Autodesk Revit Architecture

[#1]

I have a client who has everyone in-house - architects, interior designers, MEP,
and structural. Even civil. They rarely use outside consultants.

We are debating whether to do everything in one model or have everyone work in
their own space and link things together.

Thoughts?

Matt
matt@stachoni.com

[#2]

I would vote for having linked models. I can think of these 3 reasons:

1) Hierarchy of roles: If the models are separated, only a few more experienced users or just one general coordinator will be responsible for setting up how the different models work together, instead of taking the risk of allowing many users of different departments with different levels of experience and knowledge to save content to a central file.

2) Efficiency: Chief of departments will feel more comfortable and concentrated on their projects knowing that only their team of collaborators are taking care of "their project" first, without having to deal with other departments' stuff (and staff) in their way all the time.

4) Disaster recovery: Putting eggs in separated baskets is better than putting all the eggs in the same basket. If anything goes wrong with the super model, is a disaster. If we have different models, we can link them together again at any time.

Alfredo Medina
info@planta1.com

[#3]

The interior designers that work for the firm I work for use Revit everyday to do their designs. Furniture layouts, Floor and wall patterns, you name it. They prefer Revit to CAD for their work. Edited by: Discussion_Admin on Apr 23, 2010 10:30 AM

[#4]

> {quote:title=Guest wrote:}{quote}
> I have a client who has everyone in-house - architects, interior designers, MEP,
> and structural. Even civil. They rarely use outside consultants.
>
> We are debating whether to do everything in one model or have everyone work in
> their own space and link things together.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Matt
> matt@stachoni.com

Hey Matt

I would still recommend having them work in their own models and link them together. Unless they are working on a very small project. I also like the reason's Alfredo gave as to why you should separate.

I hope things work out for you client.

[#5]

Thanks, Alfredo.

Some more backgroud:

On this particular project (their first Revit project after initial training),
it's small enough that they could all work in the same file without tripping
over anyone. It's basically being handled by one or two architects /
architectural designers, one structural engineer, one mechanical engineer, and
one electrical / lighting designer.

So far they are working in a combined model using worksharing. It was
established before I got involved in training, so it was tough to change course
without a lot of rework and they were under a time constraint. (Hint: If you are
going to use an actual project for your initial training, make sure your
deadline isn't three days after training is finished).

Regarding disaster recovery, because all users are worksharing with a local
file, there are numerous full-project backups peppered around the office, so
that's no big deal. So far the project database is around 15MB, which is
manageable.

The benefits of a combined model in this case are that there isn't any
copy/monitor issue to deal with. The project is also in a somewhat early stage
of design development - they are still scooching column grids and TOS around to
make things fit. In a single model, that really helps with coordination instead
of doing copy/monitor.

The biggest issues so far are due to how the project was started; the structural
person created it using Revit Structure. Thus, they are living with the legacy
of the template used:

1. When creating new Views, they are set to a Discpline of Structural and use a
Structural default view template. This gets really old after about 4 seconds.

2. None of the fittings required for MEP are in the file. We had to transfer
project standards from a project built from the mechanical default template,
import a ton of components, set up MEP settings explicitly for duct families and
so on.

Other than those two things, it's actually working out fairly well. Because the
team is small (< 8 people total) it's probably more appropriate for things to be
centralized. Anything bigger and I would recommend separating the models.

Matt
matt@stachoni.com


On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 20:49:10 -0700, Alfredo_Medina <> wrote:

>I would vote for having linked models. I can think of these 3 reasons:
>
>1) Hierarchy of roles: If the models are separated, only a few more experienced users or just one general coordinator will be responsible for setting up how the different models work together, instead of taking the risk of allowing many users of different departments with different levels of experience and knowledge to save content to a central file.
>
>2) Efficiency: Chief of departments will feel more comfortable and concentrated on their projects knowing that only their team of collaborators are taking care of "their project" first, without having to deal with other departments' stuff (and staff) in their way all the time.
>
>4) Disaster recovery: Putting eggs in separated baskets is better than putting all the eggs in the same basket. If anything goes wrong with the super model, is a disaster. If we have different models, we can link them together again at any time.
>
>Alfredo Medina
>info@planta1.com

[#6]

I frequently have interior designers in my classes, and I frequently go to
my clients offices to do on-site mentoring which usually involves at least
one person from the interiors department.

You might want to go check your research again, there, Sparky.

"vector2" wrote in message news:6379129@discussion.autodesk.com...
> it just seems like if "lots of other places do it"-
> there would be some mention of that somewhere
> on the web..

[#7]

Matt,

Given the information that you have provided on the size of the project, I
would lean toward the one model with worksharing. That also helps with the
connectivity issues that typically exist in pre-2011 releases between the
architectural and MEP models for things like plumbing fixtures and light
fixtures.

Note that I think this because it is such a small project. For most
projects, I recommend separate models for pretty much the same reasons that
Alfredo mentioned.

It sounds an interesting situation given the short timeframe on the first
project.

Doug
www.dougbowersconsulting.com
blog: http://aectechtalk.wordpress.com


"Matt Stachoni" <...> wrote in message
news:6379116@discussion.autodesk.com...
Thanks, Alfredo.

Some more backgroud:

On this particular project (their first Revit project after initial
training),
it's small enough that they could all work in the same file without tripping
over anyone. It's basically being handled by one or two architects /
architectural designers, one structural engineer, one mechanical engineer,
and
one electrical / lighting designer.

So far they are working in a combined model using worksharing. It was
established before I got involved in training, so it was tough to change
course
without a lot of rework and they were under a time constraint. (Hint: If you
are
going to use an actual project for your initial training, make sure your
deadline isn't three days after training is finished).

Regarding disaster recovery, because all users are worksharing with a local
file, there are numerous full-project backups peppered around the office, so
that's no big deal. So far the project database is around 15MB, which is
manageable.

The benefits of a combined model in this case are that there isn't any
copy/monitor issue to deal with. The project is also in a somewhat early
stage
of design development - they are still scooching column grids and TOS around
to
make things fit. In a single model, that really helps with coordination
instead
of doing copy/monitor.

The biggest issues so far are due to how the project was started; the
structural
person created it using Revit Structure. Thus, they are living with the
legacy
of the template used:

1. When creating new Views, they are set to a Discpline of Structural and
use a
Structural default view template. This gets really old after about 4
seconds.

2. None of the fittings required for MEP are in the file. We had to transfer
project standards from a project built from the mechanical default template,
import a ton of components, set up MEP settings explicitly for duct families
and
so on.

Other than those two things, it's actually working out fairly well. Because
the
team is small (< 8 people total) it's probably more appropriate for things
to be
centralized. Anything bigger and I would recommend separating the models.

Matt
matt@stachoni.com


On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 20:49:10 -0700, Alfredo_Medina <> wrote:

>I would vote for having linked models. I can think of these 3 reasons:
>
>1) Hierarchy of roles: If the models are separated, only a few more
>experienced users or just one general coordinator will be responsible for
>setting up how the different models work together, instead of taking the
>risk of allowing many users of different departments with different levels
>of experience and knowledge to save content to a central file.
>
>2) Efficiency: Chief of departments will feel more comfortable and
>concentrated on their projects knowing that only their team of
>collaborators are taking care of "their project" first, without having to
>deal with other departments' stuff (and staff) in their way all the time.
>
>4) Disaster recovery: Putting eggs in separated baskets is better than
>putting all the eggs in the same basket. If anything goes wrong with the
>super model, is a disaster. If we have different models, we can link them
>together again at any time.
>
>Alfredo Medina
>info@planta1.com

[#8]

Linked models give you the ability to better manage model size. The improved
copy/monitor tools in RMEP 2011 and the ability to get better control of
workset visibility and loading in linked models also may indicate that
breaking it up into separate models would be more effective than in previous
releases.

Of course, if you put everything in one model, that would give the
architectural peeps the ability to move that pesky AHU unit somewhere else
where it isn't so much in the way... or get rid of that ugly cooling tower
on top of the building.

Oh... wait...

Seriously, I would consider splitting the MEP stuff out - maybe leave the
Arch, Interiors and Structural in the same model. Possibly split out the
structural into a separate model, but definitely leave the interiors in the
architectural model.


"Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
news:6378898@discussion.autodesk.com...
> I have a client who has everyone in-house - architects, interior
> designers, MEP,
> and structural. Even civil. They rarely use outside consultants.
>
> We are debating whether to do everything in one model or have everyone
> work in
> their own space and link things together.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Matt
> matt@stachoni.com

[#9]

I agree. I have also had interior designers involved in Revit training.
They do use it.

Doug
www.dougbowersconsulting.com
blog: http://aectechtalk.wordpress.com



"Matt Dillon" wrote in message
news:6379144@discussion.autodesk.com...
I frequently have interior designers in my classes, and I frequently go to
my clients offices to do on-site mentoring which usually involves at least
one person from the interiors department.

You might want to go check your research again, there, Sparky.

"vector2" wrote in message news:6379129@discussion.autodesk.com...
> it just seems like if "lots of other places do it"-
> there would be some mention of that somewhere
> on the web..

[#10]

the only real problem I see with the interior designers is that some of them
will start messing around with the walls to get them to look right. Best
idea might be to have them in their own space with linked files too, just
for different reasons.

--
Lance W.

"Matt Dillon" wrote in message
news:6379145@discussion.autodesk.com...
> Linked models give you the ability to better manage model size. The
> improved
> copy/monitor tools in RMEP 2011 and the ability to get better control of
> workset visibility and loading in linked models also may indicate that
> breaking it up into separate models would be more effective than in
> previous
> releases.
>
> Of course, if you put everything in one model, that would give the
> architectural peeps the ability to move that pesky AHU unit somewhere else
> where it isn't so much in the way... or get rid of that ugly cooling tower
> on top of the building.
>
> Oh... wait...
>
> Seriously, I would consider splitting the MEP stuff out - maybe leave the
> Arch, Interiors and Structural in the same model. Possibly split out the
> structural into a separate model, but definitely leave the interiors in
> the
> architectural model.
>
>
> "Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
> news:6378898@discussion.autodesk.com...
>> I have a client who has everyone in-house - architects, interior
>> designers, MEP,
>> and structural. Even civil. They rarely use outside consultants.
>>
>> We are debating whether to do everything in one model or have everyone
>> work in
>> their own space and link things together.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Matt
>> matt@stachoni.com