Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linked Model Latency

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

    Linked Model Latency

    Is there any advantage to purging views in linked models to improve sync times?
    Bettisworth North

    #2
    Opinions vary.

    In the past, i *have* done some testing, and found it to barely make any difference whatsoever. It makes considerable difference in the Linked File Size (absolutely), but the sync times didnt drop more than a second or two (well within a margin of error in a networked environment), and- when you factor in the time involved (file open with DFC, run some addin or script to purge it out, then sync, then close, then reload), purging the models (in my opinion) isnt worth the "price of admission."

    To be fair, the testing i did was long ago, but i still havent been purging my linked files (in any way) for almost a decade. In fact, i dont even open the consultants models at all. Download it, slap it on the network in windows explorer, Reload From, and go. Never a need to mess with it.
    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
      One day I wish to have a consultant that competent to build a model that can fit that workflow
      ​My ID was stolen. Now I'm only called Dav

      Comment


        #4
        Have you ever seen linked models with rooms lose boundaries associated with other linked models? We've had a series of projects with an interior architect working in Revit where we're responsible for core and shell walls and rooms and they're responsible for all the tenant walls and spaces. Naturally some of their rooms depend on our walls to bound, but randomly when we get revised models from them the rooms lose bounding, so I've made it a habit to open their model and repath the A and S links. I'd expect the rooms in their model to remember the location of bounding objects from the last time the file was opened, but that doesn't seem to be the case. The rooms need to be correct mostly for MEP so they can get their spaces matched up, but we tag their rooms in reference views sometimes just to help with coordination as well.

        Comment


          #5
          Even though it seems related, thats an entirely different issue.

          You have: Arch <--- (Linked In) Int
          They have: Int <--- (Linked In) Arch

          So in your model, what you EXPECT to happen is: Arch <--- Int <--- Arch (functional link bounding the rooms)

          That wont work. If- in their model- the Link was switched from Overlay to Attachment, the Room Boundaries would work. But then every single item in your model would be redundantly shown, from their model, which is terrible. The assumption that Links work "back and forth" and maintain their bounding rules, isnt accurate, but its a trap a lot of folks fall in to.

          Its one of the reasons i dont endorse the CoreShell/Interior Model Division. If the responsibilities were broken out that way, well... Then id tell the interior architects to trace your model with Room Bounding Lines, and leave your model set to non-room bounding.
          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


            #6
            Oh yeah, we're very aware of overlay vs attachment and it's overlay all the way in this type of multi-link environment. In this case the interiors scope is by an outside consultant so that made the most sense. When we do interiors in house they're in the arch model on their own worksets. We've talked about making the models non-bounding and using space separation lines for MEP which is the same idea, but it seemed like way too much setup and ongoing coordination that shouldn't be necessary. My point was the interiors model had the arch link loaded the last time it was opened (and the last time it calculated the room boundaries). I would expect it to retain those room extents until the model is reopened and it calculates them all again.. sort of like how it continues to display linked cad information if the dwg file is moved.
            I know it's a different issue than of the OP, but I think sometimes you just need to open the files to fix something when you get them based on how they were packaged or transferred.

            Comment


              #7
              Linked models are called into memory when the host is opened. It isn't saved locally and no linked model information is transferred with a SWC. That known, purging a linked model won't make any difference in sync times but it will reduce opening/reload times and reduce memory usage.

              I've seen clean-ups reduce files sizes from negligible (1% to 5%) to monumental (60%-85%). Typical range is 20%-35%. As a MEP consultant who's dependent upon a linked model a cleanup does save time over multiple users and multiple opens.
              John Karben | IMEG Corp.

              Comment

              Loading...
              Working...
              X