Bind Linked Revit Models

[Scott Womack]

It appears that binding a linked Revit model will not bring the views, and sheets with it. We have a situation where a larger project was started with one Arch firm doing shell in one model, and we were doing the interiors in another model. Now, we'd like to combine these back into one model again. It should be possible to combine the models, along with the views and sheets in both. Is there a way to do this?

[twiceroadsfool]

Not that i know of, but how would it be able to? What if both models have sheets A2.1?

You could use linked views to bring over the annotations and detailing, if you copy and pasted the sections/callouts, and recreated the other views in your model...

[Scott Womack]

Not that i know of, but how would it be able to? What if both models have sheets A2.1?

You could use linked views to bring over the annotations and detailing, if you copy and pasted the sections/callouts, and recreated the other views in your model...

Well, It brings in families with the same name, it just appends a number on the end of the family name to differentiate it. Revit could certainly do that with sheets, elevations, sections, etc.

[kingjosiah]

It sounds like you tested this Scott? We're in a similar situation -- joint venture with another firm, but sharing the model. The other firm is accessing the central on our server through a VPN pipeline but the STC is painful for them.

We're looking at different options....one suggested method was breaking the core/shell apart and link it together until later in the project at which point it would be bound back to the original. This would not work for us if you lose views or sheets.

I was planning to test this, but if you've already done this, i'd be interested to hear what you've learned.

- Jon

[Scott Womack]

We're looking at different options....one suggested method was breaking the core/shell apart and link it together until later in the project at which point it would be bound back to the original. This would not work for us if you lose views or sheets.

I was planning to test this, but if you've already done this, i'd be interested to hear what you've learned.

- Jon

We are trying it now. You will loose views, and sheets in one of the models. The only issue with keeping them separate are any legends, schedules, etc may have to be duplicated in both projects. You cannot edit ANY parameters of a door that is scheduling through the link. You'd have to edit it in the other file. Key Plans are an example of items that would have to be duplicated in both files, as well as Text and dimension styles. Maybe this is an issue that the Factory would look at in the future.

We are using the Steelhead/Riverbed hardware solution, to work on a model that resides 1200 miles away. It works well, with save to central times across it being only a couple of minutes. This helps us work in one integrated model, without having to break it up.

[twiceroadsfool]

It sounds like you tested this Scott? We're in a similar situation -- joint venture with another firm, but sharing the model. The other firm is accessing the central on our server through a VPN pipeline but the STC is painful for them.

We're looking at different options....one suggested method was breaking the core/shell apart and link it together until later in the project at which point it would be bound back to the original. This would not work for us if you lose views or sheets.

I was planning to test this, but if you've already done this, i'd be interested to hear what you've learned.

- Jon

The other option is to designate one of them the *actual* drawing set, and then have them annotate in their *other* model anyway. In your drawing set, use the linked views to show their annotations, and keep the files linked and not binded forever. Then you dont need to open the entire model all of the time anyway.

Weve got a bunch of models together that way, and its working great. For transferring dimensions/materials/wall types/families we use a combination of Model Groups saved out, and Transfer Project standards...

[kingjosiah]

Alas, yet another vote for Riverbed. We've been looking at this to ease the pain, but due to the high cost it is still in the 'review our other options' stage. I've spoken with colleagues in other firms in similar situations and it seems the consensus is to use a Riverbed + MPLS (for a/our sister office) solution.

It's good to know your STC time is only a few minutes -- in our situation an STC of a ~50mb file across the VPN can take 15+ minutes even with most worksets closed.

Since the projects/buildings are not true core & shell and responsibilities will shift through the life of the project, we're shying away from breaking each bldg into core/shell then linking in order to keep the workflow simplified. We currently are linking multiple files based on building (campus project); breaking apart each building model for a temporary solution seemed workable, yet doubling the amount of files permanently is not. For now, we're going to move some of the central files to the other firm's server to share the pain; we've been spoiled up to this point as all centrals currently reside on our servers.

Thanks for both your input Scott & Aaron....

- Jon