Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

File Links instead of Groups

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    File Links instead of Groups

    I know there used to be fantastic thread on AUGI where this was much debated. The purpose of this one is not to debate the pros and cons of which many of us are familiar, but rather who has adopted file links over groups for things like repeating unit types, floor plates etc.

    In addition what was the ONE main reason that influenced your choice?
    Darryl Store - Associate (BIM)
    [email protected]
    Twitter: @darrylstore

    #2
    Its not one or the other, for us. Its knowing when to use each one, and why. We use both Links and Groups religiously, and with tremedous success. Groups on a more Micro scale, Links on a more Macro Scale.
    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
      Well the reason I posted this was I've recenty had a lot of debate over which we should use in our project for our unit types.
      We do mainly large housing schemes, with a lot of repettive units and I'm pretty much for using links for this. Reason being is groups can be slightly different before they flag up an error message and this can create major issues for us.

      Interested to see what others are doing...thanks for the input.
      Darryl Store - Associate (BIM)
      [email protected]
      Twitter: @darrylstore

      Comment


        #4
        Repeatable units are right at the threshold of what i consider a Micro/Macro break. When its floor plates, i use Links, unequivocally. Storefront Configurations, Furniture layouts, Toilet room layouts, Vertical Circulation Cores... I use Groups.

        Ive used Groups for individual units inside a Link for a floor plate, but even then i could do it with Links as well, its just in deciding if you want to deal with transferring content and project standards to more files or not. The smaller the piece gets, the less the ROI is for the link.
        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


          #5
          Originally posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
          Repeatable units are right at the threshold of what i consider a Micro/Macro break. When its floor plates, i use Links, unequivocally. Storefront Configurations, Furniture layouts, Toilet room layouts, Vertical Circulation Cores... I use Groups.

          Ive used Groups for individual units inside a Link for a floor plate, but even then i could do it with Links as well, its just in deciding if you want to deal with transferring content and project standards to more files or not. The smaller the piece gets, the less the ROI is for the link.
          So you would do each floor in a file, and groups of the units within that, and those groups may be used on other files also?
          So if I have two-storey units, in a four story building, I would have two files with similar groups?

          I'm just now trying to get into this, and groups are acting funny. I'm thinking linked files would be best, but not sure how or where to split.
          ~Elisa
          BIM Director, AC Martin

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
            Repeatable units are right at the threshold of what i consider a Micro/Macro break. When its floor plates, i use Links, unequivocally. Storefront Configurations, Furniture layouts, Toilet room layouts, Vertical Circulation Cores... I use Groups.

            Ive used Groups for individual units inside a Link for a floor plate, but even then i could do it with Links as well, its just in deciding if you want to deal with transferring content and project standards to more files or not. The smaller the piece gets, the less the ROI is for the link.
            My last firm was a medical architectural firm and for toilet layouts, exam rooms, and other typical type rooms we used massive embed familes that had everything in them...worked fairly well and gave you the flexablity of a family but the updateability of a group.

            Comment


              #7
              Except you cant have any system families in a family. Which means its either hacked, or it doesnt have everything. We save out our groups, and store them in a library. Groups can be saved, and include:

              Families.
              System families (walls, ceilings, floors)
              Dimensions, Annotations, tags, etc. AND... That doesnt even have to all be in ONE view. Our toilet groups are saved out with a Floor Plan set of annotations, AND an enlarged plan set of annotations, AND a Finish plan set. We place the group in another project, it annotates all three views.

              Elisa-

              It depends. I do floor plates as files in a project where there is some repetition amongst the floor plates. Even if its not exact, like a slight rotation, or vertical plan reduction, or something... Ill do it with instances of the same link, and design options in the link to cover the differences, with view templates in the parent file to specify which instance has which design option. Sounds like a lot to swallow, but its not bad AT ALL once you get in to it.

              But theres no "hard and fast rule." Im shooting from the hip here, but if i had two-storey walkups, and they repeated on top of themselves, then i would make a "two storey" floor plate model, and stack two instances of that on top of one another in the Parent Model. But different people like to work different ways.

              FWIW, i save out all of my groups, to their own files. So when updates have to happen, they happen there, THEN get reloaded in to all the other files.
              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


                #8
                Originally posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
                Except you cant have any system families in a family. Which means its either hacked, or it doesnt have everything. We save out our groups, and store them in a library. Groups can be saved, and include:

                Families.
                System families (walls, ceilings, floors)
                Dimensions, Annotations, tags, etc. AND... That doesnt even have to all be in ONE view. Our toilet groups are saved out with a Floor Plan set of annotations, AND an enlarged plan set of annotations, AND a Finish plan set. We place the group in another project, it annotates all three views.
                I see what you are trying to do with having walls, ceilings, and floors. We originally tried how you have it with groups, but what we did not like about this is that you would have to have a different group for a 8x8 exam room than you do for an 8x8'1 exam room where in a family things like that are not a constraint. We rarely had a toilet room that was exactly the same everywhere, but that could be just my firm. Not saying either is right or wrong.

                You said that you used a group, and then included dimensions, annotations, tags, etc, but you can't include all those in the same group as where your toilet is can you? You have detail items in a model group???

                Comment


                  #9
                  Sure you can. You absolutely can. Detail groups embed in Model groups quite easily. Ive got a video of it here somewhere.

                  As for them being different sizes? Then drop the group, place all the annotations, and ungroup.

                  I still dont want a family. A WALL cant go in a family. There are walls in my bathrooms. I tag my walls. I cant tag a wall, correctly, in a family.
                  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


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
                    Elisa-

                    It depends. I do floor plates as files in a project where there is some repetition amongst the floor plates. Even if its not exact, like a slight rotation, or vertical plan reduction, or something... Ill do it with instances of the same link, and design options in the link to cover the differences, with view templates in the parent file to specify which instance has which design option. Sounds like a lot to swallow, but its not bad AT ALL once you get in to it.

                    But theres no "hard and fast rule." Im shooting from the hip here, but if i had two-storey walkups, and they repeated on top of themselves, then i would make a "two storey" floor plate model, and stack two instances of that on top of one another in the Parent Model. But different people like to work different ways.

                    FWIW, i save out all of my groups, to their own files. So when updates have to happen, they happen there, THEN get reloaded in to all the other files.
                    That makes sense to me, and it seems Revit would prefer it also. The current project where I wish I would've done that are newbies, so I try not to complicate the set up so much to start. Design Options would be a complication. But saving out the groups shouldn't be!
                    I like having the floor plate model and the parent model, this particular team didn't do that. Next project I'll try that!
                    Thanks Aaron, makes lots of sense!
                    ~Elisa
                    BIM Director, AC Martin

                    Comment

                    Related Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X