Donate Now Goal amount for this year: 2500 USD, Received: 1627 USD (65%)

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 102
Like Tree25Likes

Thread: Documenting typical apartments

  1. #21
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    10,127
    Current Local Time
    08:13 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by guitarchitect View Post
    Yeah, I guess that's what i meant - all of the unit cloud. I guess since I haven't seen the template in action I have a hard time imagining how it works in practice! We always have a 5.0m first floor in our multi-res buildings so it's awkward to model typical units there - have you ever made a set of sub-levels for your units? IE, below the lowest floor of the building?
    I have not. Not saying it wont work (i imagine it would work fine), i just dont have a need for it.

    Maybe it's a holdover from the dream of "less manual work" that BIM had always held as a promise - we get the structural revit model from the structural engineers, so it goes right into the model where it's supposed to go. if I have a bunch of units dissociated from that, it gets tricky. Obviously it's not that big of a deal, but it's a deal nonetheless!
    I guess i dont fully understand which aspect you want *BIM* to "automate" here? So when you reload Structural, they moved, or lengthened, or thickened, or changed some walls. What is it specifically that you want your Group or Unit to automatically do?
    I definitely prefer that approach... i even tend to use non-model families for all my fixtures, just 2D symbols, because who needs 500 toilets around the building when you will never once need/want to see them in 3D.
    So, opinions obviously vary greatly in this realm, so i dont want to go on a tangent to the main talking points: But that 100% wouldnt fly with any of the firms (or most of them) that i work with. Things are now all modeled in full 3D, everywhere. ESPECIALLY if real 3D coordination is happening on the job. I have a project in my hands right now, where EVERY plumbing fixture exists in 2D only (well, they are real 3D components, but symbolic lines only). The model is worthless in 3D coordination. And guess what: There are coordination issues at ALL of the restrooms.
    Can you elaborate on the "IsUnitGroup" method? I'm not familiar.
    Whats mentioned in the posts from last year. Parameters can now vary by group instance, so you CAN set things in your Unit Cloud so they are filtered out, from views, if they are interfering with your context model, or whatever.

    Haha, yeah I've been trying to tell people that - moved a wall? Oops there's 50 errors.
    But what's the secret to preventing the groups from going nuts? I have area boundaries in groups copied up and down my building, and one day when I opened the file it decided that every group on a different floor needed a different name... it was a headache to clean up that mess. And then it did it again!! I wanted to cry. But I have no idea what caused the error.
    I mean, it could be a lot of things. There's too many specifics to get in to right there. But i can tell you this: I wouldn't put Area Boundaries in Model Groups. I just tested it now, and- to my amazement- it works fine. But, that's a bit screwy, since different Area Schemes use entirely different sets of Area Boundaries, and the groups would have to be edited in each of the Area Schemes Plans, to track down the Boundaries.

    Ive personally never used them in that way, but it sounds interesting.

    Is there a best practice for unit groups? I'm assuming you don't want anything that touches a party/exterior wall having a join condition, but is there anything else to be aware of?[/quote]

    Tons. That would have to be another whole post, unfortch.
    Last edited by Twiceroadsfool; September 28th, 2018 at 05:22 PM.

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    March 13, 2012
    Posts
    58
    Current Local Time
    09:13 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
    I have not. Not saying it wont work (i imagine it would work fine), i just dont have a need for it.

    I guess i dont fully understand which aspect you want *BIM* to "automate" here? So when you reload Structural, they moved, or lengthened, or thickened, or changed some walls. What is it specifically that you want your Group or Unit to automatically do?
    Maybe I've just misinterpreted - aren't your units modelled "away" from the building? I had assumed that your units were all independent of the model itself, but maybe I'm not looking at the diagram correctly. Obviously if the model is in the building itself when the structural model changes it updates in the unit - but if you're modelling away from the structural model, there will have to be a lot of careful copying to get things where they are supposed to be, especially for units that are rotated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
    So, opinions obviously vary greatly in this realm, so i dont want to go on a tangent to the main talking points: But that 100% wouldnt fly with any of the firms (or most of them) that i work with. Things are now all modeled in full 3D, everywhere. ESPECIALLY if real 3D coordination is happening on the job. I have a project in my hands right now, where EVERY plumbing fixture exists in 2D only (well, they are real 3D components, but symbolic lines only). The model is worthless in 3D coordination. And guess what: There are coordination issues at ALL of the restrooms.
    I think we're just a bit lucky in that respect, as half the trades don't use Revit anyway. And our work is nearly 100% residential condominiums, and the fixtures are things that the trades are all familiar with already (the developer has basically locked down their suppliers - we only have 3 kitchen types for 200 units, for example).


    Whats mentioned in the posts from last year. Parameters can now vary by group instance, so you CAN set things in your Unit Cloud so they are filtered out, from views, if they are interfering with your context model, or whatever.


    Quote Originally Posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
    I mean, it could be a lot of things. There's too many specifics to get in to right there. But i can tell you this: I wouldn't put Area Boundaries in Model Groups. I just tested it now, and- to my amazement- it works fine. But, that's a bit screwy, since different Area Schemes use entirely different sets of Area Boundaries, and the groups would have to be edited in each of the Area Schemes Plans, to track down the Boundaries.

    Ive personally never used them in that way, but it sounds interesting.
    This is more of a software issue that we're just trying to work around - there's no way to get revit to measure areas the way our developers want to measure areas (so we never have wall-reliant boundaries), and when we're laying out a building for a feasibility study our plans are just area plans with color schemes. It works really well and lets us stay very flexible until all of the cores/stairs/etc are worked out. I can do a full building in the morning, send it to the developer, get their markups back, and have it revised for the end of the day - each time with a full compliment of unit and building stats. In order to have my stats automatically update, I group the boundary and I group the cores (which are classified as GFA deductions in our zoning code). I create an area plan type for the unit distribution plan, and an area plan type for the overall GFA calc. The latter just gets the core and boundary groups, and the former gets those as well as demising + corridor lines (grouped for typical floors). The idea being, I can tweak the unit distribution plan to get my units sized properly, and the GFA plan (and schedule) automatically updates since the group is shared between the two plans.

    It works quite well... until it doesn't. Because Revit likes to join things so much I'm thinking that maybe it's actually related to the fact that the demising walls stick to the boundary - and while the boundary on each floor might be the same, sometimes the units change.
    Last edited by guitarchitect; September 28th, 2018 at 06:15 PM.

  3. #23
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    10,127
    Current Local Time
    08:13 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by guitarchitect View Post
    Maybe I've just misinterpreted - aren't your units modelled "away" from the building? I had assumed that your units were all independent of the model itself, but maybe I'm not looking at the diagram correctly. Obviously if the model is in the building itself when the structural model changes it updates in the unit - but if you're modelling away from the structural model, there will have to be a lot of careful copying to get things where they are supposed to be, especially for units that are rotated.
    In the 9 sectors, are the actual project. In the 50 small scope boxes, thats the *Unit Cloud.* ONE instance of each unit type is in the Unit Cloud. This is useful in Healthcare and Multi Fam, because Unit design often starts prior to having the envelope fleshed out.

    Once the building design is really moving (in the 9 quadrants), every instance of the units throughout the building (in the 9 sectors), is placed. So the entire building, with all of the units in the correct position, occurs on the left side of the image. The 50 unit clouds, just sit there, with the model groups in them. The Unit Sheets hapen to be based on the unit cloud, since those sheets sometimes exist prior to the building.

    I think we're just a bit lucky in that respect, as half the trades don't use Revit anyway. And our work is nearly 100% residential condominiums, and the fixtures are things that the trades are all familiar with already (the developer has basically locked down their suppliers - we only have 3 kitchen types for 200 units, for example).
    To each their own. I dont do it because i am told to. I do it because it adds value. I would ALWAYS put everything in, in 3D.


    This is more of a software issue that we're just trying to work around - there's no way to get revit to measure areas the way our developers want to measure areas (so we never have wall-reliant boundaries), and when we're laying out a building for a feasibility study our plans are just area plans with color schemes. It works really well and lets us stay very flexible until all of the cores/stairs/etc are worked out. I can do a full building in the morning, send it to the developer, get their markups back, and have it revised for the end of the day - each time with a full compliment of unit and building stats. In order to have my stats automatically update, I group the boundary and I group the cores (which are classified as GFA deductions in our zoning code). I create an area plan type for the unit distribution plan, and an area plan type for the overall GFA calc. The latter just gets the core and boundary groups, and the former gets those as well as demising + corridor lines (grouped for typical floors). The idea being, I can tweak the unit distribution plan to get my units sized properly, and the GFA plan (and schedule) automatically updates since the group is shared between the two plans.
    Yeah, it makes sense. Just with their being different Area Schemes, im not sure id put boundaries within the groups, myself. But its not something ive looked in to extensively. But i get the use case.

  4. #24
    Forum Addict GMcDowellJr's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 21, 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    2,584
    Current Local Time
    06:13 AM
    Having just done the last bit (Area Boundaries in unit Model Groups) I'd do it again but a bit differently.

    I'd place the Area Boundary lines in the group as a nested group so that they populate the model. Then I'd remove them from the group so that they were still grouped and in the model in the correct locations. If things moved I'd either delete and recreate or move them independently of the units.
    tidalwave1 and cellophane like this.

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    March 13, 2012
    Posts
    58
    Current Local Time
    09:13 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
    In the 9 sectors, are the actual project. In the 50 small scope boxes, thats the *Unit Cloud.* ONE instance of each unit type is in the Unit Cloud. This is useful in Healthcare and Multi Fam, because Unit design often starts prior to having the envelope fleshed out.

    Once the building design is really moving (in the 9 quadrants), every instance of the units throughout the building (in the 9 sectors), is placed. So the entire building, with all of the units in the correct position, occurs on the left side of the image. The 50 unit clouds, just sit there, with the model groups in them. The Unit Sheets hapen to be based on the unit cloud, since those sheets sometimes exist prior to the building.
    Gotcha, that helps clarify things a bit. I guess in order to sheet the units you just have to duplicate the view X times and adjust the crop boundary accordingly? I can certainly see the benefit of this approach - something that drives me batty in revit is the way it deals with rotating views and annotations, so having units throughout the building but then trying to do the marketing plans is always... frustrating. I've tried doing it with scope boxes before but it gets pretty complicated! So, I'll have to give this method a shot!

  6. #26
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    10,127
    Current Local Time
    08:13 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by guitarchitect View Post
    Gotcha, that helps clarify things a bit. I guess in order to sheet the units you just have to duplicate the view X times and adjust the crop boundary accordingly? I can certainly see the benefit of this approach - something that drives me batty in revit is the way it deals with rotating views and annotations, so having units throughout the building but then trying to do the marketing plans is always... frustrating. I've tried doing it with scope boxes before but it gets pretty complicated! So, I'll have to give this method a shot!
    All of my unit plans are on scope boxes, as well.

    Sent from my Phablet. Please excuse typos... and bad ideas.

    Aaron Maller
    Director
    Parallax Team, Inc.

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    March 13, 2012
    Posts
    58
    Current Local Time
    09:13 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
    All of my unit plans are on scope boxes, as well.

    Sent from my Phablet. Please excuse typos... and bad ideas.

    Aaron Maller
    Director
    Parallax Team, Inc.
    But they're scope boxes related to the Unit Cloud, right? As opposed to scope boxes placed around the building...

  8. #28
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    10,127
    Current Local Time
    08:13 AM
    Yep. (post too short)

  9. #29
    Moderator snowyweston's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 21, 2010
    Location
    C.LONDON
    Posts
    4,378
    Current Local Time
    02:13 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
    im not sure id put boundaries within the groups, myself. But its not something ive looked in to extensively. But i get the use case.
    We stumbled upon this two projects back, and have since used it extensively - saves so much time (we do a LOT of area work) and so far, so good, with no issues.
    Twiceroadsfool likes this.

  10. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    March 13, 2012
    Posts
    58
    Current Local Time
    09:13 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
    Yep. (post too short)
    I guess I'm still left wondering - is there a good/foolproof way to coordinate between the units in the cloud and in the model?
    On a typical project for example you'll have units near elevators, units near stairs, units with mechanical shafts... and exterior walls and structural components that are abutting them... all of which you won't have in the cloud, but they will still need to be drawn there as a reference. Do you use reference lines or model lines or some other technique to establish the "boundary" of the unit - which then just gets coordinated as needed?

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Documenting a family element
    By D_Incognito in forum Architecture - Family Creation
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: October 17th, 2016, 11:51 PM
  2. Documenting Grouped Units
    By GMcDowellJr in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: February 11th, 2016, 11:28 PM
  3. David Light: Scheduling Apartments
    By David Light Blog in forum Blog Feeds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 10th, 2013, 07:15 AM
  4. Documenting a Revit Library
    By LeanneZ in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: December 21st, 2012, 06:15 PM
  5. Documenting the Revit Template
    By kpcarch in forum Tutorials, Tips & Tricks
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: August 16th, 2012, 10:42 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
  •