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