Donate Now Goal amount for this year: 3500 USD, Received: 662 USD (19%)
Please make a donation to help us pay the hosting bill. Read more about donations in this thread. And please note that all donations are voluntary and anonymous. Thank you!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30
Like Tree20Likes

Thread: Handling two sets of Revisions in a single project?

  1. #1
    Forum Addict tzframpton's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 17, 2011
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    1,766
    Current Local Time
    09:32 AM

    Question Handling two sets of Revisions in a single project?

    Question for you guys. Is there any way at all in handling two sets of revisions in a single project? A quick explanation:

    These days, I'm seeing a lot of design/build projects through the GC go down the route of hiring a mechanical sub-contractor who has an in-house engineer to both be the engineer and the installation contractor. This is a great process that I wholly agree with. This allows the BIM process to be in a more natural environment, where the set of contract documents "is" the shop drawing. However, for permit, we don't show all the detail and views that we normally would on a shop drawing. We keep it clean and simple to portray the design and for pricing purposes as any consultant design engineer would. We then use a separate titleblock and sheet numbering/naming system for the shop drawings. It has worked out very well, until revisions come into play.

    Basically there are addendums and revisions from the architectural team (which needs to follow their sequential numbering, description and date), and there are revisions for the shop drawings (to clarify to the duct manufacturer or equipment manufacturer necessary changes in the field). I cannot think of a way to handle both effectively on the same project.

    Any ideas on this at all? Thanks in advance!

    -TZ

  2. #2
    Member chris.macko's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    332
    Current Local Time
    09:32 AM
    Do they need to both use numbers, or can you set one of the series to use letters? 1,2,3 for issuances and A, B, C for shop drawing revisions for example.

  3. #3
    Forum Addict tzframpton's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 17, 2011
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    1,766
    Current Local Time
    09:32 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by chris.macko View Post
    Do they need to both use numbers, or can you set one of the series to use letters? 1,2,3 for issuances and A, B, C for shop drawing revisions for example.
    Yes, that would be perfectly acceptable.

    *EDIT*
    I should clarify: numbers for both would be preferred.

    Can I mix and match the numbers and letters?
    Last edited by tzframpton; January 12th, 2017 at 04:20 PM.

  4. #4
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,641
    Current Local Time
    09:32 AM
    Something that you need to keep in mind, is that you might be hamstrung by the requirements of the Design Team as a whole.

    For instance, i prefer to do my Revision Numbering "By Project" instead of "By Sheet." Thats not really because of Revit, mind you, i just always felt that that By Sheet way of numbering revisions was, well, stupid. (Even working in AutoCAD). So, i bring that up because if you are numbering By Project, you are Golden. You can do exactly what Chris descibes, and set one series to Numbers, and one series to Alphabetic... Assuming the project team is cool with that.

    Unfortunately, my experience with... uh... a lot of Architecture firms, is that discussing "Revision Numbering" is one of those topics that will make them climb to the very top of their soap box, and build another soap box, that leads to a higher soap box, so they can build ONE MORE soap box, where they will order a megaphone to talk down to you about how *thats not how the industry works* and how "no contractor could manage to read and understand drawings that are numbered that way,* which is hilarious, since they are on so many soap boxes they cant even see the jobsite.

    My point is, if the Prime on the contract numbers By Sheet, chances are they are going to want you to number By Sheet as well. That might make it more difficult. At that point (as annoying as this is) i would consider a blank model, just for the sheets of the contract requiring lesser documentation. Link in the model, and then do the annotations through the link (tagging the linked model). It sucks, but its better than wrecking the model trying to make crap work.

  5. #5
    Forum Addict tzframpton's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 17, 2011
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    1,766
    Current Local Time
    09:32 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
    Something that you need to keep in mind, is that you might be hamstrung by the requirements of the Design Team as a whole.

    For instance, i prefer to do my Revision Numbering "By Project" instead of "By Sheet." Thats not really because of Revit, mind you, i just always felt that that By Sheet way of numbering revisions was, well, stupid. (Even working in AutoCAD). So, i bring that up because if you are numbering By Project, you are Golden. You can do exactly what Chris descibes, and set one series to Numbers, and one series to Alphabetic... Assuming the project team is cool with that.

    Unfortunately, my experience with... uh... a lot of Architecture firms, is that discussing "Revision Numbering" is one of those topics that will make them climb to the very top of their soap box, and build another soap box, that leads to a higher soap box, so they can build ONE MORE soap box, where they will order a megaphone to talk down to you about how *thats not how the industry works* and how "no contractor could manage to read and understand drawings that are numbered that way,* which is hilarious, since they are on so many soap boxes they cant even see the jobsite.

    My point is, if the Prime on the contract numbers By Sheet, chances are they are going to want you to number By Sheet as well. That might make it more difficult. At that point (as annoying as this is) i would consider a blank model, just for the sheets of the contract requiring lesser documentation. Link in the model, and then do the annotations through the link (tagging the linked model). It sucks, but its better than wrecking the model trying to make crap work.
    I always stick to By Project, for the same reasoning you've mentioned. And wouldn't it technically still work out if it's By Sheet, since the sequential order doesn't matter at that point, making the description and date being left as the common identifier?

    Thanks for the reply too.

    -TZ

  6. #6
    jmk
    jmk is offline
    Forum Addict jmk's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 31, 2012
    Location
    NM, USA
    Posts
    1,130
    Current Local Time
    08:32 AM
    We had a project that, very late into the game, was phased, with the first phase being built as a change order to project under construction and the second phase. It was too late to try to split the projects, and we don't use the "Issued To" or "Issued By" parameters, so I would use one to hold all the revision information and the other to report the desired revision number to the tag and sheet. If I didn't want the revision to show up I'd remove the text from the "Issued To" parameter and set the sequencing to none. A little hacky, but it worked for the project we had.

    I now use it as standard, because it makes it easier to control revisions where the first delta affecting architectural sheets is 6 - I don't have to create unused revisions to get the numbering right.
    chris.macko and cbowke like this.

  7. #7
    Member chris.macko's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    332
    Current Local Time
    09:32 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by tzframpton View Post
    I always stick to By Project, for the same reasoning you've mentioned. And wouldn't it technically still work out if it's By Sheet, since the sequential order doesn't matter at that point, making the description and date being left as the common identifier?

    Thanks for the reply too.

    -TZ
    If you have both on the same sheet it will group the letters and numbers together, so you can't have 1, 2, A, 3, B for example, but it doesn't sound like that would be an issue in your case. By project or by sheet shouldn't change how this works.

  8. #8
    Forum Addict tzframpton's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 17, 2011
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    1,766
    Current Local Time
    09:32 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by chris.macko View Post
    If you have both on the same sheet it will group the letters and numbers together, so you can't have 1, 2, A, 3, B for example, but it doesn't sound like that would be an issue in your case. By project or by sheet shouldn't change how this works.
    Hmmm, that doesn't sound ideal. I'm just going to have to jump in and try this when I have a moment to see how this works.

    Thanks again for everyone's help.

    -TZ

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    July 15, 2014
    Location
    Nahville, TN
    Posts
    48
    Current Local Time
    09:32 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
    At that point (as annoying as this is) i would consider a blank model, just for the sheets of the contract requiring lesser documentation. Link in the model, and then do the annotations through the link (tagging the linked model). It sucks, but its better than wrecking the model trying to make crap work.
    Although I despise the concept of a "documents model", IMO this is the least confusing way to handle it. There are workarounds but they're often too confusing to communicate to the entire team.

    I understand Revit's limitations as far as the revision tool goes, but I wish Autodesk would improve it a little bit. Given the financial and legal implications surrounding this aspect of construction, I'm surprised at how it's so half-cooked.
    tzframpton likes this.

  10. #10
    Forum Addict tzframpton's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 17, 2011
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    1,766
    Current Local Time
    09:32 AM
    The Link-into-blank-model method certainly works but it would be disastrous for some processes used for view manipulation on a Sheet View. Honestly, while a great concept, I cannot effectively use it as it would create more work in the end. Maybe, I could use it if I used the "Link by View" option for the design documents. They would be completely managed in the host project. Hmm, actually that may work out. But still.... lol

    -TZ

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Single project multiple buildings
    By Mengelmn in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: November 4th, 2015, 04:51 AM
  2. Single pole - single phase panel schedule
    By jmlarias in forum MEP - General
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 13th, 2014, 06:48 PM
  3. Advice on Multiple Project Sets within one Project File
    By mfrietze in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: May 1st, 2012, 07:33 PM
  4. REVISIONS : Gerer des numéros de révisions à double caractère ainsi que "0" !!!
    By guibouvard in forum Tutoriels, trucs et astuces en français
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 24th, 2012, 09:33 PM
  5. List of Revisions vs Individual Revisions
    By Craig Howie in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: December 15th, 2011, 07:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •