If I had this concern, I likely would preemptively create a few of said typical sets in different instances of apartments based on the location of the building i.e. likeliness of the location to result in a non-typical layout later on (apartments with other units on either side are less likely to result in being unique, but it could happen, so this is why I'd do 3).

Putting in the work earlier will be less troublesome than later if a change happens right before a deadline. If you have and use Dynamo, creating these sets and annotating them will be much quicker, either as a preemptive measure or if done in response to a change.

I have limited experience with apartment complexes and my experiences have all begun with existing conditions drawings, so am not sure if this is the best route of action. I suppose you could create the views by creating the *definite* typical apartment views/set with either drafting views or in a faked phase, but I prefer keeping my views live and properly speaking to schedules. Hope this helps but I am also curious to see what others have to say!

Specifically for multi unit residential and hospital, my current template has fifty spots for unit documentation, out of context. They are all sheeted, with plans, RCP's, finish plans, too.

They're on the same phase in my template, but you could put them on another phase if the extra unit counting bothers you.

The units in context are still 100% complete.


Sent from my Phablet. Please excuse typos... and bad ideas.

Aaron Maller
Director
Parallax Team, Inc.

Why do you have them separate from the building? I've tried that in past (using phases) and it was miserable to deal with. I just create dependent views from the plan(s) and create my unit plans that way. Scope Boxes keep things organized and it adjusts to whatever is going on in the building.

Any number of reasons.

1. Units move. Having to move all of the documentation (including elevations, callouts, etc, is annoying and tedious).

2. In many cases (whether we agree with it or not) units and patient rooms start getting designed before the rest of the building.

3. MUCH easier to track variations. Unit 3, 3a, 3b are all right next to each other, regardless of where they happen in the building.

4. You can't have them automatically set up, your way. And cartooning views for 50 units, sucks. Mine are fully ready to go on day 1. Each units space is roughly 3x x 3x the size of a unit, so I don't need to worry about adjusting or moving things. And there are enough of them that if I need to I just delete the unit next door and don't use it. And they are all scope boxed already, and dependant viewed.

As I said, mine are all on the same phase. You can make a project parameter set to Vary By Group for any scheduling concerns.

I don't include the exterior envelope walls in the unit groups themselves, which cuts down on the number of groups considerably.

If you don't like doing it that way, don't do it. :shrug: I have some multi family clients using this template with thirty story city block wide projects, and they love it.



Sent from my Phablet. Please excuse typos... and bad ideas.

Aaron Maller
Director
Parallax Team, Inc.

I'm all for revisiting methods, i just had issues the last time I tried it that way. To be fair - it was several years ago and a lot of it was probably not having a clue what I was doing...

Nothing has changed that makes the Phases aspect any better. Using Phases in Model Groups still sucks donkey balls. That part is totes true.

But, since we got that AWESOME feature (literally one of my favorites) for allowing Parameter Variance in Groups, you can mitigate all of the schedule woes using that. Simply make an "IsUnitCloud" parameter, and only check it in the group cloud.

Here is the L1 Floor Plan of my template:

1. Project goes to the left bottom.
2. Units go to the right bottom.
3. Modeled Legends go to the right top.

Works like a boss.

Couple questions;

1 - Do you no longer use Phases for the Model Legends then? I assume you use the same parameter to filter these out of camera views and the like?

2 - The bigger one... how do you setup sheets when you don't yet know the size of the plan? I tried that and end up doing so many edits I backed out and just have the sheets ready but with no views. Figured I was missing something but couldn't figure out what.

Still use the Phases. But it IS true that you dont NEED to anymore. But i still do. I dont with the Unit Groups, because Phases within the groups, sucks.

Two theories that i employ, there:

1. I believe in setting up the simplest template that is capable of delivering the most complicated project. When you relate that to size, i want the smallest template capable of handling the biggest projects, or the biggest units. So i looked at a bunch of Multi Family Projects, and did some quick math on what i think is a good *typical size* for the units.

Youll notice there is room below and to the right, of every unit. So if they ARENT big enough, they just grow and change the scope boxes down and right. Certainly, exceptionally large units may grow enough that the sheet needs to be rearranged, or broken in to multiple sheets. But that isnt the rule, its the exception.

The units in my template have three plans per sheet. If the unit grows ENOUGH to need more than one sheet they rearrange that units sheet, and add an extra sheet. Which brings me to rule number 2:

2. "If you cant get it perfect, dont bother doing it at all." I hear mantras similar to this a lot, when i talk to people about various implementation aspects (not just BIM, mind you, but definitely with BIM). If the Template cant cover EVERY POSSIBLE CONDITION, dont make it any more complicated than OOTB. If you cant make a Filter for EVERY SINGLE USE CASE, dont use Filters at all. If you cant predict the size of EVERY PROJECT EVER, dont cartoon sheets in your template. If you cant automate EVERY SINGLE ASPECT, dont automate any aspect.

In that sense, its certainly true that some units sheets require more care than others. But since ive picked a size that covers (at least) more than 75% of units that ive seen... Damn, isnt it better to only have to adjust 25% of them? I think so, and my wallet thinks so.

I mean, you may have noticed that there are 9 scopes boxes left of the Units, as well. Thats for the project itself. There are overalls and 9 partial plans. And its true that not every project will need all 9. True story, a client using one of my templates asked me to "convert" a proejct that was started pre-template, in to the template. So i did. And it was a X-shaped project, so it made sense to have overalls, and then have Zones 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8. So i dropped the model in the template, adjusted it until it was positioned well between those Scope boxes, then opened up the Dynamo Graph that deletes un-needed zones, and ran it (4 times). Then i used the graph that renames sheets, views, and scope boxes (its basically just find and replace), and renumbered the existing zones.

Certainly a hell of a lot better than telling a team to cartoon an entire set of drawings manually, just because we couldnt predict the size or shape of the project?

Anyway, just my two cents. Everyones mileage may vary.

This is not a fully flushed out thought but is there a way to make this worked with linked models? I've seen multi-family residential projects where 1 linked model = 1 unit and wondering if that's why.