Workflow. Which design phase do you move into Revit? SD, DD?

[3dway]

Hi all, and thanks for being patient through our implementation stage where I pull my hair and ask frantic questions.

I'm trying to implement Revit. We've already been warned that starting in Revit and bouncing out to ACAD is BAD. You get the slowest phase of each software.

The schematic design usually happens on paper by the architect. The line between schematic design and design development has, historically in our office, been kind of grey. I'm wondering if Revit requires that line to be more definate.

Usually we get hand drawn coloured elevations and some hand drawn plans to scale that we either start into CAD with, or model in Sketchup. If we're modelling in sketchup, we will often do an "over the shoulder" session with the architect. He says "taller there"; "thicker there"; "steeper there"... that sort of thing advances into solving complex roof problems and adding materials. From there the 3d model gets used for elevations, which almost always have oblique portions and the export of that saves a lot of time. Then into CAD for working drawings.

Today we tried to do a sit down with Revit. Admittedly I don't know it enough to be able to work on the fly like this. The problem I have when trying to do this sort of work is I always find myself saying "I would have to make that family"; "I would have to make that wall type"; "I have to make a custom curtain wall panel to make that corner work".... In order to see a result I have to stop working on the overall model, send the architect away, and work on the bits and peices that I need to do what he's asked. It ends up being all mish mashed and peicemeal.

So,

Do you do your SD in Revit? How do you do it?
Do you only start Revit when you get to DD? and really get nuts and boltsy about DD? DD starts the way it was inteded to. A fixed design, and now you work out how it goes together?

One of the previous replies to a thread of mine suggested that they kick off projects in ACAD. I've done one model from ACAD plans and it felt easier.

In Revit, it feels like you have to put so much forethought into how it goes together that you have know the result ahead of time in order to plan how levels are done, wall types are made, if you use a regular wall or stacked wall. So on and so on.

One of the responses I kept getting was, "we can't be working on that level of detail right now". Yet to make Revit work, it feels like I do need to work on that level of detail. I have to make that wall type to draw a wall... or at least I have to know if it lies on the outside face or inside face and in that case I have to know if we're limited by room size or site coverage....

Just at the end of a tough day, where it's clear I need more training in the software but everyone is starting to wonder if the software is worth it.

[mruehr]

We go from schematic of sketches to CD never leave Revit.
You cannot implement Revit on the fly the Work flow is to different to Cad.
Bim is not another Software its a different Approach
Start with a small but typical Project without any Time pressure and test all your typical
documentation output. Get good training and someone who has set up a revit system already before. Nobody i know who worked on a proper implemented Revit System wanted to go back.
If your company feels its to hart to expensive and not worth it....look for a new job you will soon anyhow.

[mthurnauer]

We start from SD and go all of the way through. when I started my first Revit project in SD, I thought that same as you say, that you need to have certain things figured out earlier than usual, but that is not so. A project may evolve like this:

1) Create existing site model under Existing Phase. We have developed a block diagram massing system for arranging the program as simple blocks. Once we have arranged the blocks with the proper relationship, we will make a few different masssings as Design Options. We then can control the block diagram through a schedule as well as get floor areas of the mass studies using mass schedules.

2) Once a conceptual mass is selected as the preferred solution, we then create walls by face, roof by face, and floors from the mass. It is not critical that the wall, roof, and floor are the proper assembly. Later, the exterior wall assembly can be refined and the thickness change will be taken out of the interior.

3) When we start to lay out the interior, it is not critical that you know the interior partition types as long as you make a habit to draw walls from the most logical side. For example, since code dictates the required egress of corridors, stair enclosures, etc. I often draw corridor walls from the corridor side so if they change in thickness they will grow outward. The same is true about other areas you know have more critical dimensions.

4) From there, it is just a continued process of refinement. One of the advantages of doing it all in Revit is to take advantage of the ability to extract data from the beginning.

[Scott Womack]

The schematic design usually happens on paper by the architect. The line between schematic design and design development has, historically in our office, been kind of grey. I'm wondering if Revit requires that line to be more definite.

Revit will actually blur the delineations between phases even more, However, the trade-off is that information from each phase does not get lost, but incorporated into the model/project. Depending upon the type of project, it may be started in Revit day one, and it may be brought into Revit mid to late schematic design phase. Our collegiate hosing projects start right into Revit, since Unit plans are being deigned concurrently with the building form. Our other institutional work may start in different packages due to a slightly different work flow.


Usually we get hand drawn colored elevations and some hand drawn plans to scale that we either start into CAD with, or model in Sketchup. If we're modeling in Sketchup, we will often do an "over the shoulder" session with the architect. He says "taller there"; "thicker there"; "steeper there"... that sort of thing advances into solving complex roof problems and adding materials. From there the 3d model gets used for elevations, which almost always have oblique portions and the export of that saves a lot of time. Then into CAD for working drawings.

Use of Sketchup in offices is common place. Much of that sort of work can be does in a slightly different workflow using Revit, and the Massing systems. (We usually create the masses to match the programs spaces, or group of spaces.) This will also report gross square footage numbers for this preliminary work, in our office helping to eliminate one round of re-work to get the form back into compliance with the program. We then apply generic walls to the masses, and "paint" iterations of materials onto them usually using design options.


Today we tried to do a sit down with Revit. Admittedly I don't know it enough to be able to work on the fly like this. The problem I have when trying to do this sort of work is I always find myself saying "I would have to make that family"; "I would have to make that wall type"; "I have to make a custom curtain wall panel to make that corner work".... In order to see a result I have to stop working on the overall model, send the architect away, and work on the bits and pieces that I need to do what he's asked. It ends up being all mish-mashed and piecemeal.

What you are describing above sounds more like the beginnings of Design development, not schematics. Often, I'll create, then print out perspectives and 3D Isometrics for the Project Designer to sketch over top of. Then, after a internal Design Review, those can be taken and the resulting forms/comments added to the massing already done.


Do you do your SD in Revit? How do you do it?
Do you only start Revit when you get to DD? and really get nuts and boltsy about DD? DD starts the way it was intended to. A fixed design, and now you work out how it goes together?

See comments above


One of the previous replies to a thread of mine suggested that they kick off projects in ACAD. I've done one model from ACAD plans and it felt easier.

In Revit, it feels like you have to put so much forethought into how it goes together that you have know the result ahead of time in order to plan how levels are done, wall types are made, if you use a regular wall or stacked wall. So on and so on.

This is more a result of not having a through knowledge of the software, where it will head, and the types of information you can put in early, and when to change it in the model.


One of the responses I kept getting was, "we can't be working on that level of detail right now". Yet to make Revit work, it feels like I do need to work on that level of detail. I have to make that wall type to draw a wall... or at least I have to know if it lies on the outside face or inside face and in that case I have to know if we're limited by room size or site coverage....

This is one of the most common "traps" people fall into. Not enough use is made of "Generic Walls early in the project. Everyone wants to place Brick on Block, or some other details wall compositions too early. True you can do this without a great amount of penalty, but it does cause a serious shift in the PERCEPTION of the design process by non-users. Things have gone smoother once I stopped showing the more detailed information to the partners, while still providing what they need. After supplying a more traditional looking model to them, then I sit down and start asking for more detailed design information, and inform them that the model will not look completely correct until that info is received.

Good Luck!!

[sbrown]

The key is the "place holder" approach. In SD you need walls that have a core and an exterior finish. ie Generic 12" with Stucco, Generic 12" with Stone, etc. Then as you draw as the previous poster mentioned make sure you are drawing with the appropriate location line. 2nd for SD, think of the model as the "big picture", the plans should be right, the section heights should be right, the openings the right size(no or minimal design, ie, don't pick out your trim and mullion patterns). in sd the model is an Underlay for hand elevations. Its what keeps the designers honest. don't think of the SD model as a final delieverable, with the exception of Plans and sections(use solid fill Black on your coarse fill for all assemblies. then use black filled regions to add specialty ceilings and such to your sections, turn on color fills and you've got a great SD set of plans and sections, areas, etc. then use the 3d massing and perspectives and elevation blockouts for your designers to draw over, then bring those images over your model views and turn the model off.

In DD you start to refine your Place holder families with the design intent that was hopefully bought off on in SD.

If DD is done right you don't have much left in CD's.

[cliff collins]

What Scott Brown said.

"All Revit all the Time" is my motto.

You have to get the whole office into the BIM mentality.

If we are all rowing the BIM boat, with our oars in the water in perfect synchronicity, we will win the race. But if only one rower is off time, or rowing the opposite direction, the boat will slow down and eventually fail.

Cheers.....

[LRaiz]

Scott described a workflow that really takes takes advantage of Revit's strength. Above all Revit is a Parametric Building Modeler. It is engineered to simplify the inherently iterative process of building design. Revit supports iterative refinement of design decisions by propagating changes though the building model and associated sheets of documentation. Unfortunately this essential message is lost in the BIM related noise of marketing BS.

[twiceroadsfool]

Good information in this thread. We have different classes of objects (generic vs. specific) that get used at different points through the project.

We go to Revit the moment we know there IS a project... But that early in SD, if i go to my wall type drop down and see anything other than a few generic walls, i put on the brakes and round up the herd.

Midway through CD's if i see neon green (Generic) walls, i know to round up the herd (or the project manager, or structural, or whoever) to figure out what that wall/door/family is SUPPOSED to be.

If its marked Generic, it shouldnt have specified sizes/dimensions on it besides min's and max's... And if its marked Specific, it should be modeled accurately enough in size and shape and useage that we can be confident making drawings and a model off of it.

It goes in stages...

[azmz3]

We have actually started a proposal using Revit for a detention center. some people felt this may have been a nad move because of all the design changes that happened, and the complexity of updating a 3D model with alot of detail. I think it all comes down to how you manage your workflow, instead of starting out in 3D, maybe start out using drafting lines, so youget the basis of the deisgn, and it is just lines representing what you are looking for, and as you go on, convert it to actual objects and components. I would not go back and forth between Revit and AutoCAD in one project, it gets to confusing for the people working on the project.

[sbrown]

Never use detail lines for walls doors or any "real" content. use place holders so they can be swapped out. Remember and never forget, families can be simple 2d lines. But always use families of the right category for everything. It may take an extra step all be it simple to create a new family with the symbol in plan you need but in the long run you will be happy you did this. You will find with a few projects getting the workflow down of pausing in "drafting" to draft up a quick 2d family will save time in the long run.

[twiceroadsfool]

Never use detail lines for walls doors or any "real" content. use place holders so they can be swapped out. Remember and never forget, families can be simple 2d lines. But always use families of the right category for everything. It may take an extra step all be it simple to create a new family with the symbol in plan you need but in the long run you will be happy you did this. You will find with a few projects getting the workflow down of pausing in "drafting" to draft up a quick 2d family will save time in the long run.

Very well said. Too often people draft detail lines instead of drafting SYMBOLIC lines in FAMILIES. Its about the OBJECT, not about the 3D model. The objects are very powerful as you move forward.

But as sbrown said, a wall is a wall is a wall.