Design Options: Window Options in the same wall

[Beth1285]

I've figured out that if I want to set a windows as a design options, I have to have the host wall included. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to end there. I also have to have all other doors and windows in that wall in that design option. Am I correct in this?

I'm trying to test double hung versus casement windows with a few different layouts, and would like each of those to be a design option. Seems odd that I can't have JUST the few windows I want to change in the options. I have to have x-number of copies of the walls and all the doors and other windows in that wall in the option - so if I move a door, for instance, I have to move it in every option to keep it current? 

I suppose I understand the reasoning, just seems there would be a way to program this to work differently. Has anyone found a way around this? I can't be the first to see this as an issue. 

[SteveKStafford]

It is a technical paradox, windows and doors must have a host so a wall must be present along with the element. Exterior options can get even trickier if different roof designs are involved.

Before Revit we'd draw it all over again from scratch, or at least copy the previous and then edit it to be different. We'd still have duplicity, but they were lines etc.

When you need to show alternate locations of a door or window in a wall you can use Add to Option to put them into multiple options quicker (the option set and options need to exist first). Then edit each option to show the alternate conditions.

[Beth1285]

That's what I was afraid of. 

It wouldn't be the worst thing to have to add all these to design options, except that I can't seem to get all the right things at the right time. IE: you can't do windows/ doors without walls, and you can't leave windows/doors behind without walls in the main model... meaning I have to individually find/select every object that is dependant on each other and add it all at the same time, or else I get an error. That however, is my own frustration preventing me from doing it, not the program. Clearly there isn't, but it seems there should be a way to manage otptions like this differently. 

And as for the "before Revit" way of doing it - there were ways to simplify the duplicity (unless you mean paper and pencil before...). Create one block of what stays the same and duplicate that, have options on different layers that can be turned on and off, etc, 

Thanks for the clairification.

[SteveKStafford]

I find it helpful to model one solution first. Then create an Option Set (the problem I need to solve) and then the options (possible solutions to the problem). I always create one solution (Option), set as Primary, that is empty, I call it no solution. This allows me to show no solutions in all views by default because they are all set to show the primary option of an Option Set. This makes it easy to show a blank slate, easy to start a conversation with, "Here's what it looks like before we make any decisions" Then we can change to a view that is assigned to show a specific Design Option and it can carry all the related annotation to tell its story. Then we move to another...

Once I have the main model and one design expressed I select everything that will be affected by the other solutions, use Add to Set and add everything to all of the options I created (2..3..etc). Then I edit each option and remove, modify and add components that define how this solution will resolve the design problem. It isn't necessary to add everything to all the options but if all the solutions are slightly different versions based on the same general stuff then it is easy to move a door over, move a window, move furniture etc versus creating everything from scratch again.

If the option is simpler, like the door goes here or possibly over there then sometimes a simple note with an arrow can tell the story in a straight forward way without all the extra effort.

I find it also helps to try to keep each Option Set (the problem) as small as possible. For example, the kitchen design of a home might want to offer three approaches to laying it out. I wouldn't attempt to deal with other rooms on the first floor too unless the first floor is really the design option set (the problem). If so then we might actually want options for the overall first floor layout and then additional options for different parts of the first floor depending on which of the first floor layouts are chosen. A nested decision making flow chart...it can get complicated even if we don't involve software.

The way you'd do it before Revit isn't without duplication and effort (and thinking/planning), you're just familiar and more comfortable with what's required. You're less so with Revit for now...just takes time. Have fun!