Revit Architecture Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Revit Architecture Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Revit Architecture topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

One model vs linked models?

18 REPLIES 18
Reply
Message 1 of 19
Anonymous
1959 Views, 18 Replies

One model vs linked models?

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
18 REPLIES 18
Message 2 of 19
Alfredo_Medina
in reply to: Anonymous

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

Alfredo Medina _________________________________________________________________ ______
Licensed Architect (Florida) | Freelance Instructor | Autodesk Expert Elite (on Revit) | Profile on Linkedin
Message 3 of 19
Jason_S
in reply to: Anonymous

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
Message 4 of 19
Jason_S
in reply to: Anonymous

> {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.
Message 5 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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
Message 6 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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..
Message 7 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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
Message 8 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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
Message 9 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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..
Message 10 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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
Message 11 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:34:56 -0700, Matt Stachoni
wrote:

>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

We have everyone in-house and use three separate Revit models:
* Architecture/Interior Design model
* MEP model
* Structural model
One benefit is that we can tailor templates to each group. And when
we do collaborate with an out-of-house group, we can still follow the
same workflow.

Regards,
Ken
Message 12 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

"Doug Bowers" wrote
> Given the information that you have provided on the size of the project

When y'all talk size, whaddayamean? The info Matt provided was about the
size of the team. Is that more of a factor than the size of the building? Or
do you figure small team = small building? Or am I so far afield these are
stupid questions? The reason I ask is Matt's personnel assignments sound
like a typical job at my firm, whether it's a 20K SF garage or a 200K SF
school, which is about as big as we get. (We're not a Revit shop yet, btw,
I'm just trying to plan ahead a little.)
Message 13 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 07:28:56 -0700, KeN Etter
wrote:

>We have everyone in-house and use three separate Revit models:
>* Architecture/Interior Design model
>* MEP model
>* Structural model
>One benefit is that we can tailor templates to each group. And when
>we do collaborate with an out-of-house group, we can still follow the
>same workflow.

Thanks, Ken, I think this is a biggie as well.

Do you create a separate "coordination" project which links everything together?
How do you go about publishing the entire set of sheets at once?

Matt
matt@stachoni.com
Message 14 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:32:41 -0700, Matt Stachoni <...> wrote:

>Do you create a separate "coordination" project which links everything together?
>How do you go about publishing the entire set of sheets at once?

No. Every department is responsible for plotting their own sheets.

Ken
Message 15 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Joe,

Your questions are valid and good ones.

I was referring to the size of the building, although the small team helps
as well.

For your situation, the 200,000 SF school would be much better to have
divided into models per discipline as the model can get to be pretty large.
Unless the 20,000 SF building is very complex, it could easily be one file
with workharing utilized. There is no hard and fast rule on what that size
is since projects require different levels of detail and different project
types had varying amounts of information required. I would say that the
20,000 SF is probably on the upper end of the one model situation though.
Also, regardless of size, if you have more than basic MEP needs I would put
MEP in a separate model.

There are always issues in having all disciplines working in one model with
people messing with items belonging to other disciplines. Having separate
models eliminates this issue and is a big compelling reason to have separate
models.

Doug



"Joe Blizzard" wrote in message
news:6379276@discussion.autodesk.com...
"Doug Bowers" wrote
> Given the information that you have provided on the size of the project

When y'all talk size, whaddayamean? The info Matt provided was about the
size of the team. Is that more of a factor than the size of the building? Or
do you figure small team = small building? Or am I so far afield these are
stupid questions? The reason I ask is Matt's personnel assignments sound
like a typical job at my firm, whether it's a 20K SF garage or a 200K SF
school, which is about as big as we get. (We're not a Revit shop yet, btw,
I'm just trying to plan ahead a little.)
Message 16 of 19
vector2
in reply to: Anonymous

Robert-

sorry to hear the house was deleted.. i very
much would like to see that.. as you can tell
i'm always looking for better ways to do that
and i have been looking forward to your ideas..

please email what you have done on that to
me at bcm2345@hotmail.com

thanks..
Message 17 of 19
Robert_Grandmaison
in reply to: Anonymous

As promised, here's an image from using your mes(s)h as a family to pick faces.

Workflow:

1. Insert CAD Format into Revit Generic Model family.
2. Load into current project and place as component.
3. Switch to elevation view and align/lock levels as necessary.
4. Use wall tool and a combination of Pick Faces and line sketch to create walls. Snap to vertex ends or pick triangular mesh tesselations.
5. EH the house mesh component as needed to see your walls and for the triangular walls, select walls and choose "Reset Profile" from ribbon. Constrain walls to levels accordingly.
6. Create floors as necessary.
7. Create roofs by footprint, or try picking faces.

Now, as with any workflow, garbage in is garbage out. So with this mesh there was a LOT of stuff that was incomplete or just plain wrong. For instance the main roof did NOT plane out with the hip over the great room area. I wasn't about to waste a lot of my time designing a house and just wanted to put some numbers to what I did do. For what it's worth I spent about an hour creating the walls, floors and roofs you see here and finally decided after fighting with the roof design that my time would be better spent working on something that pays me instead of giving away my time in an experiment that likely won't be appreciated by anyone but me. I would have likely simply deleted the mesh once I had it far enough along, but it's rather convenient to have it in place for comparison purposes while creating the BIM. For instance, it makes doing a task like editing a wall profile to create a haunched arched opening quite easy.

I want to point out a big difference, Vector2, between this approach and the approach you mentioned. In this approach it's not necessary to ever leave Revit. You don't have to change hats. You can keep your Revit hat on and don't have to switch interfaces/mindsets/tools/focus. Once the mesh has been brought in as a family, which gives you the ability to pick faces. you do not need to revisit AutoCAD to slice and dice and measure and dimension the mesh file. So, it goes pretty quick. I could have finished the shell structure I'm sure by the end of two hours IF I didn't have to spend my time figuring out the designer's intentions. Design is a patient search and I didn't want to engage that side of my brain in this task. Adding windows/doors/sweeps/railing/stairs, gutters, fascias, etc is all easy enough once the basic shell is in place.

I suggest you give it a try.
Message 18 of 19
vector2
in reply to: Anonymous

that's excellent Robert thanks..

and i will give it a try..

i want to study what you have said
and done..

thanks..
Message 19 of 19
Alfredo_Medina
in reply to: Anonymous

Matt,

Just curious, what was the conclusion of the debate at your client's office about this?

Alfredo

Alfredo Medina _________________________________________________________________ ______
Licensed Architect (Florida) | Freelance Instructor | Autodesk Expert Elite (on Revit) | Profile on Linkedin

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Rail Community


Autodesk Design & Make Report