File Management - Billions of Worksets & DWGS!!

[mibzim]

Hi all

Just started in a new job and have been given a cool project done in revit.

I have come on fairly late in the project, and much of it is on hold so there is some time to sort and sift through it a little. I'm sure the file size is much bigger than it needs to be, which slows everything down tremendously.

Its a fairly complex building in its geometry as well as its integration with existing strutcure etc, but i'm sure this doesnt wholly account for the problem.

To start with there are 56 worksets - and only one and a half (two) of us working on the project - i have attached an image of of them all rather than retyping them. Does any project need this many worksets and would it affect file size / speed etc? I know in earlier versions where entire worksets were saved it was benefical to have more so each one was smaller, but whats the story now that there is better saving to central? Some worksets are irrelevant now, some were set up purely to control visibility and others seem to be just plain crazy from their names - like there is a workset for trees. Can't this be controlled in visibility - planting?

There are also 80 DWG's in my visibility settings dialogue and 79 linked DWGS in the manage links dialogue. So probably close to 100 DWGS in there coz not all are linked and show up only in one or the other. Some are silly little things like legends, details, set out lines etc, but others are needed as they are consultant drawings. Is this crazy or can revit actually handle it?

Just looked again and there are 100 detail groups!!! Aaaahh!

Not knowing what is in all these worksets and where the DWGS have been used, its still a little murky at the moment. Is it worth sifting through all of them in an attempt to clean it all up, or does none of this redundancy really matter?

Any advice would be much appreciated!

[David Haynes]

If you are using Revit 8.1, your need for worksets is more dependent on visibility rather than workflow (8.1 uses element borrowing, which reduces the need for the quantity of worksets). By the way, you can delete a workset (except the two default worksets). Revit will ask if you want to move those elements to another workset - this will help your speed also.

Are the dwg linked or imported? If imported, they will have an effect on Revit's ability to handle the model.
My advice is remove redundancy (if that is actually what is happening), you will see an improvement. Another thing is to purge unneeded families (I suspect that there may be some)

I am sure others will chime in with good advice too.

Good luck and happy hunting.

[sbrown]

WOW, looks like someone really missed layers. You don't need most of those worksets. Break it down into sensible workflow based worksets, ie, core and shell, site, interiors, and then if you have big chunks of building you may want to be able to close to improve performance separate those out. As for the dwgs, if you use them they show up. There is almost no reason to go for the detail groups, copy/paste is easier than managing that. Chalk it up to a learning experience, have a meeting, discuss what worked, what didn't and streamline on the next job.

[mibzim]

Thanks guys.

Mmmm...They sure do miss their layers! This office was mainly microstation, then was asked to use revit and so had to start using AutoCAD too. In producing the drawings they used a fantastic blend of all three - CAD drafters, revit modellers and microstation users.

I took a quick look at some of the sections and plans to see just what has actually been modelled. I turned off model categories and there was way too much left in detail lines etc for my liking! Could be an interesting project as its always a juggle trying to decide what to redo or just ignore!

Scott, please could you give me an idea of how you split up your worksets. Traditionally i have used similar ones to what you suggested. Things like joinery, structure, furniture, site, etc. In fact, it would be great to see what worksets people are setting up in general...?

thansk again

[rod.74246]

Holy ****. This sounds like someone really went overboard. We usually get away with 2 or 3 work sets. Maybe 5 tops. Its really Project specific but i can;t see how you would need that many.

As far as the drawing imports go it does get difficult to manage when dumping a lot of .dwg files into the project but i suppose you can just ignore that tab altogether if it really bugs you. ( i do)

But I really hate detail groups. In fact groups in general we ban pretty well outright unless they are really needed and whoever is using them knows what they are doing. Groups in general seem to cause a lot more problems than they are worth.

[Justin Marchiel]

from what i am hearing groups really bog down the system. my question would be then how do you handle typical details (not linked from dwg)? I am fairly new so bear with me. I understand that if you do a detail from your model the only way to hold your detail componants to the model is if you create a detail group. that way if you move your wall, the window details (including componants and text) move with it.

Did i miss the boat here? how is everyone doing details than?

Justin

[brd]

I too have quite a few worksets in a few projects, but I really haven't seen any problems with it. I have two projects that both have in the neighborhood of 25 worksets. Several of these worksets were created in schematic design when we needed to create presentation views with information that would no longer be need once DD's start. Since these worksets are kind of obsolete at this point, I just closed those worksets and they haven't been touched since. Just for good measure though, I can turn them back on in the odd chance that I'll need to get to that info again.

With detail groups, again I don't see what the problem is (or maybe I've just been fortunate to not run into the same problems). I'm a fan of detail groups, but I do try to use some restraint when creating them. I'll only make a detail group out of something if it's large and complex enough to warrant its own group. Also, repetition is the key to making groups, only group something if it's going to be used again and again and again. A typical detail may only show up in two or three views and can be simply copy/pasted. If you have a detail condition that you want to show graphically throughout the project, make it a detail group. Then if you find yourself having more and more of those conditions, it may mean that you need to model more and draft less. It's kind of ties into the old argument of "what do I draft? what do I model?"

[sbrown]

Detail groups aren't an issue in my experience(performance wise). Model groups are a performance issue.

[rod.74246]

True, model groups are a completely different animal and a big no-no in my opinion. Suppose as far as detail groups go though i always just lump them in the same category.
Although i must admit i have never really seen a big use for them, but i guess thats got a lot to do with the type of work you do and how you go about it. In my instance i rarely get to standardise details anyway .

However i was interested in the comment regarding the locking of detail elements to the model elements. Personally i tend to have an "on" or "off" policy with the model. I am either relying on it heavily and have little detail items in it, or i turn the model off completely. I find it much quicker to just use detail components than try to model effectively enough to use as a detail.

I'd be interested to know if that is just me. Seems as if you are using detail groups to fix to model elements you are using a pretty good mix of model and detail. Just wondering if maybe my approach is wrong?