Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Binding : by link or by group, or...

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

    Binding : by link or by group, or...

    ...is there another way?

    To set the scene:

    We had a scan-to-bim model created for us.
    We used the model, linked, and worked within it to develop our proposals.
    When the model was finally published as "good" we inherited it, and with a bit of fussing, bound it into our model.
    We have since editted certain elements of the survey informaiton (mostly demolitons)

    All was working fine.

    We are recieving "new" information periodically (exploratory works are unearthing new conditions, and the original model, as developed, has been scrutinised to be compiled "better" or more accurately). Clearly, by this point, with the original now "ours" we had to make a call on how to incorporate these "new" conditions. I decided a date-suffixed "New Conditions" workset to be employed by the survey-model providers, and have, until recently been happy enough to simply demand-load these worksets alone, as links, and remove the elements they replace.

    BUT

    We want to roll the new conditions into the model proper - because some of the elements requiring editing (demolishing again) and because, well, working with the link is slight pain. So last week we tried binding the link (required workset only) and it killed the best machine in our office (mine) three times.

    I tried to isolate the workset entirely by trying to delete the un-required worksets from a copy of the link, but the model fell to bits because of relationships between the elements. I also tried to do the same with making a local a standalone, but for the life of me, can't remember how (or if) you stop a local from remembering it's a local and constantly making noises about wanting to find the central.

    Then a brainwave (no not copy & paste) - we grouped the workset items, saved them out as a .rvt file - opened it up - and there it was, all the information we needed, and none of the stuff we already had.

    BUT

    After loading the model as a group into our principle model - it practically ruptured itself. I suspect mostly because the model we'd got isn't the best piece of Revit modelling I've ever seen - and from what I could figure out (by the bits and bobs that did shoot off into space) there'd been some inplace modelling and non-associated hosting, or level-dependant element placement, that all got lost in the group-to-model process.

    SO

    I reattempted a bind, linking this (now much smaller) model in and binding. It worked better than the group - in that when it came in, it came in correct, with all the bits and bobs that had originally gone on walkabout all there as they should be. But this time, when I ungrouped the group (that the bind creates, that I didn't need) instead of the bits and bobs staying put, or rupturing, they deleted themselves.

    SO

    After all this scene setting - the question. How are we meant to do this - even when models aren't perfect? Or is that an obvious invitation for you all to reply "work with better models" :hide:

Related Topics

Collapse

Working...
X