Design process: Design options and Worksets.

[ron.sanpedro]

The project will be a four story wood framed multi-unit residential project. As part of the design process I imagine an option Set for the Exterior Shell with three options, bump outs of the same wood and brick facing as the "main" walls, punched holes stacked vertically and slot openings. Then I imagine another Option Set with options of nothing (to match up with the framed bump outs), unit bays (to match up with the punched holes) and bump outs of some alternate construction (to match up) with the slot openings. There might even be variations on the main skin, one with a brick facing only on the ground floor and stucco above (heavy base variation) and one with brick to the third floor, and stucco only on top (the light cap variation). Lastly there might be an option set for roofs, perhaps with options of parapet, flat overhanging cap, sheds, etc. The idea is that all the system families are generic. The exterior walls at this point are just 12" masses with split faces and materials painted on. Actual "construction" will come in DD.
So the first question is, has anyone actually tried this level of variation in SD? The project will have a single user, very experienced Architect, learning Revit and totally open to trying things, and also detail and technically oriented enough to pull this off. Assuming it is actually technically feasible.

And my second question involves Worksets. In DD we would want a workset for Shell, one for Core, one for Vertical Circulation, one for the Units, etc. But adding that to the already complex Options seems potentially problematic. And, after dealing with all those worksets for maybe 12 or 15 total Design options, the final design is going to be just a few of those options combined. So perhaps it is easier to just use the default single Workset, then clean things up in DD? Or clean things up when performance becomes an issue? Then again, if performance is likely to be an issue anyway, then perhaps starting with the extra complexity is actually the better bet?

And for what it is worth, this project will also likely have a number of Unit Plan Groups, assembled into a Unit Floor group and repeated on floors 2-4, then assembled into a Unit Building group, which then gets mirrored because on Option is to build half the building now, and add the mirror image later, and the decision on all or half will be based on pricing which comes later. So we need to design to both approaches from the beginning.

So, any insights, suggestions, horror stories, etc?

Thanks,
Gordon

[twiceroadsfool]

FWIW, i HATE having to go back and divide up worksets after the fact. It SEEMS like it will be fast (select a ton of stuff, make it editable, change its workset) but it never goes that way. Certain catagories, when selected together, grey out the workset field, etc.

Id rather fight with it from the beginning. If people pay attention, it shouldnt get all that difficult. Suggest they use the "grey inactive worksets" or whatever, for a visual cue that they may be in the wrong workset...?