Shared Coordinates Logistics?

[chodosh]

I ran across a new message today:

"Constraints may not be created to linked instances using Shared Locations. Constraints will be removed."

I'm thinking it should read instead 'constraints may not be *maintained* to linked instances using Shared Locations', but the language is irrelevant to the fact that my first reaction was out loud, "What? Since when?"

And, followed up with, "Why not?" I am sure there is something obvious here, but I've managed a lot of Shared Coordinates setups and this is the first time I've run into this (or maybe the first time I have acknowledged it, I'll admit to blowing up constraints on users without a second thought if it meant putting their files back together).

This isn't a complaint, please don't misread this post. This is really a cry for help, "What now?" How do you maintain offsets, constraints from, say, a structural or architectural model if you also need to manage several files on a Shared Coordinates system?

Anyone have any good advice or experiences with this? How do I work within this new paradigm?

Thank you in advance for your help!

Best,
LC

[ron.sanpedro]

I have a somewhat similar situation. 8 buildings in 5 models, linked together in a site model. I want to dimension the relationships of the buildings in the site model, and I use shared coordinates. My approach has been to use Ref Plans and actually dimension to those. If a building has to move, I also have to move the Ref Plane, and the dims follow.

There are a TON of situations where linked files could be massively improved, but currently the kludge of dimensioning to a ref plane is the best I have found for this situation.

Gordon

[chodosh]

Thanks for making me feel a little bit less stunned over the fact that I didn't know this before.

So, your method is to use reference planes? That's where I was going to head, too, but am not sure the time investment outweighs the value of Shared Coordinates for the files in question today, maybe another project.

It's never been an issue for me, perhaps because of copy/monitoring I never noticed the error (and yes, Kerry, you can hit me for saying that)... So, what happens then is you have a bunch of links and you put them on shared coordinates to, well, coordinate them together, any constraints are removed. And that can't happen... This is making my brain hurt how far reaching the implications of this are for multiple modeling scenarios...

I may reallocate the files back to align by Center to Center (head *really* hurting now).

[kumarjamiy810719]

I use reference planes to make the models in Revit and Civil 3D line up for logistics supply purposes. I think this is a good way to spend time because it makes sure the coordinates are the same and correct in both software, which is important for logistics supply planning. Shared coordinates are good for telling the location of the models, but they can also make some problems if you don’t use them right. For example, if you have a big site file with State Plane Coordinates, you might see an error when you bring it into Revit for logistics supply analysis. Or, if you have many links with different shared coordinates, you might lose the constraints when you move them for logistics supply optimization.

To stop these problems, I suggest using the Shared Reference Point tool to make the models in Civil 3D and Revit work together for logistics supply design. This tool lets you set up a common point and direction for both models, and then bring them in with the right units and coordinates. You can also use the Desktop Connector to make the data match between BIM 360 and Revit for logistics supply coordination.