Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Model groups with differing heights

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

    Model groups with differing heights

    Hi there,

    I'm hoping to create a model group for the core on the office building that I'm working on which repeats from floors 02 through to 08. However (there's always a however!!) the floor to floor heights are not consistent (damn concept architects!). Is there a way to sort this or do i need to create a new group for each varient?

    #2
    You need a group for each one. While it's not a difficult thing to do, keeping track of the groups gets difficult. You will want to create some sort of printed matrix to keep handy to track where you're at.

    I once had a project with 32 different unit types and a total of 57 varients between them. Right now I have 13 different types with close to 40 varients. The matrix is the only thing that is keeping me from losing my mind.
    ​My ID was stolen. Now I'm only called Dav

    Comment


      #3
      Thanks David, I thought that might be the case, good idea with the matrix though thanks.

      Comment


        #4
        Until we get instance-control over element dimensional-geometry within groups (a can of worms in itself) then you've answered your own quandary = different groups.

        With regards those 'damn concept architects' (slight accepted, trust me) inconsistent stories are more often than client and s.eng driven...

        It bemuses me that 'we' still (collectively) insist on the charade of 'repetition'.

        A flat with a 2.8m ceiling is not the same as a flat (with an identical floor plan) with a 2.6m ceiling. Not just in terms of spatial height and volume, but (obviously) quantities, and often, contents (taller doors etc)

        So what we (concept architects) do is work up our model groups as the shortest variant - used in as many scenarios as we can for as long as we can - whilst the plan is tortured left right and centre until we receive some degree of sign off and/or accepted instructed to divert from "the same". Yes it leaves baggy/gapey wall-to-slab-undersides, but it saves some pain.
        Last edited by snowyweston; February 7, 2018, 03:53 PM.

        Comment


          #5
          Actually, you can have different wall heights in the same group. I found this link in a thread here on the Forum some time ago:
          Tip on Variable Wall Heights and Revit Groups - dp Stuff

          It's still a bit of a manual process, but it can be an alternative to managing so many groups.

          Comment


            #6
            I can't count on how many times I've heard:
            "This one is exactly the same as the other one - just a few changes"
            Dave Plumb
            BWBR Architects; St Paul, MN

            CADsplaining: When a BIM rookie tells you how you should have done something.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by jsnyder View Post
              Actually, you can have different wall heights in the same group.
              but what would one attach their walls to? Another's slab underside through a link? Ick!

              Comment


                #8
                excellent thanks jsnyder :thumbsup: this seems to work with objects that are in your model but not with objects in links (our structural model is linked). im considering placing an area of foundation that i can hide in views just to attach them to although i am then concerned that i this will show up when i have to issue our model to other consultants in .rvt format (i can omit it via ifc mapping for the ifc file issue).

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by snowyweston View Post
                  With regards those 'damn concept architects' (slight accepted, trust me) inconsistent stories are more often than client and s.eng driven...
                  apols snowy no offence meant :laugh:

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by snowyweston View Post
                    So what we (concept architects) do is work up our model groups as the shortest variant - used in as many scenarios as we can for as long as we can - whilst the plan is tortured left right and centre until we receive some degree of sign off and/or accepted instructed to divert from "the same". Yes it leaves baggy/gapey wall-to-slab-undersides, but it saves some pain.
                    unfortunately we arent in a position to issue models with gaps to u/side of slab at any stage

                    Comment

                    Related Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X