Joint walls from different links

[Anonymous]

So after few months on convincing my office to move into Revit, we finally got it! Good, right? Well... I have been asigned for my very first project with a 4 story - 310 apartment units. So is not an easy task to deal with for starters...

After reading a lot of forums, I decided to put together the BIM as follows:

1. Every unit type in individual files linked into the overall model (as oppose to groups). This will allow me to have another station(a) working on each unit as a project by itself.
2. Each unit will have about 4 to 10 different variations, depending upon if it has a deck on the ground level, or balcony (about 2-4 different sizes and configurations), ADA, restroom layout, window types, etc. These variations are created under Design Options.
3. On the overall model, I am asigning to each unit the design option I need using VG. So far, so good, although it takes a while to make it, but is the only way I know to be consistent on all the views
4. I am planing on drawing over the exterior walls shell another layer of wall that will make my stone veneer and finishes work as planned, with different sill heights, types and trims. I may do the so with EIFS finishes as well (different colors)

Here is the question:

Where I do not need to draw an extra layer of walls, how can I make dissapear the wall joint between two units with same wall type and same aligment? They are showing horizontally and vertically and the "joint geometry" and "joint wall" tool won't work.

Second question:

Is my approach to put together the BIM efficient?

Thanks in advance!

[maciejwypych]

---

Every unit type in individual files linked into the overall model (as oppose to groups). This will allow me to have another station(a) working on each unit as a project by itself.

---

You don't need to split up the model, so multiple users can work on it. Just enable worksharing. Which in my opinion should be enabled on every project. Even if it's a one person job.

There has been a lot of posts on various Revit forums about groups vs links, but so far I haven't seen a project using linked units that would work well and efficient.

Groups can be frustrating at the beginning, but they do work, especially if you combine your workflow with using shared families.

Have a look at Aaron Maller's and  Ceilidh Higgins's posts about using groups.

---

Here is the question:

Where I do not need to draw an extra layer of walls, how can I make dissapear the wall joint between two units with same wall type and same aligment? They are showing horizontally and vertically and the "joint geometry" and "joint wall" tool won't work.

  

---

You can't do it. Linked walls or any other elements don't join.

[Keith_Wilkinson]

Have you purchased Revit LT or Revit Architecture?

[Anonymous]

Revit Architecture

[Keith_Wilkinson]

In that case you can set your model up as a Central File and put your content on different worksets, in the same way you have split them into different models, but all within the same model.  This will allow different users to access the file simultaneously and remove some of the issues you are having especially if you use groups.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the tip... now, is it an easy way to migrate from my current set up to groups and worksets? Is there a tutorial you can refer me to?

[Keith_Wilkinson]

Honestly never tried it.  But if I was going to give it a go I'd probably start by loading one file into the other as a group and then ungrouping it... It might depend on how much work you've done as to how easy it's going to be.

For instance if the pods are identical I'd look to load 1 in as a group, place it on the correct workset and then copy or array it as required.

[Anonymous]

Thanks your for your response. 

Can I have a group that has all my variations on design for each unit type?. I.e.: I need the same unit to have two or three different balconies configurations, 2 different types of restrooms, two different ceiling heights, and one option with patio deck on the ground floor.

So far, the links have all these design options, and I don't know how to get them on the groups.

Thank you again!

[Keith_Wilkinson]

The geometry in each instance of a group would need to be identical.  So you would have to work out what unit types you have and then create a group for each configuration.

[Anonymous]

I tried to go with worksets. At the time I start binding the units links, i lost the capability for design options.

The remedy to that as I read on other forums is to go back to the model, and have all the options in the Main model. Then, bind the link as a group, and then start creating individual groups per design option. So I will end up having 10 -12 groups per original link (in my case), and go back to the overall model and re-insert the proper group at each instance.

It seems like a lot of work for me right now... and in the way I have it (links) works just find.

Should I go through all the trouble? Why?

Thanks!

[Keith_Wilkinson]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

It seems like a lot of work for me right now... and in the way I have it (links) works just find.

Should I go through all the trouble? Why?

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Where I do not need to draw an extra layer of walls, how can I make dissapear the wall joint between two units with same wall type and same aligment? They are showing horizontally and vertically and the "joint geometry" and "joint wall" tool won't work.

Personally I've never had much joy with design options but it depends how you need your 'Options' to work. But if the way you are doing it just now works for you then go with it but you still won't be able to join your walls with your linked files. 

[rosskirby]

You do NOT want to use links for the units if you're going to have design options.  You would have to manually override every instance of each link to show the option and it's a HUGE hassle.  Stick with groups.  Just make sure to avoid constraints where possible.  That is, disallow join on the unit walls, and have them go to a set height, rather than constrained to the level above, no hosted families, etc.

At the close of the project, if you want to save the units out for use on another project, you can export/save out the group as a separate file, then link it into your next project, bind it, and it will become a group.  

[ToanDN]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I tried to go with worksets.

---

Worksets hardly play any useful role at what you are doing.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

The remedy to that as I read on other forums is to go back to the model, and have all the options in the Main model. Then, bind the link as a group, and then start creating individual groups per design option. So I will end up having 10 -12 groups per original link (in my case), and go back to the overall model and re-insert the proper group at each instance.

It seems like a lot of work for me right now... and in the way I have it (links) works just find.

---

I would save you link to different copies, each represent a design option, then open each file and make the choosen option permanent, aka getting rid of all other unwanted options within each file, and finally bind these files into your main model as different groups.  That way you won't have to deal with any more design options in your main model.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

It seems like a lot of work for me right now... and in the way I have it (links) works just find.

Should I go through all the trouble? Why?

---

Because you want the wall to join cleanly.  Revit is just like actual construction, you cannot bring a herd of prefab condo units to the site and expect them to have invisible joints.  
Additonally, you will run into tagging and scheduling problems if you keep an external link with design option approach.

[chrisplyler]

You have learned a better way to organize your work for future projects. But instead of trying to reorganize everything you've already done for this project...will the linework tool, set to invisible line, not work to visually get rid of the joint?

[Anonymous]

Schedule issues: I was going to approach the tagging and schedule on separate sheets as a separate project itself.

But, if it could come back and be a mess once I put it all together... I guess it is worth to spend the time to create all the groups I need (about 34 of them)... Honestly, I am in DD, and don't want to get in trouble in CDs... Thanks for all your input. I will keep you posted!

[maciejwypych]

Hi,

First of all every ten minutes spent on planning your project breakdown, at early stage will save you hours later on.

With using groups it's a bit like having your design options, you are going to have a group for the - the constant part of the unit and then different groups for each option - 2 groups for different balconies, 2 groups for restrooms...etc...
At the stage, when you place your groups in the model, I'd nest them together into all different unit configurations. It helps to populate the project quickly.
I usually ungroup the unit types later on, because too many nested groups may lead to issues later on.