Cant create independent views - REVIT 2017

[Anonymous]

So ive been reading about people having similar problems: trying to duplicate your original view to a new view where you can make model changes to the plan without effecting the original.

I understand that the duplicate views are dependent to the original view, and that the 'convert to independent' option is not available for some reason. I have been reading suggestions where people say use Phases and Phase Filters, and use the Design Option tool, but I don't really understand how to navigate either of those correctly. 

If anyone could help me out and suggest the best option with a little instruction how to go about it, that would be greatly appreciated. What im trying to do exactly is take the existing plan, duplicate it as a few independent views, and make those independent views into a demo plan, a new construction plan, and a reflected ceiling plan; all using the same footprint but just with slight model changes that I don't want to effect the original. 

I was able to do this seamlessly in the 2015 version simply by 'duplicate with detailing' and 'convert to independent' but that process is not available any more. Please help!!

[ToanDN]

- Duplicate as dependent:  Create a new view identical to the original.  (Almost) any changes (annotation and detailing) in the future in either view will reflect on the other.  Convert to independent is available for dependent views.

- Duplicate with detailing:  Create a new view identical to the original.  Any changes (annotation and detailing) in the future in either view will NOT reflect on the other.  Convert to independent is NOT available.

The functions work the same since they were introduced.  The reason you cannot convert a view to independent is that it is not a dependent view.

[chrisplyler]

Learn to understand the phasing functionality.

There is only one model. Revit isn't like traditional dumb CAD wherein you just make another plan off to the side or in another file. In Revit, every view is just a set of definitions on how to LOOK at the model. If you make a change in ANY view, you've made a change to that model.

But that change doesn't have to SHOW UP in every view. For example: If you add a wall in a view that is associated with the NEW phase, it isn't going to show up in a view associated to the EXISTING phase.

Best workflow is to set up all these views, and do the modeling in them, prior to annotating.

View: 1st Floor Plan, Existing

Phase: Existing

Phase Filter: New, or All, or Complete

Use: model all the existing conditions here; don't necessarily need this on a sheet.

View: 1st Floor Plan, Demo

Phase: New

Phase Filter: Previous + Demo

Use: demolish existing stuff here; this can be the 'Demo' plan on a sheet

View: 1st Floor Plan, New Work

Phase: New

Phase Filter: Previous + New

Use: model new work here; demo new work here that was only temporary; this can be the 'New' plan on a sheet

View: 1st Floor Plan, Complete

Phase: New

Phase Filter: Complete

Use: just displays the finished condition; you can also model new work here too; you may or may not want this on a sheet

Set the default Plan up as one of those, duplicate it a few times and set each of them up as another one of those, until you have all four.

Possible RCPs include...

View: 1st Floor RCP, Existing (same as Plan, but RCP instead)

View: 1st Floor RCP, Demo (same as Plan, but RCP instead)

View: 1st Floor RCP, New Work (same as Plan, but RCP instead)

View: 1st Floor RCP, Proposed (all same as Plan, but RCP instead)

I humbly suggest you set up four 3D views similarly.

You may also have structural foundation plans...set up four of them similarly and change the discipline.

You may also have mechanical plans...set up four of them similarly and change the discipline.

You may also have electrical power plans...set up four of them similarly and change the discipline.

You may also have electrical lighting plans...set up four of them similarly and change the discipline.

You may also have plumbing plans...set up four of them similarly and change the discipline.

You don't necessarily actually need all four of these types. Once you get used to using phases correctly you will only develop what you need. But having the four types of views will help you gain that understanding. Create the four views, be always conscious of which view you are working in. Work in logical order, modeling the existing stuff first, then demo, then new (and temporary), using the right views.

Option Sets are a whole other ball game, but learn them also.

[jacques]

What you are trying to do would be better served by copying the view multiple times, using masking regions and hatching to show on plan the different options. Only when the option have been selected, would I recommend you model the items. It would save a lot of headaches in the long run.

[Corsten.Au]

1. Only reason one needs to duplicate a view is when new view needs to be at different scale.
2. Only reason one needs to duplicate with dependent is when the view doesn't fit on sheet and needs to be split in multiple views , use match lines and place new dependent views of separate sheets.
3. There's is no process to make duplicate views and convert them to ceiling plans, different modelling etc .
4. Create plan views ( looking down ) using plan views, ceiling plans ( which looks up ) using ceiling plans, structural plans using structure etc.
5. If there's some modelling changes then one can duplicate a view ( simple duplicate or with detail ) ( not dependent ) and use phasing or design options. And make sure modelling is done in correct design options and VG shows correct phase and design option ..
6. Workset is a very good idea to control modelling .

Cheers!

[chrisplyler]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
1. Only reason one needs to duplicate a view is when new view needs to be at different scale.
2. Only reason one needs to duplicate with dependent is when the view doesn't fit on sheet and needs to be split in multiple views , use match lines and place new dependent views of separate sheets.
3. There's is no process to make duplicate views and convert them to ceiling plans, different modelling etc .
4. Create plan views ( looking down ) using plan views, ceiling plans ( which looks up ) using ceiling plans, structural plans using structure etc.
5. If there's some modelling changes then one can duplicate a view ( simple duplicate or with detail ) ( not dependent ) and use phasing or design options. And make sure modelling is done in correct design options and VG shows correct phase and design option ..
6. Workset is a very good idea to control modelling .

Cheers!

---

1. Well, that's just wrong. If you start out in one of the default templates, you're just going to have one Level 1 Plan view. If you want one each for Existing, Demo, New, etc., then you're going to have to duplicate that default one a couple of times. If you want one for each discipline, you're going to have to duplicate it a few times. Each discipline might need more than one, actually, so more duplicating. If you want one for a Fire Protection piping layout, for example, you're going to have to duplicate it again. If you want one for a Life Safety plan, or for a Furniture Layout plan, or whatever, you're going to have to duplicate it again.

5. Oh wait, I thought you said in #1 that scale is the only possible reason to duplicate a view?

[chrisplyler]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

What you are trying to do would be better served by copying the view multiple times, using masking regions and hatching to show on plan the different options. Only when the option have been selected, would I recommend you model the items. It would save a lot of headaches in the long run.

---

Huh? You can put in walls and stuff just as fast (maybe faster) than you could fake it with detail items. Why would you go through that extra headache?

[chrisplyler]

Phases:

[chrisplyler]

Options...

[jacques]

---

@chrisplyler wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

What you are trying to do would be better served by copying the view multiple times, using masking regions and hatching to show on plan the different options. Only when the option have been selected, would I recommend you model the items. It would save a lot of headaches in the long run.

---

Huh? You can put in walls and stuff just as fast (maybe faster) than you could fake it with detail items. Why would you go through that extra headache?

---

What if the difference between one option and another will lead to walls overlapping? Or a door? Or a window?  Revit infers parameters automatically that later-on become difficult to clean up. One never knows what crazy things parametric program through at you.

Thus, keep your model as simple as possible and; for crying out lough; clean.

[chrisplyler]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

What if the difference between one option and another will lead to walls overlapping? Or a door? Or a window?  Revit infers parameters automatically that later-on become difficult to clean up. One never knows what crazy things parametric program through at you.

Thus, keep your model as simple as possible and; for crying out lough; clean.

---

Um...what? Two optional walls that overlap? Or intersect or whatever? They're optional. They don't both exist together. You put them in different Options and Revit doesn't join them or anything. Only one of them (whichever Option is set to be the Primary) exists in the main model at any one time.

Same goes for doors and windows and whatever.

Modeling your options correctly is much cleaner than cluttering a view with a bunch of 2D detail crap.

[jacques]

---

@chrisplyler wrote:

---

Modeling your options correctly is much cleaner than cluttering a view with a bunch of 2D detail crap.

---

No point on continuing this discussion if you going to use profanities.

[RobDraw]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@chrisplyler wrote:

---

Modeling your options correctly is much cleaner than cluttering a view with a bunch of 2D detail crap.

---

No point on continuing this discussion if you going to use profanities.

---

Profanity? Where do you see profanity? Design options might be a pain in the butt to get your head around but saying they are profane is a bit of an exaggeration.

It's funny how people who have been shown a better way refuse to admit it and turn to deflection to take the focus off of them.

[chrisplyler]

I don't understand the concept of "profane" anyway.

Poop. Crap. Sh**. They are all four letter words. They all refer to the same substance. Why is one collection of four letters acceptable and another collection of four letters not? I just don't get it.

But even though I don't understand, I'm capable of deferring to socially acceptable expectations. I thought "crap" belonged in that category. I apologize if I was wrong.

Regardless, whether I used profanity does NOT logically negate any point in the conversation. That's just a dumb premise. I suspect raising the profanity issue is more about, "I've got no good counterpoint, so I want a way out of this conversation, but I don't want to admit it's because I've got no good counterpoint."