the modified data in a "new construction" phase (or whatever they call it). And this is EXACTLY what should be done from the beginning, agreed. But now, unless I am mistaken, there is no way to "recover" the old data in the new file. The only option is to copy/paste it indeed... or re-draw it.

However, if it was me, I would copy (in small chunks) the elements from the OLD file and paste them into the NEW (LATEST) file rather than the other way around. Unless the new stuff is smaller/simpler than the exisitng elements. I would first duplicate the floor plane(s) in question and change their phase to "existing" (rather than "new construction"), therefore all the imported (pasted) elements should adopt the "exisiting" phase as the "created in" parameter automatically. Alternatively, after pasting I would change the elements to "created phase" - "existing" and "demolished phase" - as applicable.

[bcgatti]

Jerry, you nailed it on the head. That is the exact scenario. It looks like we will have to start trying to piece this together using both models.

Thank you to both patricks and yourself for the feedback on this.

Brett