Can't control attached, linked model's visibility

[matt__w]

We're working on a job where the architect has 7 models (1 exterior walls/interior elevator/stairs and 6 various typical rooms). The 6 typical room models are linked into the shell/core model and attached. When we link in the architect's shell/core model, we have no (visible) way of controlling the graphics of the typical rooms. For instance, we can't seem to turn off dimensions. Is there something we're doing wrong or maybe something the architect should do differently so we have more control of the typical rooms?

Matt

[BenSammis]

If I'm reading you right, try linking all seven models separately instead of as nested links. We used to have the same problem in the 2D days.

Or you could edit the visibility of each in your copy of the Shell/Core model.

[matt__w]

If I'm reading you right, try linking all seven models separately instead of as nested links. We used to have the same problem in the 2D days.

Can't. There are multiple floors and I'm not going to link in, copy, rotate, align etc... all of the typical rooms. Besides, what if I were to put the wrong room in the wrong bay of the building?? I don't want to be held responsible for that.

Or you could edit the visibility of each in your copy of the Shell/Core model.

This job is just starting up so we'll be getting more updates. I'm not going to do that with every update, nor would I remember what was changed every time.

[CADastrophe]

I don't believe that one can directly control the visibility of embedded Links. Just a thought - View Filters can "reach through" the Link. If the elements are on a uniquely named Workset, you could create a dummy workset of that exact name in your project and set the Filter Rules to target that dummy Workset.

...we have no (visible) way of controlling the graphics of the typical rooms. For instance, we can't seem to turn off dimensions....

If you're seeing annotations like dimensions, does that mean that you are controling the visibility of the arch's primary model "by linked view"?

[jremacedo134242]

Best thing to do is link them individually (origin to origin) once you have the linked files set up in the views how you would like its just a matter of re-linking the updated models. If the Architects set up the models with proper coordinates there shouldn't be any reason why you would have to copy, roteate, etc. etc.

[BenSammis]

If the Architects set up the models with proper coordinates there shouldn't be any reason why you would have to copy, roteate, etc. etc.

That's....one big if. Fun story - I'm working with a large ARCH firm on a community college campus. They have separate models for each building, and they're all in the same location. I don't think they've used Revit much.

[jremacedo134242]

That's....one big if. Fun story - I'm working with a large ARCH firm on a community college campus. They have separate models for each building, and they're all in the same location. I don't think they've used Revit much.

Yeah I should of emphasized on the "IF" lol. Ive had the same problem with noob architects before. I feel your pain.

[neightyeight]

An architect we work with also links in standard unit plans and has them located throughout their main model. The guidelines they follow for our benefit is to make sure each nested link is set to attach not overlay, avoid using worksets within the link, and all annotating is done in the main model. It seems like that last point is where you're running into problems. If the annotations, in your case the dimensions, were in the main model you would be able to control their visibility.

[matt__w]

Best thing to do is link them individually (origin to origin) once you have the linked files set up in the views how you would like its just a matter of re-linking the updated models. If the Architects set up the models with proper coordinates there shouldn't be any reason why you would have to copy, roteate, etc. etc.

There would be a TON of copying/rotating/etc to get all of the typical rooms to show in their correction locations. For example, they've modeled one typical office. In their shell/core model (with multiple floors) that typical office model resided in multiple locations on each floor. The first floor could have 5 offices, the second floor could have 10, the third could have 7. And there are half a dozen "typical" rooms that they've modeled like this.

[jremacedo134242]

There would be a TON of copying/rotating/etc to get all of the typical rooms to show in their correction locations. For example, they've modeled one typical office. In their shell/core model (with multiple floors) that typical office model resided in multiple locations on each floor. The first floor could have 5 offices, the second floor could have 10, the third could have 7. And there are half a dozen "typical" rooms that they've modeled like this.

I'm a bit confused..... Why and what do you need to copy? If models from architect are coordinated by shared coordinates (how it should be) you shouldn't do any copying or rotating of any kind. What process have you used in previous projects?