Have we gotten to a point where the project origin no longer matters?

[tnievesP53K8]

Probably the most confusing tool to train on and help set up is project coordinates. Since Revit 24 introduced a new topo system that uses elevations similar to how floors do so it no longer is reliant on the internal origin, I'm wondering if other areas of Revit have removed their reliance on the internal origin in Revit 2025? If not, has anyone seen or heard anything about this?

Everywhere I've worked most staff ignores the origin and really only pays attention to base and survey points or general relationships between objects and not the coordinates at all.

Unfortunately copying elements between models and some imports seem to still be reliant on the origin as of Revit 24.

[barthbradley]

---

@tnievesP53K8 wrote:

Everywhere I've worked most staff ignores the origin and really only pays attntion to base and survey points.

I mostly pay attention to the physical relationships between building elements. That aside, what is your specific question?    

[tnievesP53K8]

My question is if copying elements and imports still rely on this in later versions like 2025 or are we finally done with needing the origin to matter. A while back someone at Autodesk during an AU event mentioned they were looking into simplifying it but I don't see anything about it anywhere. Haven't used 25. 

I'll also update my question to make it more clear.

[vitorbortoncello]

It’s important to note that when collaborating with teams across different disciplines and exporting models to IFC, some software only supports the internal origin and not coordinate systems. Therefore, when exporting models to IFC (open BIM), using the internal origin is essential.

Another key consideration is that when you create a model in Revit, you are working within a modeling work plane that spans 20 miles (32 kilometers) in diameter, with a radius of 10 miles (16 kilometers) from the internal origin. All model geometry, including imported or linked geometry, should remain within these boundaries.

If geometry is placed too far from the internal origin, the graphical representation of elements can become less reliable and accurate. This issue arises because Revit  interprets the modeling work plane as a flat surface, while in reality, the Earth's surface is curved. The farther elements are from the internal origin, the higher the likelihood of graphical anomalies in how Revit  displays the geometry.

i believe it is still useful for controlling and managing the model

[SteveKStafford]

It still matters that we create the model near the origin so the calculations required to display and print the documentation are easier to do so accurately. It also matters for basic RVT to RVT linking purposes. Agreeing on where to place the model relative to the origin is something we all have to agree on if we're going to share files. It was never meant to be a major concern however, originally it didn't show us a project origin at all. We just started drawing wherever we wanted. Quickly though, trying to make inroads into the existing CAD world, it had to deal with the coordinates of other CAD data and ultimately each others files for sharing and distributing work.

[barthbradley]

---

@tnievesP53K8 wrote:

My question is if copying elements and imports still rely on this in later versions like 2025 or are we finally done with needing the origin to matter. A while back someone at Autodesk during an AU event mentioned they were looking into simplifying it but I don't see anything about it anywhere. Haven't used 25. 

I'll also update my question to make it more clear.

---

You mean get rid of the IO?  I don't know what that would "simplify".  My question still remains, what is it you are grappling with? 

BTW: I wasn't being flip when I said we mostly pay attention to physical relationships building elements. So, the elements' insertion point is of little significance because it gets moved into place - relative to other elements in the BIM Model.      

[barthbradley]

This may or may not be helpful to you. Dunno. Just just throwing it out there. 

 https://s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pfacs.downloads/Conferences/Aubin_HAND_2011_AU_Shared_Coordinates...

[tnievesP53K8]

The issue we have is we have a lot of from the ground up projects where no
survey information is available yet, we don't have grids, and the model is
changing too often to simply pick a corner that always aligns to the
internal origin.

More and more I am seeing people not modeling with the internal origin in
mind, and even have seen autodesk changing things that used to rely on it.
I want to know what others are doing with these early stage projects to
ensure the origin is set up in a location that can be coordinated with
other teams since there is no way to change it. If someone starts a model
and the model ends up away from the origin before any coordinates are
actually known, is there a process that others recommend to fix it?

[barthbradley]

Are we talking site planning?  

...you know, I really think that PDF I linked you to above will help your overall understanding.  Give it a read.     

[tnievesP53K8]

Yup. That all makes sense, however in practice there doesn't seem to be a
good way to pick the origin intentionally when your are doing concepts and
early schematic designs. Grids may not even be a thing until early CD's in
some cases. At my last firm we started a lot of projects that had grids so
we did tend to have an easier time coordinating and keeping things set up
well. However, my current firm starts projects from the beginning and I've
had several teams come to me after SD trying to get coordinates set up
where the origin was never considered or even if it was, the model elements
moved since there was no clear location to start. Maybe if the software had
a way of moving this it would be easier, but what are people doing for
projects that start with no survey information or grids? Corner of
buildings only work if the corners don't change.

[SteveKStafford]

---

@tnievesP53K8 wrote:
The issue we have is we have a lot of from the ground up projects where no
survey information is available yet, we don't have grids, and the model is
changing too often to simply pick a corner that always aligns to the
internal origin.

FWIW, Revit is designed with this in mind. Start to model the building without regard for the site, make it easy to draw. As you know, this is otherwise called Project North, the orientation that is convenient for drawing, not the site.

It doesn't matter if you start drawing at the origin precisely, nor has it ever mattered to Revit (except to individual people's opinion/habits). Just do it near the origin, not many miles away or at fussy angles.

However IF we know that our design is going to require a grid layout, there is nothing wrong with picking a grid intersection to start sketching from the origin of the project file either. What matters is that once you start working out the design that everyone else involved links your work to theirs using Internal Origin to Internal Origin so the process of linking files is simple for everyone. It's the same old problem of agreeing on what the origin is in other CAD software too.

[barthbradley]

---

@tnievesP53K8 wrote:
Yup. That all makes sense, however in practice there doesn't seem to be a
good way to pick the origin intentionally when your are doing concepts and
early schematic designs. Grids may not even be a thing until early CD's in
some cases. At my last firm we started a lot of projects that had grids so
we did tend to have an easier time coordinating and keeping things set up
well. However, my current firm starts projects from the beginning and I've
had several teams come to me after SD trying to get coordinates set up
where the origin was never considered or even if it was, the model elements
moved since there was no clear location to start. Maybe if the software had
a way of moving this it would be easier, but what are people doing for
projects that start with no survey information or grids? Corner of
buildings only work if the corners don't change.

---

When you say "survey information", what exactly are you referring to?  You seem to be wondering about how any project moves forward without it.  In 30 years, I've worked on numerous projects, from concept to plan set, without ever laying my eyes on a site survey -- or any civil planning for that matter.