Placing issues retrospectively

[anna_wahlsten]

We have big problems with not being able to retrospectively place Issue in a 3D location. Some issues may only be visible (and tagged) on a 2D drawing when it was created, but over time, this issue has been modelled and is better viewed/understood/tagged in a 3D model. Please allow users to place pre-existing issues that were once created in Docs in the Model Coordination space. We are currently forced to create a static 3D view for tagging, but with new models each week, it immediately becomes redundant and is not a viable workflow (re-tagging the location of hundreds of issues each week). The other option is to delete the old 2D issue and recreate it in the 3D space, but this is terribly time consuming and we lose information along the way.

I am proposing within the Model Coordination > View, instead of selecting "create new issue" in the 3D model view there is a second option called "tag existing issue" where I can choose to place existing (Docs) issues. 

I am also proposing the option of having the same issue taggable or referenced in multiple locations. A design clash may for example may be visible in both a 2D drawing and in the 3D model, and I want to have the option to tag it in both, depending on project needs. This could have a feature such as "reference tag" or similar to indicate that the second Tag is a reference only to a primary one. 

[curtisridenour]

I believe you can adjust the Placement location of an existing issue. Hit the X button to remove the placement model for the ACC issue. Then choose a new FILE to associate it to. Pick a model you want the issue associated with as the file and then put place the issue into a published 3d view or 2d sheet of your choice.

[anna_wahlsten]

Hi, Thanks for your reply. You can move the pin and place it within a single file but that is of no use to us as BIM Coordinators, we need it placed within the model space so it can be viewed together with the other models as we are using Issues to track clashes between the models.

[curtisridenour]

I place issues in the model space and it can be tracked between different Revit models. We create a Container Model with all the different discipline models within it. We place all the clash issues within this model and then associate this Container Model into all the other models. The issues then show in their respective disciplines and can be sorted/filtered.

[anna_wahlsten]

We don't want to federate outside of ACC, we want the different disciplines to upload their models individually onto ACC (sometimes at different times/frequencies), and we federate in ACC only, where we use the clash tool etc. My suggestion is to create an option to re-place an issue in this model space, and not within an individual file to facilitate this.

[curtisridenour]

We also only federate in ACC. Why are you having different disciplines upload? ACC is intended to have collaborated models on ACC. Worst case, you should be bridging models from other disciplines that keep their content on different hubs.

I do think it would be nice to duplicate an issue, but you can move them from model to model and you can move them from a 2D sheet to 3D published view.

[anna_wahlsten]

Hi, thanks for your comment. The other disciplines do not use ACC at all, don't have a hub etc. Models are worked on in isolation within their local servers and shared with us regularly (more of an old school set up). 

Are you saying the system is optimised for models being federated through hubs? We currently give BIM Collaborate licenses to all users, but those would not work for creating separate hubs for each discipline, and there is no interest amongst them to pay for additional ACC licenses. Is there another way to optimise the process?

[curtisridenour]

Hmm, that is tough. Replacing models all the time is definitely the Old School way. I am sorry you need to suffer through that process. I do not know of a better way to replace models on ACC to yield better results. Your strategy for a container model is a great start though. You can have consistent 2D/3D views published to create issues within. You can also use the model coordination tool or create a Navisworks file to run clash if needed from that model. You may want to look into Revizto as a solution. They are software agnostic. The issues also live in XYZ locations instead of associated to an element or a view. Revizto is not free though.

Bridge is a way to have multiple firms working independently on their own hubs with their own permissions and standards. The files or folders containing files can be bridged over as if they are accessible on your own hub and vice versa. It is one way of having your cake and eating it too. The only issue with Bridge is that it is not fast. It will only display published content and currently ACC only auto publishes models once a week. We prefer direct linking of content to get the latest and greatest. We create folders with permissions for our subconsultants to work within so we can directly link the Revit models. We are a small firm and this fits our needs better.

But none of that matters much if they are not willing to pay for the ACC license to work in that cloud based collaborative environment. Those licenses are not cheap. I think they are around $950 per chair per year and that is on top of a AEC Suite license of $3700 or something along those lines.

[curtisridenour]

When you say you give BIM Collaborate licenses, is that the BIM Collaborate Pro license? The pro license is required to be able to work on collaborated Revit models on ACC. Do you give those licenses to your subs?