Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Groups within Groups / Nesting Groups

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

    Groups within Groups / Nesting Groups

    Hey guys,

    Question. What are your company/personal philosophies on nesting groups within groups?

    #2
    Never to have nested group (or group within group) that is a big NO-NO
    Philip Chan
    Practice Technology Manager | HKS
    http://phil-osophyinbim.blogspot.com/

    Comment


      #3
      Reeks havoc later when you go to edit just one of them and causes a loop you really can't get out of.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Jj Mac View Post
        Question. What are your company/personal philosophies on nesting groups within groups?
        Go for it!*

        *But do it correctly - I won't fix your mess for you.

        Seriously though, there really isn't good reason to not use groups in groups if you (and everyone else working with the model) know what they're doing. Heck,I've had groups within groups within groups within groups before, had the workflow documented - adhered to - and had no issues.

        But of course, doing it (or anything for that matter) badly will hurt in the end.
        Last edited by snowyweston; August 21, 2013, 06:49 PM.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by snowyweston View Post
          groups within groups within groups within groups
          Groupception!

          Use with caution and don't let the intern play with it on their first day.
          "I WANT SOUP! This fork is useless! I'm going to use my spoon for everything."

          Comment


            #6
            We regularly use nested kitchen and bathroom groups within unit groups in our multifamily housing projects. As noted by some other responses, there can be issues when it comes to worksharing, but we've only ever had it "wreak havoc" one time in the past six years. In that particular case, I owned the unit group, and another user owned the bathroom group, so Revit wouldn't let either one of us sync until the other person synced.

            What happens more frequently is that a user goes in and edits a bathroom group, but then can't finish the editing because someone else owns the unit group. In that case, they have to cancel the group, have the other user sync to central, reload latest, and then re-make the edits to the group. But as others have said, as long as everyone understands the workflow and what other people are working on, the negative effects are limited.

            FWIW, we have tried to make parametric bathroom families with a bunch of nested families, but it gets tedious when there are so many options for layouts.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Cyus View Post
              Groupception!

              Use with caution and don't let the intern play with it on their first day.
              Amazing analogy...lol

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by LKeyser View Post
                We regularly use nested kitchen and bathroom groups within unit groups in our multifamily housing projects. As noted by some other responses, there can be issues when it comes to worksharing, but we've only ever had it "wreak havoc" one time in the past six years. In that particular case, I owned the unit group, and another user owned the bathroom group, so Revit wouldn't let either one of us sync until the other person synced.

                What happens more frequently is that a user goes in and edits a bathroom group, but then can't finish the editing because someone else owns the unit group. In that case, they have to cancel the group, have the other user sync to central, reload latest, and then re-make the edits to the group. But as others have said, as long as everyone understands the workflow and what other people are working on, the negative effects are limited.

                FWIW, we have tried to make parametric bathroom families with a bunch of nested families, but it gets tedious when there are so many options for layouts.
                LKeyser

                You pretty much summed up a good part of the reason why I am asking this question, and I agree to an extent. This can be a big problem in my opinion, because people almost always lose work because of it. In addition, Revit seems to "destabilize" when groups get to massive... i.e... it crashes all the time.

                An example. We have a project right now with two midrise towers connected by a shared podium. Both towers are almost identical. The groups in question are just for the envelope. The un-identical geometry is obviously not in the group, but the idea is that the towers are grouped as a "building" and then there would be several window wall groups within the building group. Anyway, it's A LOT of geometry going in to this group. Crashing has been an issue, one of the building groups was "magically" ungrouped, and of course we are running into work-sharing issues. In this case it would make more sense to link the envelope instead of grouping... We all know how that discussion goes... After the building group was ungrouped, how can you re group it without deleting everything that was in the group and is now not...? Restoring from a backup is an option, but in this case it was way too late - like by a day x4 people.

                Long story long I feel the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, although there will be obvious minor time savings (maybe that can be debated as to being minor or not at all?)... For kitchens within suites/units, it doesn't seem to be AS much of a problem. I agree that it is a good solution to handling wide variation in things like kitchen and bathroom layouts, but I wouldn't even make groups in this case because it's just another thing to manage.

                Comment


                  #9
                  We have some users that use groups for pieces of the envelope, and we almost always run into problems with this. It's a lot easier with units, baths, and kitchens to make them completely isolated from everything else and therefore reduce the possibiltiy of group errors (which is usually the cause of the "magical" ungrouping, when someone chooses that option in the error box.)

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by snowyweston View Post
                    Go for it!*

                    *But do it correctly - I won't fix your mess for you.
                    I guess at the end of the day this is pretty much all you can say though? How can you enforce a policy to not use groups within groups with out having an all out dictatorship... I have heard of some offices enforcing policies that do not even allow using groups period... IMHO that's going a bit too extreme the other way. Is this even something that a policy should be set up for, or just leave it be?

                    Comment

                    Related Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X