What is the point of Phase Mapping?

[scatter529359]

Seriously? It is the single most pointless implementation of a potentially brilliant idea ever. Currently all the 'feature' does is cover for goobers who can't synchronise their Phase names between files. Really, really disappointing.

When Phase Mapping was announced as part of this release I was absolutely stoted. Working on a massive project (Autodesk have told us it's the biggest undertaken in Revit to date) we should have several phases covering a range of steps from the likes of hoardings to substations and early works.

It should then have been straightforward to map these numerous phases to Existing or New Construction in a sheet file (dependant on what the sheet is for obviously) and actually make the Previous + New filter not be completely and utterly bloody useless when you're using more than two phases.

I'm so very annoyed right now. 11 versions in and revision schedules and phasing STILL don't work properly...

[twiceroadsfool]

LOL, now that we have that covered...

What exactly isnt it doing that you would like it to?

[scatter529359]

well... provide some much needed flexibility really...

let's just say in the model file you have six phases: existing, early work, hoarding, substation, bracing, new work.

in the sheet file (the host) you'd need just the two default ones: existing, new construction.

so, you link in your various models, and depending on what the sheet is for you'd then map the phases as req'd. for e.g the sheet you're working on is documenting the bracing stage, so it'd be:

Sheet Phase=Model Phase
Existing=Existing
Existing=Early Work
Existing=Hoarding
Existing=Substation
New Construction=Bracing

new work, as it isn't mapped and comes after bracing in the model is not displayed in the sheet. complex - and might i add, completely bloody necessary on large projects - phasing would actually work...

[Steve_Stafford]

well... provide some much needed flexibility really... in the sheet file (the host) you'd need just the two default ones: existing, new construction.... so, you link in your various models, and depending on what the sheet is for you'd then map the phases as req'd. for e.g the sheet you're working on is documenting the bracing stage, so it'd be...
Your description is entirely outside and beyond the scope of the phase feature. What you describe is a complete rewrite of the feature. The fundamental purpose of the phase tool is the "architectural" bias to grapically depict a difference between four states of "being", New, Existing, Demo and Temporary. The phase mapping feature simply extends our ability to align phases between linked files at a project level, not at a sheet or view level. That is possible in each view by overriding the Visibility/Graphics of the linked file, which phase mapping possibly eliminates the need for in some cases.

The use of phases for construction sequencing is a "workaround" in a sense because it alters the ability to provide the graphical difference the feature is intended for. Phases don't permit the arbitrary shuffling of sequencing that often happens during a projects life. "This" happens which delays "that" so we do something "else" in a different location until we can resume work as intended. Phases can't be moved around like this. The only way Revit supports this sort of sequencing is to carefully setup the "phase" and then reassign elements to them or combine and recreate them on the fly. Either way it isn't a straightforward "normal" workflow.

I'm not suggesting you are wrong or should not want what you write but you are expressing frustration that a feature doesn't work the way you think it should. Unfortunately for you, it works the way it was intended to work and that doesn't match your expectation. You'll need to describe your work flow and ideas to Revit's support staff to get your needs documented.

Also since you mention it in your reply, it is not a recommended workflow to build a model and then do all the documentation in a separate "host" model. The documentation and model are really intended to occur in the same project. That is where the highest degree of interaction is possible between model, annotation and views.

When forced to, the separation of models into their own projects should be done in such a way to allow complete documentation to occur in their own project files with a minimum of overlap or redundant documentation. Sometimes easier said than done.

Common linking scenarios might be, shell and interior for architecture, architecture and structure, or Architecture, Structure and MEP. Each of these are documented completely in their own discipline's documents. Fwiw, a structural model would need to be incredibly large to warrant multiple models/separate files. Most structural project files are a fraction of the architectural model in terms of file size.

The capabilities of linked files has been expanding with every release and perhaps we are heading toward a sheet & model project workflow which would be ironic since long time Revit users might remember chiding ArchiCAD for precisely this sort of thing, now ArchiCAD is all in one...

[ejburrell67787]

Construction phasing can be controlled / displayed with worksets as another workaround...

[patricks]

Revit's phases would be more correctly described as phasing of separate building projects, not phasing of construction processes within a single building project.

It's like demolition. Some users want to create a "demolition" phase. But I maintain that there is (usually) no separate demolition phase. It happens as part of the current New Construction project and only describes when objects were created and removed.

[aaronrumple]

With all that well said....

You do have several ways to accomplish the sort of construction sequencing you describe. Worksets would be one of the first tools which could easily be setup to manage the infromation in this manner. Used in conjunction with visibility graphics and filters, you could pertty much slice and dice the project any way you wished.

If you need to use worksets for other organization needs, you could use a shared parameter and filters. This would required a bit more attention on the end users part, but would be a way to both control visibility options and identify items using schedules.

You could even use design options for showing construction sequencing. However that feature would have less flexibility than the other two.

I think Autodesk is really positioning Navisworks as the tool for managing construction sequencing - which in Revit's phasing is all just "temporary" between existing and new.

[jtj]

With all that well said....
I think Autodesk is really positioning Navisworks as the tool for managing construction sequencing - which in Revit's phasing is all just "temporary" between existing and new.

+1

...but I don't think Navisworks is good enough. NW provides a good view into the model, and allows multiple programs to interact, but when it comes to scheduling, I think it's pretty weak.

It's a 3D viewer & coordination program, with the "4D" bit tagged onto the back side.

To really make 4D a successful integration for a project & then the whole company, it needs to leverage the firm's existing technological infrastructure.

So, to make 4D work well, it needs to use the existing schedule applications we're already familiar with.

Maybe this construction manager type level of scheduling is more than you guys are looking for, but hopefully in the future, as builders and designers start working together in a closer fashion, we'll being in to see the designer's model being used to visualize large, sweeping"what if" scenarios that arise during the design & preconstruction phase.

Cliff Notes:
But honestly speaking, even a simple schedule linked into the model is far more effective than phase creating and modifying. Create the geometry in Revit, but create the visual schedule somewhere else... I'm not sure if I can whole-heartedly recommend a program, but I'm working with one right now that seems pretty promising.

John

[scatter529359]

I'm not suggesting you are wrong or should not want what you write but you are expressing frustration that a feature doesn't work the way you think it should. Unfortunately for you, it works the way it was intended to work and that doesn't match your expectation.
i'll take issue with that tbh, as i don't think that's the case at all. my frustration is borne from an inability to use phasing in an incredibly logical manner rendering a tool that should be one of the most powerful in the program, borderline useless.

long time reviteer here, well aware of the workarounds re: worksets etc. but they're far from ideal. especially as most of them have serious pitfalls - like the inability to apply filters to a linked file for example.

[dbaldacchino]

I'm sorry but I can't relate to your frustration. Sure there are issues with phasing, but the tool is not as bad as you're making it sound. We have used it successfully on some pretty complex remodelling projects where we had to even selectively demo parts of the existing roofing and structure. So I really don't understand what's not working for you. It would benefit us all if you gave more concrete examples.

[scatter529359]

our project has around 20 different model zones, each of a considerable size. various combinations of which need to be linked into a sheet file at any one time (no documentation is done in the models).

all of our documentation is done to the BCA standard - which necessitates having some fairly specific setups. e.g. existing structural walls to be solid black, new structural wall hatched to ISO pattern for its material etc etc.

on a G.A. we need to show early work as new (as it's obv not part of the existing building). but on a bracing doc for the structural eng. that needs to appear as existing. that's just three phases there. try and do it.

you simply can't.

[Steve_Stafford]

As I said before, your workflow is outside the "norm" for Revit and its users so if you want to have any hope of getting what you want you'll need to start a dialog with the Revit development team. Which version are you actually using...it sounds like you are or should be using Revit Structure?

[scatter529359]

outside the norm, how?

are you saying that revit is incapable of dealing with major retail projects?

[dbaldacchino]

I can understand the desire to be able to change the depiction of various elements in various phases. I think the current implementation of having project-wide settings for how demo should look like for example, is a problem. In fact now that we have filters, I personally wish Revit would consolidate phasing into the filtering system instead. There are many cases that for certain drawings you want different depictions (presentations vs DD drawings vs CD drawings for example). If what you're trying to achieve is similar to what I described, then you might have to opt for using filters instead.

As Steve is suggesting though, you need to document your case and file it with support. We do this all the time and that's how developers can understand and work towards solving these issues.

[Steve_Stafford]

...outside the norm, how? ...are you saying that revit is incapable of dealing with major retail projects?No, not at all.

It is really quite simple...or so I thought.

You wrote complaining that a new feature doesn't work as you thought it would. You want Revit's phasing tool to work differently than it does. I wrote to suggest that you contact Revit support so what you want can be logged as a wish, so they know about it and might eventually do something about it.

I also provided some background on the phase feature which you dismissed because you are a long time user. How I'm supposed to know this in advance I'm not sure.

You have casually explained how your projects "work" assuming what you write is a given, standard practice, without much detail and have been a bit abrupt in your responses to the comments of others. Are you actually interested in a response? Was your post rhetorical and we've gone off base by replying with anything other than, "yeah you're right!".

I'll step away now... I wish you the best with this issue.

[scatter529359]

so now i'm abrupt for pointing out that i'm not a revit noob and had tried all the usual workarounds? :D only did so in order to avoid people wasting their time throwing out the usual suspects in terms of ideas...

funny also how you're suggesting in your post that the way you work is the "revit norm", and therefore by implication not following that is what will lead to 'problems'.

now i am being abrupt. deliberately. borne from frustration i imagine.

but you'll have to forgive me, as afterall, i just wanted revit's phasing tool to control its phases. thought that would make complete sense tbh. obviously not. the "revit norm" to control phases is apparently not to use the phase tool, but to look for workarounds involving worksets and filters.

[ejburrell67787]

Workaround perhaps, but if you use wall types with different type marks and the graphical filters for the view then you can show the different hatching style you require.

[aaronrumple]

...but to look for workarounds involving worksets and filters.

I wouldn't consider worksets or filters a workaround in this instance. Filter - in particular - is designed exacly for the sort of fine tunning of visibility which you describe.

I'm sure someone at Autodesk, like Scott, could show you some excelent workflow processes if you dropped them a line and explain your needs.

[josh.made4worship]

alls I know is that we are still light years ahead of "traditional" AutoCAD methods, which I am very thankful for...I would be interested to hear, though, if Autodesk says anything in regards to your phasing issues, scatter...

[jeffh]

The scope of the phasing tool in Revit is really to have a way to identify an object as "existing, demolished, temporary, or new" along a time line. These "states of being" if you will, can then be displayed diffrently in your views.

I believe what is talked about in the posts of this thread is more about construction phasing. The requirements are something not within the scope of the current pahsing tool in Revit. In this case something other than phasing must be used to achieve the desired results. Others have already posted viable solutions.

Phasing is working as designed. So in this case these additonal requirements for phasing will need to go to the ever growing "wishlist".

Sorry phasing does not work as expected. :(

[scatter529359]

alright then jeff (or anyone for that matter).

let's assume i'm a complete revit noob setting up an extremely large project will be a staged development. in the context of this conversation, how do you recommend i set it up?

[jeffh]

alright then jeff (or anyone for that matter).

let's assume i'm a complete revit noob setting up an extremely large project will be a staged development. in the context of this conversation, how do you recommend i set it up?


Set up Revit to have however many number of construction phases your project has. Now create views for each of those phases. Now model your project making sure you model in the correct view for each phase. In each view the new work will be shown dark. Any items work done in the previous phases will be show 1/2 tone (or whatever override you choose.)

That is it the "phasing" tool in Revit is limited to 4 ways of displaying an object based on it's creation and demolition status in relation to the entire timeline of the project. Once the time line has moved forward and something become "existing" it will forever be displayed as an "existing" object. It is possible an object could be "new" in one view, "existing" in another, and "demolished" in another view. All dependant on the objects creation/demolition state in relation to the project timeline established by the project phases.

Does this explain how phasing in Revit works? Have you done the tutorial on phasing in Revit? It probably explains the way it is intended to work better than I have done here.

From your original post it sounds like you want phasing to be much more flexible than it is. It would be nice if that flexibility was in the tool but it simply can't do what you want it to do. It is the like trying to cut a 2x4 with a hammer. It is just not the correct tool for the job you want to do. Nothing against the hammer. It is just that you need a saw to cut the 2x4. :-)

[scatter529359]

that's all well and good, but getting them to display correctly in a host file is an altogether different matter - and that's the whole point.

[mruehr]

Is this not where By Linked View comes in?
I use linked views often in general plans (at the moment a project with 7 towers and tons of
mid-rise).
I link Project Files into a Masterfile to pull the Different Views together
this works fine as long you set up your views in each of the Project files.
Filtered Views Work Fine if you set the filter in the Linked File.
If i understood right what you trying to do, i don't think you will get it working setting up views in the host file.

[jeffh]

that's all well and good, but getting them to display correctly in a host file is an altogether different matter - and that's the whole point.


To get back to the original question, phase mapping can help with this. it allows you you have different phasing schemes/naming systems in different files. When linked together you can get the phases to all align up so you can have control over the way existing, demo, temporary, and new display. In the host file.

I think the underlying problem is you want the phasing tool to have more flexibility ovewr the way objects display. This is simply not possible. You get 4 choices. That is it. Existing, demo, temporay, and new. Those 4 things can all look different from one another but those are the only 4 you get and EVERY object gets assigned one of those states.

Filters, worksets, view templates, etc.... thoses are the tools you need to look into to accomplish what you are trying to do.