Select objects for building A > Group > name as "Building A" > from the group panel, select "Link" > "Replace with a new project file" > Revit offers to name the file as 'same as group name' , accept with "Save". Now "Building A" is a link in the original overall project. Then repeat steps for building B and C. At the end, Manage > Manage links will show you the 3 files as links, and now you have each building in its own individual Revit project file.

FREAKING AWESOME!!!! Once again you teach me something I never even knew existed. Nifty little tool. :beer:

WOW! Awesome tip Alfredo, I never knew this existed either +REP

+1! Very useful, thanks a lot!!!
This can be used for a building and a site surface too!!!

Great tip Alfredo! More rep for you...

that is a cool tip! Along the same lines, I have a project that I created all of my scope of work on a workset in the Architect's model (not linked, the actual model). I know now that this is probably not the best way to do this. I have just received a new Architect's model with several changes and I need to get my workset scope out of the old model and into the new model but this time I will link the Architect's model. I think that the above workflow will give me what I need to create a separate model file with only my scope of work that I can then link the Arch model into. Does that make sense?

Yes, actually, this technique might be very useful for you, to separate the rest of the model from your scope of work in the building.

Its an awesome way to convert a building to a Link, but there is a MAJOR thing you need to be careful with:

Depending on how youre going to document that "Linked Model," you might be very very annoyed when you realize that converting a Group to a Link doesnt actually use a Template File. Many Many Many settings pertaining to File links "say" By Host View, but that DOES NOT mean "use the setting in the parent file," it means "Find a setting in the link that has the same name as the one in the parent file." True story. Plus, since it wasnt created in your template, its not going to have any of your standards, your components, your details, your views, etc.

So, if youre going the Linked View way, youre in a world of hurt. If youre going to document everything in the Main Model (parent), you are slightly better off... Except in 2011 you cant tag Linked Rooms.

So you have a few options: You can then try to ram a blank project underneath the new Bare Link file, by Binding THAT file in to a new file you started with your template, but then you have issues with disassociated levels from the views. Or, you can go your original road, and do a save as a few times.

My advice: Do the save as a few times, but do it right:

1. Save as, save as, save as.
2. In the Links, blow away all of the sheets (not views) and delete all the titleblocks, so no one gets confused about what the master file is (assuming youre going BLV).
3. Pick up and MOVE the models (and all the views, and annotations, etc), so they are at a sensible origin, and establish Shared Coordinates the right way. (Otherwise, since they all started out as the same file, you can link them in origin to origin, but since its not the right way to do it (in my opinion), i dont do that).
4. Link them in fresh, and go to town on your view templates. Copy/Monitor the Linked Grids, since youll end up wanting them in the Overall plans, in the native model (but in the building plans youll want them in the linked model, so they need to stay there too).
5. Explain to the team how to control and Name the views in the Links that correspond to the views in the Parent file, and have a ball.
4

I've just tried to convert a group to a linked file and it will not work. Any suggestions as to why?
I believe I've followed these instructions exactly. I created the group, used the link button, gave the file a name, it acts like it's processing but then when it's done it's still a group and not a linked file.