Design Options Vs Duplicate Models?

[BigPicture045]

I started using design options as my primary workflow to show different design options when I started using Revit. It took a while to figure them out, but I was able to use them effectively. This process took a couple of years with various remodeling work to become comfortable with.

However, I've seen a lot of users not using design options and simply highlighting and copying the entire model over and making changes to that new model. I am surprised by how simple and quick it was to just copy the model versus using design options.

-Much faster/easier/less errors

-View multiple designs next to each other in the same Revit workspace.

-Much easier working between the separate design options when in the same Revit workspace.

My question is, what are the benefits of using design options? 

[ToanDN]

Flexibility versus conformity. It is easier to do copies of model in design stage, but design options are easier for documentation.

[barthbradley]

---

@BigPicture045 wrote:

I am surprised by how simple and quick it was to just copy the model versus using design options.

---

Huh?  Do you mean creating copies of the entire BIM Model within in the same Project or copying the RVT to create separate, stand alone Projects for each DO?    

[barthbradley]

I can't help but wonder if you are using a DO workflow.  Dedicated Views are an integral part of the DO workflow.  Without them, I can see why copying the Model might seem like a good idea.  

An alternative to copying the entire Model, would be adding Phases of Construction - demolishing existing construction in forward Phases and replacing with new construction. Still, even  this approach requires dedicated views. 

That being said, I wouldn't copy the Model within the same Project or as a separate Project.  

FWIW: 

https://www.autodesk.com/autodesk-university/ko/forge-content/au_class-urn%3Aadsk.content%3Acontent%...

[RPTHOMAS108 · Accepted solution]

Design options for me have only been useful for small modular changes, they are basically sets of ElementIds i.e. changes between whole elements not parts of element such as areas of floor (unless you cut them into pieces).

In most cases early on I'd rather just copy the model. From a structural point of view it doesn't make much sense since the sizes of elements change depending on the option. Say I have an option for timber deck and one for concrete, the frame isn't going to be the same for both. So the design option ends up growing into a whole model which I may as well have created elsewhere to start with. You can also link parts of a model in and have visibility by linked view. Lots of ways of doing the same thing.

A lot of time is spent considering how the fictitious interface between the base and the options is managed. It isn't for whole buildings it is for modular things of A that can be swapped with things of B that is when it works best e.g. this finish or that finish.

[stefan_gokstorp]

i work mainly in larger projects such as hospitals and factories.
i would never ever copy the file entire project is always depended on worksets and phases. 

[BigPicture045]

Another point for Design Options is that when you "Accept" a design option, the other design options get removed from the project. 

I have done this in many of past res remodeling projects and it would have been better to still have those designs for reference. 

[ToanDN]

Then Accept Primary instead of Accept Design Option.

[BigPicture045]

The "Accept Primary" is the only option and it does delete all other options when chosen. Correct? 

[cwtwong]

Can I change SOME of the elements from "Option 1" to "Option 2"?