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

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4567891011 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 105
Like Tree30Likes

Thread: Documenting typical apartments

  1. #71
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    10,188
    Current Local Time
    03:51 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by guitarchitect View Post
    We do the match opening approach - we primarily work with window wall which has a backup stud assembly where there is spandrel panel. That wall is a part of the unit and gets coordinated in-place in the overall model to match the exterior window-wall. Then when you go to the unit matrix, you know where to put the wall.

    I know I will get flak for this but, we found the easiest thing was to put one generic wall across the entire envelope side of the unit, and then use a generic window family (which contains a masking region) to show the windows. Similar to aaron's philosophy, since the purchaser isn't buying mullion locations on the envelope side of the wall, we can get away with a solid black fill for everything. We found that the generic annotative families are way faster and easier than model elements, so that's the call we made.
    I don't recommend showing the windows at all, actually.

    I work with a number of multi family architects, and its simply not true that the windows are in the same place in every A1 type unit, or every B2 type unit, and so on.

    The Unit Plans and Unit Sheets are meant to describe (in general) the layouts and accomodations of the unit. We're someone looking at purchasing a specific unit, I would want them to see the actual plan (in context), regardless.

    Windows change, balconies change, and sometimes even the exterior wall changes with differing exterior materials, as a lot of MF work gets designed with "Postage Stamp" facades of varying thicknesses. Trying to show that in the unit plans is silly, imvho.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

  2. #72
    Member
    Join Date
    March 13, 2012
    Posts
    59
    Current Local Time
    04:51 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
    I don't recommend showing the windows at all, actually.

    I work with a number of multi family architects, and its simply not true that the windows are in the same place in every A1 type unit, or every B2 type unit, and so on.

    The Unit Plans and Unit Sheets are meant to describe (in general) the layouts and accomodations of the unit. We're someone looking at purchasing a specific unit, I would want them to see the actual plan (in context), regardless.

    Windows change, balconies change, and sometimes even the exterior wall changes with differing exterior materials, as a lot of MF work gets designed with "Postage Stamp" facades of varying thicknesses. Trying to show that in the unit plans is silly, imvho.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
    Yeah - I don't disagree with any of that. I've been doing multi-family for 15 years. Sometimes, it all comes down to what the client wants, and every client has their own way of doing things. Some of them want a separate plan for each distinct unit - that requires one way of working, and in that case the windows would show up exactly where they go. That's my favorite / preferred approach.

    Some of them want the "typical" condition drawn fully and then "dash in" and call out varied conditions like balcony locations. That's not so bad.

    The one I'm working with now wants the typical unit drawn and if the facade or a building condition changes (like if the typical unit has an electrical closet on some floors), they want that drawn as a "piece" on the typical unit page, rather than a separate unit or having it dashed in. This is actually the worst of all, and the only simple way of generating the purchasing docs for the units is to actually do all of the layouts in InDesign (they want the unit scaled to fill the page rather than a "proper" scale so it's a nightmare in revit). In this particular case the design intent of the building is to have a very regular facade, so the window locations are all the same - otherwise it would be more of a nightmare than it is!

  3. #73
    Forum Addict GMcDowellJr's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 21, 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    2,601
    Current Local Time
    01:51 PM
    We include the the “typical” window locations in our unit plans as well as the demising walls and corridor walls but we don’t reference them. In fact, we change their appearance (half tone, whatever) to help emphasize that.

    I tried having just the interiors of the units but the other designers freaked out. :shrug:

    These plans also get used in marketing but I agree that, for leasing, they should be using the actual unit... but I don’t think they are.

  4. #74
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    10,188
    Current Local Time
    03:51 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by guitarchitect View Post
    Yeah - I don't disagree with any of that. I've been doing multi-family for 15 years. Sometimes, it all comes down to what the client wants, and every client has their own way of doing things. Some of them want a separate plan for each distinct unit - that requires one way of working, and in that case the windows would show up exactly where they go. That's my favorite / preferred approach.

    Some of them want the "typical" condition drawn fully and then "dash in" and call out varied conditions like balcony locations. That's not so bad.

    The one I'm working with now wants the typical unit drawn and if the facade or a building condition changes (like if the typical unit has an electrical closet on some floors), they want that drawn as a "piece" on the typical unit page, rather than a separate unit or having it dashed in. This is actually the worst of all, and the only simple way of generating the purchasing docs for the units is to actually do all of the layouts in InDesign (they want the unit scaled to fill the page rather than a "proper" scale so it's a nightmare in revit). In this particular case the design intent of the building is to have a very regular facade, so the window locations are all the same - otherwise it would be more of a nightmare than it is!
    Hmm. For the electrical closet and slight variations in exterior walls, I do those as separete Callouts live from the building, them stack them on the sheet over the unit Group, with a view template that makes it all dashed and transparent on the call-out. Or if I have to show three different options, I'll line them all up.

    The STF on a sheet thing... Yeah. Yikes. I would plot from Revit with no titleblock and then hand the PDF's to some poor miserable soul to play with in graphics software. But wow, that sucks. Talk about a time sink.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

  5. #75
    Member
    Join Date
    March 13, 2012
    Posts
    59
    Current Local Time
    04:51 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
    The STF on a sheet thing... Yeah. Yikes. I would plot from Revit with no titleblock and then hand the PDF's to some poor miserable soul to play with in graphics software. But wow, that sucks. Talk about a time sink.
    YUP.

    I like to keep unit layouts at 1:50 on 11x17 for the meetings with the client so that it's easy to pull dimensions and things that aren't labelled (or to sketch new options), but the legal dept (for this client) needs the units on 8.5x14 with no exceptions. With the right export process it's actually not that bad to do it in InDesign, just a huge PITA and it's more work than it needs to be. But, less than if we tried to do "pure revit"... I just wish InDesign had the equivalent of Parameters for pages so that it would be easier to fill out data on the pages!

    This is a huge aside but, it's funny because this approach was actually child's play in ArchiCAD... I was on a conference call with a developer team from Autodesk for a different feature they were rolling out, and referencing InDesign was relevant for that feature. When I talked about ID the guys from the team said "What's that?" - they had never heard of it. I explained it to them briefly, and took the opportunity to explain how page numbers work in it because that is probably one of the most infuriating things about Revit Sheets, and their response was "that sounds awesome, we should try to get a copy of that!" To my mind, it was everything that's wrong with the development team for Revit... fully unaware of how other software performs exactly the same functions, significantly better. For the kind of purchase agreement layouts my client wants to do, if Revit would simply allow you to place one view on multiple sheets... it would be so easy.

  6. #76
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    10,188
    Current Local Time
    03:51 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by guitarchitect View Post
    YUP.

    I like to keep unit layouts at 1:50 on 11x17 for the meetings with the client so that it's easy to pull dimensions and things that aren't labelled (or to sketch new options), but the legal dept (for this client) needs the units on 8.5x14 with no exceptions. With the right export process it's actually not that bad to do it in InDesign, just a huge PITA and it's more work than it needs to be. But, less than if we tried to do "pure revit"... I just wish InDesign had the equivalent of Parameters for pages so that it would be easier to fill out data on the pages!

    This is a huge aside but, it's funny because this approach was actually child's play in ArchiCAD... I was on a conference call with a developer team from Autodesk for a different feature they were rolling out, and referencing InDesign was relevant for that feature. When I talked about ID the guys from the team said "What's that?" - they had never heard of it. I explained it to them briefly, and took the opportunity to explain how page numbers work in it because that is probably one of the most infuriating things about Revit Sheets, and their response was "that sounds awesome, we should try to get a copy of that!" To my mind, it was everything that's wrong with the development team for Revit... fully unaware of how other software performs exactly the same functions, significantly better. For the kind of purchase agreement layouts my client wants to do, if Revit would simply allow you to place one view on multiple sheets... it would be so easy.
    Can't agree with pretty much any of that, honestly. I know a lot of the dev team, and they know and have used a LOT of software. Just because one person hasn't heard of one platform, doesn't mean anything.

    And I would hate it if views could go on more than one sheet. All sorts of issues show up in that situation. I love that we have to be selective. Besides, I would want a different plan type and view template for those different plans, anyway.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

  7. #77
    Member
    Join Date
    March 13, 2012
    Posts
    59
    Current Local Time
    04:51 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
    Can't agree with pretty much any of that, honestly. I know a lot of the dev team, and they know and have used a LOT of software. Just because one person hasn't heard of one platform, doesn't mean anything.

    And I would hate it if views could go on more than one sheet. All sorts of issues show up in that situation. I love that we have to be selective. Besides, I would want a different plan type and view template for those different plans, anyway.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
    Well, it must have just been the guys on the call... but they were floored by the idea that you could have numbering happen automatically with prefixes and suffixes. The whole time I was wondering if the entire development team just thinks it isn't a priority, or what.

    Personally I don't see the problem with multiple sheets and views, but I think that's because the way ArchiCAD worked was a little bit more like AutoCAD than Revit, and it's always stuck in my head because it's head and shoulders above Revit when it comes to drawing set production. You had your "model space" which you worked in, and then you had your "views" of that model space, in which you defined your layer visibility / color settings, pens, scale, etc. The View could go anywhere any number of times, and if you wanted to scale a 1:50 view to be half as big on a sheet (or even some random percentage to make it fit), you could. It was the power of Revit with the layout flexibility of InDesign all rolled into one (and the page+set numbering was like InDesign on steroids).

    Revit DOES allow certain views to be multi-page - like legends. Part of me wonders if they couldn't allow for a "allow this view to be on multiple pages" toggle in the view type parameters - that would give BIM managers control while also permitting flexibility where needed.

  8. #78
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    10,188
    Current Local Time
    03:51 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by guitarchitect View Post
    Well, it must have just been the guys on the call... but they were floored by the idea that you could have numbering happen automatically with prefixes and suffixes. The whole time I was wondering if the entire development team just thinks it isn't a priority, or what.

    Personally I don't see the problem with multiple sheets and views, but I think that's because the way ArchiCAD worked was a little bit more like AutoCAD than Revit, and it's always stuck in my head because it's head and shoulders above Revit when it comes to drawing set production. You had your "model space" which you worked in, and then you had your "views" of that model space, in which you defined your layer visibility / color settings, pens, scale, etc. The View could go anywhere any number of times, and if you wanted to scale a 1:50 view to be half as big on a sheet (or even some random percentage to make it fit), you could. It was the power of Revit with the layout flexibility of InDesign all rolled into one (and the page+set numbering was like InDesign on steroids).

    Revit DOES allow certain views to be multi-page - like legends. Part of me wonders if they couldn't allow for a "allow this view to be on multiple pages" toggle in the view type parameters - that would give BIM managers control while also permitting flexibility where needed.
    Yeah. I've worked in ArchiCAD. Hated every minute of it. There is no way it was more efficient at drawing production.

    Sheet prefixing and suffixing and numbering CAN be more intuitive, and pyRevit has some cool options for helping.

    I wish auto sheet numbering was better, too. And I wish placing views on sheets was better. And I wish 800 things were better. But no freaking way I would imagine working in ArchiCAD over sheet numbering. LOL

    Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

  9. #79
    Member
    Join Date
    March 13, 2012
    Posts
    59
    Current Local Time
    04:51 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
    Yeah. I've worked in ArchiCAD. Hated every minute of it. There is no way it was more efficient at drawing production.

    Sheet prefixing and suffixing and numbering CAN be more intuitive, and pyRevit has some cool options for helping.

    I wish auto sheet numbering was better, too. And I wish placing views on sheets was better. And I wish 800 things were better. But no freaking way I would imagine working in ArchiCAD over sheet numbering. LOL
    Oh believe me, I wouldn't switch back to it! There's plenty about Revit that is really great. But there are features they haven't touched in 20 years that people have been clamoring for, and that will always sit funny with a lot of us. At least we finally got PDF imports...

  10. #80
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    10,188
    Current Local Time
    03:51 PM
    Sits funny with me too, believe me.

    And the PDF import is horrible for anything but looking at it. Folks that REALLY want to screw up a project will trace over PDF's.

    Smart folks won't ever use it.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
    tidalwave1 likes this.

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4567891011 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
  •