I am looking at replacing Worksets for managing visibility, and I am curious what other think or have tried. there are a few places where we used Worksets for something other than enabling worksharing, so I started thinking about each as a separate issue.
Finishes: address with filter on Assembly Code
The down side is that with the workset you only turn it on when you need it, which is the lesser number. Filters have to be applied everywhere. But if it is addressed in view templates in the project template is seems manageable. Filters also allow for some really nice workflows with "joined finishes" where a finish is actually cut into the host or another finish.
Potential down side: now the consultants need to use the Finishes filter also. On every view. And I worry about this getting done and done well, especially for MEP who are often newest to Revit.
Structural transfer of ownership workflow: Address with a filter on Comments.
We often need to differentiate the structural stuff in the Architectural model that is still in flux, and that the Structural Engineer should ignore for the moment, as compared to the stuff that is in our model only until the structural model catches up, at which time we delete ours and use theirs. rather than multiple worksets, we could use different values in the Comments parameter and filter.
ARCH = Items still owned by architect
REF = Items for structural to reference (I.e. Copy/monitor)
RENDER = items owned by the architect in order to get a better/different expression for presentations.
Filters work across links, so this can/should work. But it requires a change by consultants also. Has anyone had any experience with this? Does it offer any added benefits for other disciplines? With C/M functionality expanding in RME I would expect we will eventually need the same "transition of ownership" workflow for ceiling mounted lights and HVAC items as well.
Memory management: address with added memory
Links & Site stuff have traditionally been put on worksets so they can be unloaded on a user basis when not needed. However, I find few people actually do this consistently, and if it is in fact required then those people's machines are also so underspec'd that they will be unable to print. And not seeing consultant work, for any reason, seems to me to be a bad thing, not a good thing. I would rather get everyone the RAM they need, make day to day work easier and allow the whole team to access and print the whole model at anti time. In addition, Revit only remembers what worksets you last loaded via the local file. If you are making a new local every day to address the bugginess of the SwC process, you create extra work set related work.
One other downside to filters over worksets is that you can see every workset that has been created, even if not used. If you filter on a particular parameter, you can end up with an excessive number of filters that make it unwieldy. And you can have items that have a value outside of what you have filtered for, and never know it. With a work set you can always just turn off all other worksets and know what you are dealing with. I suspect the answer is to have a working schedule for each filter, which shows the filter criteria, but doesn't actually filter by it. And/or coordination views that use color not visibility to express the filter. Structural ownership being a good example of the latter.
In short, Filters are both more flexible and more complicated.
Last point. If non workset solutions can work for everything, you really just need the one workset. Does it perhaps make sense to even eliminate Shared Levels and Grids? Does that workset even buy you anything now. Is there a down side to just having everything in the model on one workset? At that point worksharing becomes the 100% transparent to the user process it really SHOULD be.
Note that I am not in any way a proponent of locking work sets with dummy users to "protect" things. Trained users is the right answer, so I feel no loss there.
Any thoughts or comments? Especially from anyone who has started down this path (Aaron, I am thinking you might be on the bleeding edge here
)
Thanks!
Gordon
Finishes: address with filter on Assembly Code
The down side is that with the workset you only turn it on when you need it, which is the lesser number. Filters have to be applied everywhere. But if it is addressed in view templates in the project template is seems manageable. Filters also allow for some really nice workflows with "joined finishes" where a finish is actually cut into the host or another finish.
Potential down side: now the consultants need to use the Finishes filter also. On every view. And I worry about this getting done and done well, especially for MEP who are often newest to Revit.
Structural transfer of ownership workflow: Address with a filter on Comments.
We often need to differentiate the structural stuff in the Architectural model that is still in flux, and that the Structural Engineer should ignore for the moment, as compared to the stuff that is in our model only until the structural model catches up, at which time we delete ours and use theirs. rather than multiple worksets, we could use different values in the Comments parameter and filter.
ARCH = Items still owned by architect
REF = Items for structural to reference (I.e. Copy/monitor)
RENDER = items owned by the architect in order to get a better/different expression for presentations.
Filters work across links, so this can/should work. But it requires a change by consultants also. Has anyone had any experience with this? Does it offer any added benefits for other disciplines? With C/M functionality expanding in RME I would expect we will eventually need the same "transition of ownership" workflow for ceiling mounted lights and HVAC items as well.
Memory management: address with added memory
Links & Site stuff have traditionally been put on worksets so they can be unloaded on a user basis when not needed. However, I find few people actually do this consistently, and if it is in fact required then those people's machines are also so underspec'd that they will be unable to print. And not seeing consultant work, for any reason, seems to me to be a bad thing, not a good thing. I would rather get everyone the RAM they need, make day to day work easier and allow the whole team to access and print the whole model at anti time. In addition, Revit only remembers what worksets you last loaded via the local file. If you are making a new local every day to address the bugginess of the SwC process, you create extra work set related work.
One other downside to filters over worksets is that you can see every workset that has been created, even if not used. If you filter on a particular parameter, you can end up with an excessive number of filters that make it unwieldy. And you can have items that have a value outside of what you have filtered for, and never know it. With a work set you can always just turn off all other worksets and know what you are dealing with. I suspect the answer is to have a working schedule for each filter, which shows the filter criteria, but doesn't actually filter by it. And/or coordination views that use color not visibility to express the filter. Structural ownership being a good example of the latter.
In short, Filters are both more flexible and more complicated.
Last point. If non workset solutions can work for everything, you really just need the one workset. Does it perhaps make sense to even eliminate Shared Levels and Grids? Does that workset even buy you anything now. Is there a down side to just having everything in the model on one workset? At that point worksharing becomes the 100% transparent to the user process it really SHOULD be.
Note that I am not in any way a proponent of locking work sets with dummy users to "protect" things. Trained users is the right answer, so I feel no loss there.
Any thoughts or comments? Especially from anyone who has started down this path (Aaron, I am thinking you might be on the bleeding edge here

Thanks!
Gordon
Comment