Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dimension to linked file wall core centerline???

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

    Dimension to linked file wall core centerline???

    We have a large project where there are 4 different Revit models linked into one "master" project. So the issue is that there appears to be limitations on what can be dimensioned to in walls in a linked file...this doesn't seem like something we should be having an issue with..... I've done some digging online and find this same issue being called out from back in 2012. So a couple options I've thought of/investigated so far are as follows:
    1. Split the core into 2 separate regions (6" core becomes two 3" core materials); the issue with this is that there is a line left through the centers of those cores which isn't desirable, I also tried doing this and then linking in the updated model (split core) then removed the split core (with hopes that the dimensions would magically remain) no luck
    2. Tabbing through to try and grab the core; impossible to crab the core center line but can grab material faces, core faces, and wall centerline
    3. Add reference planes which are constrained to be equal w/in the core boundaries...this is a pretty terrible option being that this would have to happen hundreds of times (possibly thousands)
    This wouldn't be an issue with walls that are equal each side of the core as the wall center line and core center line would lie in the same place but the issue is evident when working with wall assemblies that are thicker one side than the other (this seems like an obvious thing to state but figured it's worth stating).

    #2
    Originally posted by kwandrew2 View Post
    We have a large project where there are 4 different Revit models linked into one "master" project. So the issue is that there appears to be limitations on what can be dimensioned to in walls in a linked file...this doesn't seem like something we should be having an issue with..... I've done some digging online and find this same issue being called out from back in 2012. So a couple options I've thought of/investigated so far are as follows:
    1. Split the core into 2 separate regions (6" core becomes two 3" core materials); the issue with this is that there is a line left through the centers of those cores which isn't desirable, I also tried doing this and then linking in the updated model (split core) then removed the split core (with hopes that the dimensions would magically remain) no luck
    2. Tabbing through to try and grab the core; impossible to crab the core center line but can grab material faces, core faces, and wall centerline
    3. Add reference planes which are constrained to be equal w/in the core boundaries...this is a pretty terrible option being that this would have to happen hundreds of times (possibly thousands)
    This wouldn't be an issue with walls that are equal each side of the core as the wall center line and core center line would lie in the same place but the issue is evident when working with wall assemblies that are thicker one side than the other (this seems like an obvious thing to state but figured it's worth stating).
    I have been burned so many times when dimensioning to anything in a linked model that it makes me shudder to read your post. I NEVER dimension to anything in a link
    I'm retired, if you don't like it, go around!

    Comment


      #3
      Having a *Master File* completely sucks, for day to day work. In the cases when i HAVE to have Linked Files, one of the working portions BECOMES the Main Master file. Doesnt help with your issue now, but its something to think about.

      Out of curiosity, how large is the project? Im wondering if there is a real need to split it up at all? Im finding a lot of firms get *link happy* for no reason other than they are used to doing it that way in other software.

      For example, the project im rebuilding right now, all (so far) fits in one model. And im modeling to much more detail than the original design team. Their original setup for the same discipline? 4 Models.
      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


        #4
        Fewer models = fewer problems

        I've inherited a model set up by a previous BIM manager, which is an over 40 story residential tower. He split the model into 10 files for repeating floors, facade, core, etc...
        The whole team absolutely hated this, as the whole team became unworkable. With lot's of linked views, issues with dimensions, annotation dropping off.
        So, now I'm rebuilding it into one model...
        Maciej Wypych

        Bibere humanum est, ergo bibamus!

        Comment


          #5
          To me, one of the main essences of 'bim technology' is the ability to link (all sorts of) data models. I would like to know the REASONS why using 'xref' in Revit' fails to work. Other than the known and 'obvious' (?) loss of dimensions, what 'things under the hood' users should really know about users for considering 'link use' ? A complete list of any kind would be helpful.. Thx
          Last edited by HansLammerts; June 1, 2017, 06:18 AM.

          Comment


            #6
            I appreciate everyone's feedback. I'm with HansLammerts on this one though and question why this isn't an efficient workflow???..because the features are broken doesn't mean this workflow should be disregarded all together, to me it means the functionality needs to be preserved throughout the software (and fixed in this case). The primary reason the team working on this project decided to link the project like it is was due to multiple phases in the project (something like 6 phases aside from demolition). I'm in agreement that multiple linked revit models can be messy...these issues should be fixed if that is the case though. Not all Revit projects can exist in the same model...(not without a bank of super computers anyways)

            Comment


              #7
              So after talking with our BIM Manager I believe this whole process could/should be handled differently. I believe Twiceroadsfool hit the nail on the head with the idea that all models should've been linked into one of the working models (probably architectural 99/100 times in our case). It was explained to me that the reason why the linking is being handled like it is was due to multiple pieces of the building being worked on at one time, I don't understand how adding another layer (link) to the workflow makes this process easier though...must be above my pay grade

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by kwandrew2 View Post
                I appreciate everyone's feedback. I'm with HansLammerts on this one though and question why this isn't an efficient workflow???..because the features are broken doesn't mean this workflow should be disregarded all together, to me it means the functionality needs to be preserved throughout the software (and fixed in this case). The primary reason the team working on this project decided to link the project like it is was due to multiple phases in the project (something like 6 phases aside from demolition). I'm in agreement that multiple linked revit models can be messy...these issues should be fixed if that is the case though. Not all Revit projects can exist in the same model...(not without a bank of super computers anyways)
                1. Who says the *feature* is being disregarded BECAUSE it isnt reliable and doesnt work well? I recommend not using it because the workflow itself, is crap. The user has to dimension in one file, then switch to another file to change the dimension. Thats absolutely terrible. Edit Cut Profile doesnt work on Linked Objects, meaning EVERY one of your section details and/or Plan Details needing augmentation gets hacked up masking regions and filled regions. Loading and unloading linked files constantly causes performance degradation if a session of revit gets tricked in to thinking Rooms arent bound (reloading the links doesnt clear the warnings until revit is restarted). All in all, its just a lousy way to work. (shrug)

                Items in Links cant have different ID data properties, which means you end up scheduling the Link Instance Name or number as well. That means two properties to tell the differences between typical rooms/floors, assuming Links are used for such things. Doesnt bother me in the least, as im not a formatting obsessed psycho. But it bothers lots of folks.

                Grids need to be copy monitored in to every linked file anyway, or you cant dimension to them using BLV. And if you dim to them using BLV, you have to use the linked grid heads in your details, and turn off the grids in your main model. Or the dims disappear, based on the very simple (and correct) premise that dimensions dont show up without the objects they are touching. Have fun with that.

                2. The primary reason your team made the decision they did is because they THINK it makes them more efficient, which they think because (sorry to say) they dont really know wha they are doing. What aspect of multiple phases is suddenly easier because the files are linked? (The one exception ill make there is the "front end" of the drawing set and tracking revisions, which ill sometimes do with a spare blank file, but certainly wont annotate in it. Linked Models still suck for multi phase work, since you have to demolish in one model, and do new work in another. Which means all the models need the different phases anyway.

                3. Super computers? Are you saying you dont have enough computing power to open all of the Linked Files? How do you print the project? There is really only one computer on the team that can print/plot/export to CAD/export to navisworks? And the rest of you ONLY open up your specific Links?

                I used to do a LOT of work with Linked Files, and i know their ins and outs like the back of my hand. Frankly, it USED to be true, that the computers flat out couldnt handle the size of the projects we were working on. But that was literally back in 2006, when there was only one 64-bit machine in the office, and even that only had 6 GB of RAM in it. And even then, the same problem held true: We couldnt load all of the links, if we need to *print really quick* on one of our workstations. We HAD to go to the special workstation (that wouldnt show color, LOL) to print.

                But i seriously havent hit a hardware limitation like that since 2009. And (BTW) since 2009 ive been running all consumer grade machines (no workstations, no Xeons). So, the hardware requirement argument just isnt true, sorry to say.

                As for the workflow issues, im generally with you that we shouldnt necessarily ALWAYS change our ways JUST because of the software. But, where is it written that this "IS" the way to do a large multi phase project (with links up the wazoo)? it isnt. I mean, i may *decide* i want to use Revit to design graphic artwork. Doesnt mean its going to be good at it, nor that its a good decision on my part. Photoshop is a better method for doing graphic artwork. Phases are a better tool (than links) for dealing with Phases. <shrug>

                The short (unfortunate) answer is it DOESNT make the process any easier, but someone on the team decided "it was better." Doesnt mean it was informed, doesnt mean it was a good decision.
                Last edited by Twiceroadsfool; June 1, 2017, 01:54 PM.
                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


                  #9
                  I would never use a linked file approach for dimensioned information. You have to document the sheets in each file or you will be in a nightmare. What I mean is if you have(or think you have too) use linked files. Then set up your links in a way that you can document the content in the link in the link, any dims that need to go to GL would be to GL in each file(as Aaron pointed out, copy/monitor the Gls'). I would never recommend permenant dimensions to an item in a linked file, it will dissappear at some point, or a portion of it. it is very bad practice. If you need to see the dims from the linked file you set the view of your Master to show the "linked view" but this is a pain too. So just don't do it and you will be much happier. If you are using links cause you think it will save you time opening and closing and make you more efficient I say you will find the opposite.
                  Scott D. Brown, AIA | Senior Project Manager | Beck Group

                  Comment


                    #10
                    But i seriously havent hit a hardware limitation like that since 2009. And (BTW) since 2009 ive been running all consumer grade machines (no workstations, no Xeons). So, the hardware requirement argument just isnt true, sorry to say.
                    Thanks again for your knowledge. Our hardware limitations come from out virtual environment as we operate solely on VMware. It has been over a 2 year process for our IT team to get it up and running and functioning as well as it does but it still has it's drawbacks (latency issues with files over about 150mb or files with alot of .dwgs linked). We are operating across state lines which elevates the issue with the VM environment. Basically without all offices on fiber it wouldn't be possible. But again, not my workflow, just my question:thumbsup:
                    Last edited by DaveP; June 1, 2017, 08:59 PM.

                    Comment

                    Related Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X