How 'bout them Design Options?!

[Anonymous]

TL/DR: More thorough documentation of the Design Options feature, please.

I've read every article in the Revit Help that mentions Design Options, as well as dozens of 3rd party blog and forum posts, and still don't understand how to make this feature work in a way that makes sense. So I have compiled a list of questions here trying to probe into how Revit organizes / thinks of Design Options (DOs) and Design Option Sets (DOSs) in the hopes that the answers will help me (and others) make sense of the feature.

Questions:

Q1. What is a good analogy for how Revit manages DOs? Is it most like a special kind of Linked File? Is it most like a Model Group? Is it most like a Phase?

Q2. What is the difference (from Revit's point of view) between the Primary DO and a Secondary DO? How are they treated differently and what are their respective relationships to the Main Model

Q3. What happens (looking for a list of operations Revit performs) when a Secondary DO is promoted to be the Primary DO?

Q4. What happens (again, looking for a list of operations Revit performs) when a Primary DO is Incorporated into the Main Model?

Q5. How do (a) Joined elements, (b) Embedded elements, (c) Aligned/Locked elements operate across DOs?

Examples:

E1. I have an existing building for which I am designing 4 different adaptive reuse schemes. For the most part the facade will remain, but a window might be punched in an exterior wall here or there depending on the scheme; floors and roofs will remain; most interior walls will be fully or partially changed. Assuming I want to maximize the BIMness of this model (e.g. use Worksets & Phases & Design Options & Links) I am confronted with the task of structuring the model geometry in a way that lends itself to all these overlapping layers of organization simultaneously. Once I have modeled the existing conditions and assigned all those elements to the correct phase, workset, etc. should I:

E1a. Place the entire model into one DOS, leaving nothing in the Main Model?

Pros:

+ I don't have to cut up elements (e.g. exterior walls) to keep some parts of the elements in the Main Model, while other parts host elements in a DO.

Cons:

- If I have multiple areas in which I'm considering options, I can't see different DOs for different areas next to each other b/c everything is in one DOS; I have to create a DO for each combination of each option in each area.

E1b. Break the model into wings/zones for which I want to explore options, and create correlating DOSs?

Pros:

+ This seems like the most intuitive/logical way to use DOs.

+ I can see different DOs for different areas next to each other

Cons:

- If I decide to consider an option which crosses these pre-decided lines, Revit might have trouble Promoting or Demoting this option to/from Primary, or incorporating it into the model. (see Revit Help: Promote a Secondary Option to the Primary Option)

- If I decide to consider an option which crosses these pre-decided lines, model organization in general begins to break down (e.g. an element that is physically located in Zone A might end up in DOS Zone B b/c it is hosted to an element in DOS Zone B); this could be remedied by splitting any elements that cross these DOS lines, but this in itself is cumbersome.

E1c. Create empty DOs for each DOS, set these empty DOs to Primary in each DOS; then create all my real design options as Secondary DOs.

Pros:

+ This removes any complications caused by Primary DO geometry from the equation; reduces the relationship between DO geometry and Main Model geometry to visibility-only (I think?). (What are the other implications of this workflow?)

Cons:

- This undermines the way the feature was intended to be used, which usually tends causes problems. (What are the other implications of this workflow?)

E2. (ref Q5) If I host Window1 in Wall2, draw Wall2 parallel to and in front of Wall1, and Join Wall2 to Wall1, a hole is automatically punched in Wall2 for the Window1, even though it is hosted in Wall1, not Wall2. What happens if I then add Wall1 and Window1 to a DO, leaving Wall2 in the Main Model (and why does it work that way)?

E3. (ref Q5) If I embed Wall1 into Wall2 (same family and type), then copy Wall1 to DO1 and DO2, leaving Wall2 in the Main Model (can I even do this?), can I host Window1 to Wall1 in DO1, but not in DO2? (the intended result being a complete-looking wall regardless of which DO I have visible, without removing Wall2 from the Main Model)

E4. (ref Q5) If I host exterior decorative elements (e.g. cornices, light fixtures, etc.) to ref planes within my model, and align/lock the ref planes to walls, then add said walls to a DO, what happens (and why does it work that way)?

E5. I inherit a model from a coworker which has a few DOSs each with a few DOs already created. When I try to edit the model I get insoluble errors like "Element's internal join data is corrupt." How do I go about troubleshooting a model which is woven between Design Options, Worksets, and Phases in unknown ways?

Comments / Complaints

C1. Primary Option / Secondary Option Distinction

I see no reason to elevate a 'Primary Option' above the rest. I also see no reason to integrate the geometry of any one DO into the Main Model prior to 'Incorporating' it into the model. Secondary Options are currently relate to the Main Model on a visibility-only basis, correct?(e.g. you can pull a dimension between the Main Model & the Primary DO, but not a Secondary DO) Why not make all DOs in a DOS work this way, thereby avoiding the geometry-resolving mess of Promoting and Demoting options.

C2. Visibility / Editability Dissociation

It is confusing to have a disconnect between which DO is visible in a given view and which DO is editable. It would make much more sense (to me) to have one single place (similar to the Design Options tab within VG, but more accessible) that sets both visibility and editability with one parameter. This 'way what you see is what you get' in terms of what you can edit and what you can't.

Additionally (going back to C1), tying visibility of inactive areas (DOSs) to the 'Primary Option' (via the <Automatic> setting in VG) means that, to change which DO is visible within an inactive DOS (e.g. while editing DO in a different DOS in different part of the model), I have to go through the painful process of Promoting a Secondary DO to Primary. In other words: 

If I have 2 DOSs (1 and 2) each with 2 DOs (A (primary) and B(secondary)), and my current visibility is set to 1:A 2:A, and I want to edit 1:B while seeing 2:B next to it, I must:

- open VG

- switch to the Design Options Tab

- set 1:A->1:B

- set 2:A->2:B

- select OK

- open the Design Options dropdown (either from the Manage tab or the status bar)

- select 1:B to edit

...when the process could be:

- open the DOS 1 dropdown (from the view properties panel)

- select DO B (sets both visibility and editability in my current view)

- open the DOS 2 dropdown

- select DO B

Another (related) unintuitive result of the current feature:

If I have 2 DOSs (1 and 2) each with 2 DOs (A (primary) and B(secondary)), and my current visibility is set to 1:<auto> 2:<auto>, and I want to edit 1:B I...

- open the Design Options dropdown

- select 1:B to edit

...at this point, a part of the model which I've been looking at / working with *pops* out of view and another *pops* in to replace it, and everything else in the model turns grey...

- do my editing

- open the Design Options dropdown

- select Main Model (to see my finished work in relation to the rest of the model sans the halftone)

...and *pop* there goes the part of the model I was just working on, out of sight b/c it is not the 'Primary Option'. The UX of this feature should not be so jarring and inconsistent.

C3. Exclude Options & Active Only Checkboxes

These checkboxes should not uncheck themselves when I hit escape. This is really a Revit-wide problem, but is extremely annoying in this incarnation. Checkboxes should remain checked or unchecked until the user changes the setting. Period.

Oooookay, that was a lot. Hopefully this can spur some productive discussion on the Design Options feature, and maybe get some helpful changes made. Thanks for your time.

[barthbradley]

C'mon, dude; my keyboard only does a max of 240 characters at a time!  Up from 140.  

...wow! I finally got done scrolling to the bottom.  Any more? Is that it?  

.

..sorry, @Anonymous. I couldn't resist the kidding.  I'll tackle the first question:   What is a good analogy for how Revit manages DOs? Is it most like a special kind of Linked File? Is it most like a Model Group? Is it most like a Phase? 

I'd say it's none of those.  My analogy would be that DO's are like Design Options.  

[ToanDN]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

TL/DR: More thorough documentation of the Design Options feature, please.

It is TL;DR 

I've read every article in the Revit Help that mentions Design Options, as well as dozens of 3rd party blog and forum posts, and still don't understand how to make this feature work in a way that makes sense. So I have compiled a list of questions here trying to probe into how Revit organizes / thinks of Design Options (DOs) and Design Option Sets (DOSs) in the hopes that the answers will help me (and others) make sense of the feature.

Questions:

Q1. What is a good analogy for how Revit manages DOs? Is it most like a special kind of Linked File? Is it most like a Model Group? Is it most like a Phase?

None of the above.  Using any of those as an analogy for DOs is wrong and likely gives you harder time understanding and working with DOs.

Q2. What is the difference (from Revit's point of view) between the Primary DO and a Secondary DO? How are they treated differently and what are their respective relationships to the Main Model

Primary DO is used when the view DO is set to Primary or Automatic.  Secondary must be set manually.  Other than that, they are equal.

Q3. What happens (looking for a list of operations Revit performs) when a Secondary DO is promoted to be the Primary DO?

Views with DO set to Automatic will change.

Q4. What happens (again, looking for a list of operations Revit performs) when a Primary DO is Incorporated into the Main Model?

Secondary will be deleted after Primary is accepted.  All views associated with Secondary will be deleted.

Q5. How do (a) Joined elements, (b) Embedded elements, (c) Aligned/Locked elements operate across DOs?

They work normally within their respective DO.  They don't work well, or don't work at all, when joined/constrained across DOs.

---

[Corsten.Au]

Hi..

Just a simple suggestion in Design options..

Its easy to make a common mistake of keeping one common hosts, like a Wall which is common

for multiple design option.. The problem with this is someone needs to keep a track of it.

Best practice is to have independent, host and host based family in the same option.

Ex -

a wall with a window type A in option 1

a wall with a window type B in option 2

It seems easy to keep that one wall common in both option but ( Revit always thinks otherwise )

best practice is to have two walls, one in option 1 and another in option 2... this way you will avoid

conflicts between all the options, modelling conflict.. etc...

you look into Phasing as well, combining Phase and design option will give many flexibility..

[Anonymous]

@ToanDNThank you for taking the time to answer some of my questions. I'm still confused about this one:

Q3. What happens (looking for a list of operations Revit performs) when a Secondary DO is promoted to be the Primary DO?

A3: Views with DO set to Automatic will change.

If the only change is which DO is shown in views set to Automatic, why does my model throw so many errors about conflicting elements when I change the Primary DO?

Thanks.

[barthbradley]

@Anonymous: It doesn't sound like you want to Promote a DO at all. It sounds like you want the View to reflect one particular DO.  You do that through Visibility and Graphics Overeides. Under the Design Options Tab, you change "Automatic" to the named DO you want shown in the View.  Or, am I reading you wrong? 

[Anonymous]

@barthbradley

I am not trying to do any particular thing. I just want to understand what exactly Revit is doing behind the scenes with each command/task inside of the Design Options feature. For example, walls in the Main Model will join to walls in the Primary DO, but not a Secondary DO (see Revit Help: About Design Options and Wall Joins). So clearly Revit is treating the geometry inside a Secondary DO differently than the geometry inside a Primary DO. I want to understand what distinctions Revit is making between the two.

[SteveKStafford]

@ToanDN tackled your itemized list nicely. I wrote THIS response at RFO awhile ago when someone asked some conceptual questions about the feature. This portion is how I describe my approach to thinking about the feature:

A Design Option Set (I call them the Design Problem) and Design Options (possible solutions) should contain only the elements that are in need of evaluation and resolution. One assumption is that one solution (Design Option) will win and the other options are discarded. Another is like a production home builder that can build a house that offers a variety of options. In the latter all options are kept so documents can show the relevant choices the purchaser makes.

A tricky aspect of Design Options is based on the way one element hosts another or can attach to another. For a window that has optional locations the hosting wall must also be included in the Option for the window. If a roof could be a gable or a hip then walls that attach to the underside of the roof must also be part of the same option.

Exclude Options is meant to reinforce the fact that we must tell Revit when we want to alter/edit elements that are assigned to options. The fact that those elements are harder to select is intentional, meant to warn us that something significant is different about them when compared to other elements in the Main Model. The main model contains everything that isn't contentious, doesn't require exploring options at all.

Primary Option is our leading contender, the solution that we think should appear in the most views automatically, when the view is assigned to Automatic for that Design Option. The other options have to have dedicated views to show those, so they can be placed on sheets and discussed, considered as a possible replacement for the primary option.

Accept Primary is used when one solution has won, the client has decided we are building "this one" and the others are no longer relevant. Revit will eliminate all of the elements assigned to the other options that belong to that Option Set as well as any views that are assigned to show those Options only. It's a clean up operation that only leaves behind the winning solution and eliminates the Design Option involved.

[barthbradley]

Have you seen this?

http://help.autodesk.com/view/RVT/2018/ENU/?guid=GUID-1CBD393C-342C-482D-98D7-269E1915DCFE

[ToanDN]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

If the only change is which DO is shown in views set to Automatic, why does my model throw so many errors about conflicting elements when I change the Primary DO?

---

I honestly don't know the answer to this question.  I have made my practice to create all Design Options' elements (primary option, secondary option, thirdary option, no-one-cares option, etc...) in the manner that they must be independent from anything else, including the main model.  With that, I have not seen the error you are showing.

[Corsten.Au]

Hi

as far as I can see, there’s a conflict cause of “ wall face split “

try to model simple element , default and avoid complicating model in DO...

one example of errors

1. Main model there’s a wall without windows

2. Option 1- a wall with a window 

3. Option 2- a wall with a door

4. Option 3 - only window ( host as main model wall )

in these cases changing any DO as primary is bound to throw some errors..

1. Conflict between two walls at the same location
2. Wall face split conflicts when a new window or door comes it
3. Windows or doors overlap from main model and DO element

Any experienced Revit user/ experts are not worries about Revit, modelling , upcoming problems cause of one main thing “ pop up errors/ warning  “ which reveals the exact problem ... it’s a open book exam in a way... 

Most common mistake of new or even some Revit users is to ignore those pop ups and never expand those warnings to understand the root cause.. 

[Anonymous]

Thank you @Corsten.Au for approaching the kind of answer(s) I'm looking for here. 

---

Most common mistake of new or even some Revit users is to ignore those pop ups and never expand those warnings to understand the root cause.. 

---

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I wan't to understand the root cause of these issues I'm running into, which requires some knowledge of what the program is doing under the hood.

The model I'm currently working with was started by 2 of my coworkers before I began working with it. At least one of them made the mistake of sloppy modeling, not investigating errors, etc. Troubleshooting this existing model is proving more confusing/challenging than doing it right the first time.

On this note, thank you @ToanDN for your suggestions on how to do it right the first time. I will certainly use that organizational scheme whenever I have the opportunity to build a model myself from scratch. As for my current predicament, what are the chances of getting a Revit programmer to weigh in on how the feature is logically structured?

[drenL5229]

Hi @Corsten.Au ,

I do agree with that but I don't know how this would work in a renovation.

I have an instance where I have an existing building to be renovated. I have 2 options with 2 different openings in a wall. The wall should stay so I can't have 2 different new walls for the 2 DOs so I will have to demolish the existing openings and create new ones for both design options. 

As we know the new window would have to be in the desired design option so I can't just use the existing wall which resides in the main model, for both design options. 

The desire is to document both design options for existing/to be demoed & new. 

I'd appreciate it if you have any suggestions. 

Thanks.

[HVAC-Novice]

It is best to limit design options to very early design stages and very schematic designs. Once you get into more detail, it gets tricky as you found out. Demolition plans with options definitely is too much detail. 

DO don't really function with MEP systems. 

Maybe explain who you are making the options and plans for? Do you really need to show all aspects of an option on plans? 

I don't know if the limitations are inherent, or if Autodesk could improve this feature. But ultimately you have to live within what Revit can do. if you have this feature do more than it was made to do, you are just banging your head against the wall.