constraints belong in families, not in the model

So you don't lock anything, like columns to grids, at all in the model?

Some things, like columns, constrain automatically. But no, I don't lock exterior walls to grids, for example. Ceilings to bounding walls? Sure. Doors to other doors across the hall? No. Curtain grids to anything? No. Area boundary lines? No. Walls to level above? Yes.

I don't go out of my way to add constraints.

We're even moving away from Face-Based families because they don't play nicely in Groups without more work than anyone wants.

Why would you not want to lock exterior or shear walls that would be set?

Very generally, more constraints can lead to the perception of poor performance because Revit may take longer to process changes as it evaluates each constraint that may be related to the change. They also are hard to see unless the team has developed good habits and an expectation that constraints are used routinely. For people that really want to use them I encourage them to apply those (like with dimensions that are locked or EQ) in specific views named to declare "Constraints". The new tool Reveal Constraints can help see them but people have to develop the habit.

I tend to use constraints briefly to help me make changes when I think it will help get that task done faster. I usually remove them after completing the task so that other people on the team don't inadvertently bump into them. That often breaks things, or at the very least confuses others, as much as help ensure something stays in place.

If you're trying to decide how much to constrain, I'd start with actual situations that arise that using constraints might eliminate or reduce. Naturally that means you and your co-workers will need to discuss day to day progress, so you'll know about those opportunities. Otherwise I'd take the if it ain't broke it don't need fixin approach.

I wouldnt constraint a damn thing, in the Project Environment.

If you "think" it would save time, try it on an actual project with more than 3 people in it: Then watch it crumble as people have to try reverse engineering what was constrained and what wasnt.

Such a pessimist...

That's why I wrote that it depends on people and their habits, skill and that varies more wildly than Revit does.

at least there is a Reveal Constraints button now.

The nice thing about Revit is that it's not too involved to revise properly modeled content. The only things I've constrained and locked were things that I noticed were being accidentally moved CONSTANTLY. I actually locked some structural elements so hard one time that I was reported to HR for making the structural engineer's job absurdly difficult. The thing to note about constraints is that they are destined to be unlocked or accidentally deleted due to someone flying through warning dialogues at some point int he near future.

A better alternative is being sure the project team is aware of the design intent and understand how that affects the alignment of structure and cladding.

That being said, I always appreciated columns which were constrained to grids when we needed to nudge that structural grid 3/256" because the structural engineers don't know how to type in dimensions instead of dragging grids around. I found that locking column and beam surrounds to grid lines and columns only made things messy down the road. To reiterate my point above, the best solution for ensuring that structural walls were in the correct alignment with the design was to be sure the project team was aware of how the assembly is supposed to work thus making corrections when an error is spotted.

To answer your question on why you would not want to lock exterior or shear walls that would be set, man I envy to have walls that are "set" before they're actually built! The design process tends to move things locking objects only delays the completion of a task that is ultimately inevitable.

Also... Reverse engineer?



Problem solved.