Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Groups vs. links -- Multi-family residential

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Groups vs. links -- Multi-family residential

    I found this thread at AUGI:
    http://forums.augi.com/showthread.ph...i-family+units

    We are currently having this debate, trying to learn from other's experience, establish a best practice, and I was wondering what 'experienced' users here had to add to the topic. Evidently there was an unconference session on this at AU2008 but there are any recordings/documentation of unconference sessions.

    Thanks!
    Travis
    Travis Vaughan, AIA, NCARB, LEED AP
    LinkedIn Profile | Twitter: @TravisUsesRevit

    #2
    My thoughts from that session still stand. If i have to be in it for more than fifteen minutes, its not a group, its a link.

    Even WITH all of the changes to links through 2009-2012, i still believe in using By Linked View, as well. I dont tag and dimension through the links, i do it IN the links. Just my two cents based on real experience, and it works wonderfully.
    Aaron "selfish AND petulant" Maller |P A R A L L A X T E A M | Practice Technology Implementation
    @Web | @Twitter | @LinkedIn | @Email

    Comment


      #3
      Hey Aaron, just out of curiousity, why did you determine it was still better to use by linked view, instead of tagging through the links? I have done by linked view (prior to having the ability to use tagging through links), and I found it to be a painful tedious process of going back into the linked files just to fix an generic annotation leader file. On top of that, you can't have the elevation/section tags in the linked file, those inevitablely get on top of other annotation in the linked file, when you have to move the objects in the linked file and forget that you have a section/elevation tag there.

      I was just curious if there are any project related experience you could share that would help us understand why you still use "by Linked view" in lieu of tagging through the link.

      Thanks in advance!
      Last edited by madeforworship; August 4, 2011, 03:13 PM.
      Josh Moore, Design App Manager, Perkins+Will
      www.perkinswill.com
      www.revitinfo.com

      Comment


        #4
        Well, I can't speak for Aaron off course but for me there are two major reasons to work in the Linked File:
        1. Annotating is not an ongoing process. I model, I finish modelling, then I do my Annotations. There is no need to be in the host model when annotating.
        2. When annotating it often happens I have to do some last minute changes to the model. When Annotating through the link, this means closing the host, opening the link, apply changes, close the link, open the host and annotate. Only to find out I screwed up and do it all over again...

        Plain and simple: keep the annotations as close to content they apply to as possible.
        Martijn de Riet
        Professional Revit Consultant | Revit API Developer
        MdR Advies
        Planta1 Revit Online Consulting

        Comment


          #5
          That's good info. I can see how that could be an issue. To me, there might be a happy medium. The problem I see isn't during early CDs, but toward the end of in CA when you are trying to get things done very quickly, like change a dimension string tick location, an generic annotation tag etc, stuff that isn't necessarily "model object data related". I could see your process you are saying being a challenge when changing room #s, door #s, etc. but to have to go all the way into the link to change other annotations is very tedious, plus you incur the process of having to set up "by linked views" for every view, and having to have that view duplicated in each model (the link and the host) which takes a lot of time, especially on large renovation projects where you might have 40+ unit types, all the overall plans, RCPs, etc. We are talking about +1000 views, and 30% of those needing to have by linked view set up.

          I'm just trying to make sense of it. Based on my experience with by linked view in a project like I described above, it seems like a lot of time could have been saved by not doing it that way (had the option been available...it was a Revit 2010 project). For smaller projects with a few floors and only a few unit types, I can see how this could be done with better results. Any further thoughts?
          Josh Moore, Design App Manager, Perkins+Will
          www.perkinswill.com
          www.revitinfo.com

          Comment


            #6
            Well, I don't really agree on that, but that seems to be a workflow thing. When coming to CD's I have the policy to print all sheets, redline them and change all annotations and stuff as needed in once. So I don't really have the workflow that I need to go in the Links for a single annotation (and if I do, that's ok too since that means very little work in general).

            As for the setup: that should be in your View Template. Assign a default template with the settings in it to all views and you're done. So that's not an issue.
            Martijn de Riet
            Professional Revit Consultant | Revit API Developer
            MdR Advies
            Planta1 Revit Online Consulting

            Comment


              #7
              but you can't assign the "by linked view" setting to a view template, as that is unique per view you are assigning, right? That is what I am saying...for every view, it's like 8-10 clicks to get that set up.

              I see your point about the redlining, and that's typically how we would do it too. But the problem I had was I couldn't see "for sure" that what I picked up redlining did what I needed it to do (without somewhat guessing) because there were elevation tags, section tags, etc. that really only existed in the host file. So for each sheet, you have to go back and check that everything you did turned out right, as it's not 100% "WYSIWYG" in this situation. If all the annotation is live in the host file, it is a WYSIWYG.

              I appreciate the dialogue, and I'm not trying to be "argumentative", just trying to work through it in mind.

              So what did you mean by View template setup...I have used them, but again, I'm not sure how you mean you have been able to set up view templates for "by linked view" settings, unless you just aren't including actually including the Revit links section in the view templates?
              Josh Moore, Design App Manager, Perkins+Will
              www.perkinswill.com
              www.revitinfo.com

              Comment


                #8
                Well, you can assign the By Linked View in a Template, but you will indeed need to match views (which is about 4 clicks after you already preset to By Linked View using the VT).

                But I would still go with the By Linked View:
                1. You're being a bit too rigid. Setting it By Linked View does not mean you cannot tag through the Link. They're not mutually exclusive. So you can still choose to do the bulk in the linked file and tag specific stuff in the host file.
                2. You can create multiple filters. By level, by discipline, and so on. Indeed, also sections, elevations and stuff. So you could in theory predefine a LOT.
                Given a combination of the above, there's a whole lot of efficiency to be gained:

                - Projects this size are bound to be cut into pieces for placement on sheets. You can annotate the complete level in the linked file and cut the level into pieces in the parent. Crop region and Annotation Crop will do the rest.
                - A lot of views will have the same basic annotation but will differ on details. Fire egress drawings, inventory drawings, and so on: basic annotation is Room tag, door tag, global dimensions. Set this up once and you can assign the discipline specifics in the host file.

                I'd say it's worth some further investigation. And I really don't mind the philosofical debate, it makes us all better reviteers...
                Last edited by mdradvies; August 4, 2011, 07:38 PM.
                Martijn de Riet
                Professional Revit Consultant | Revit API Developer
                MdR Advies
                Planta1 Revit Online Consulting

                Comment


                  #9
                  Okay, yeah, I am understanding more what you mean now, particularly with your second point. That's a good call. Putting the Room Tags, global dims, door tags, etc. in the linked file, and reusing that information for multiple plans in the Host file could work. The challenges would be sometimes you need the rooms tags to be moved around in the room depending on what you are trying to show, but you could do that on a case by case basis. Regarding your first point about project size, couldn't this also be handled with dependent views directly in the host file (you can do all the annotating in the overall), and then just make dependent views that split it (with match lines or whatever)??

                  Good thoughts on all of this. It's really helping me wrap my head around how to handle the annotation locations. Sometimes, the best way to learn is to do. I may try doing some type of hybrid approach on this next project, and see how it goes.

                  I think one thing that made the last project so painful was just the time it took to open the files to modify them. You see, we did a 4 building complex and issued all 4 buildings in the same set of CDs. So when picking up redlines, I had to open up the main file that all the sheets in it with all buidings linked in, and each individual file. Each of those files (5 total) were like 100mb each, and that really took a toll on my computer, which had 8 GB of RAM at the time. I found that upgrading to 16 GB made things somewhat better, as I was able to open each building in a separate instance of Revit and still work. This was all back in Revit 2010 when everything had to be "by linked view" and it was very slow opening up files (pre-multithreaded file opens).
                  Josh Moore, Design App Manager, Perkins+Will
                  www.perkinswill.com
                  www.revitinfo.com

                  Comment


                    #10
                    It entirely has to do with MdR's second point. I wont argue the point, i meant if people like annotating through Links, then by all means, go for it. But ive done Linked File Projects with up to 16 links. Ive had the teams annotate both ways, and they ALWAYS get frustrated with "i just put the dimensions down, but now i want to EDIT the dimension!!!" And they cant. Even in 2012 or 2010, now that you can open linked files concurrently, again, its still annoying, since you cant SEE the dimension. So when you go to the Link, now you have to dimension AGAIN to move the wall. Freaking stupid.

                    Tag a room. Realize the room is the wrong number. Go to the other model. Tag the room again. Change the number. Stupid.

                    By Linked View is a known entity. You make the views, you link the views, its set up. You want to work on architecture? Go to the file with the architecture in it.

                    Ive done it both ways. The confusion that always ensues in the eleventh hour over "where is the annotation" is always worse than the time spent managing By Linked View.
                    Aaron "selfish AND petulant" Maller |P A R A L L A X T E A M | Practice Technology Implementation
                    @Web | @Twitter | @LinkedIn | @Email

                    Comment

                    Related Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X