Allow the creation of revision sets

[Kevin.Bell]

In the UK its industry standard to use complex revision letters, we never use revisions such as A, B, C or 1, 2 ,3.

We always prefix the revision with a letter to denote the project stage i.e. Preliminary, Tender, Construction, which gives revisions such as:

P01, P02, P03, T01, T02, C01, C02, C03 etc

The Revision Tool in Revit should be able to handle these types of revision codes as well as simple A, B, C codes.

[pieter4]

@Keith_Wilkinson I think there's a misunderstanding. I'm not trying to freeze the model. I'm just making different sets for different purposes, all using the same model.  

As sheet numbering systems and revisions are often determined by code or agencies, there's often overlap in the different numbering systems. For example: we need DOB sets but also client sets, CD's, ... all of them require (by code or contract) a strict numbering convention. Both DOB (in NYC) and our client require that the revisions start with 0. However, both sets have different issue dates...

Right now we use complicated workarounds that all have their disadvantages. Getting rid of a few hard coded limitations (duplicate sheet numbers and revision numbers) would help a lot. I wouldn't be forcing anyone to have duplicate naming for revisions and sheets, but for us, it would make a huge difference. As a compromise, I would be totally ok with an option in the revision dialog with 'allow duplicate numbers', or only having duplicate revision numbers when you switch to manual, ...

There's always going to be people who favor hard coded limitations to avoid user confusion/error, and other people who favor maximal flexibility. Perhaps there's a compromise somewhere that both groups can get what they want? 🙂

[Keith_Wilkinson]

As a guy went to great lengths to illustrate at a talk the other week 'people are dicks' - if you let them create duplicate sheet names rest assured people will.

I guess though you could do it like Type Mark where it will let you have a duplicate but it flags it up as a warning.  🐵

[Anonymous]

The option I would like is to have multiple prefix where you separate by the comma accordingly similar to the alphabetic option. 

The system should then allow you to click within the "revision on sheet" if it is prefix P or C basically. Once you move from say the first denoted prefix of P to C then Revit should remember that you are then on C and all further ones would update to C01, C02 rather than you needing to manual select each time and also to stop it going P01, P02, C01, P03 accidentally etc. 

This way you can have a description that is the same but used at different prefixes as well as revision number. It will keep it organised and simple for all users. So yeah it is certainly needed but it is also needed to make sure that it is user friendly. 

[Anonymous]

Yes it is understood that revisions can be done by sheet or by project. But that is not enough flexibility. It would be nice if in the revisions you could create categories to organize the revisions. For instance, revision categories such as PR, ASI, and RFI. Under each category being able to start numbering revisions 1, 2, 3 etc.

[Anonymous]

How can Autodesk not fix such a simple issue to fix when it affects the UK Industry Standard ???

Revit 2016 did not fix it - maybe the reason that Autodesk didn't fix this yet is because they don't understand the issue (as a few people commenting here saying Revit 2016 has fixed the issue...)

For me this is one of the most important things that Autodesk needs to have a look at!

[Keith_Wilkinson]

I'd like to see this developed certainly but it wouldn't be top of my list just now... 

[Chris_D_UK]

It's top of mine, Keith.

I'm fed up that every BEP we receive, I have to respond and say, sorry we can't do BS1192 compliant revision numbering. It's just embarrassing that Revit can't do this.

[Keith_Wilkinson]

You can if all you need are those listed in BS1192 - i.e. P and C.  If you introduce your own then it can't handle that and I understand for some why that is an issue.

Not saying it shouldn't be developed further but as it stands there is a workable solution.

K.

[Chris_D_UK]

Keith, that isn't correct - we've been through this in this thread already - the prefix applies to ALL sheets, even the ones already issued (and ticked as issued). You change the prefix from P to C for one sheet and it changes ALL sheets. It's broken and not BS1192 compliant.

[Anonymous]

@Chris_D_UK  Yes, we can have 2... 

have a look at this link:

https://infinitebim.com/bs1192-revisions-revit/

We can use Numeric and Alphanumeric in the same model – this means that we may not be able to have P T C as prefixes but we can have 2 and they can actually restart – P1, P2, P3, C1, C2, C3 ....

But that still doesn't work for us and it's quite common to have a Tender Revisions or it would be great to be able to have WIP revisions as P1.1, P1.2 (as mentioned on PAS1192)

what a litle code from the developers could do really....

[Chris_D_UK]

Thanks Vasco, not seen that workaround. Unfortunately we use P, T and C, but at least post-novation we could use the workaround to achieve some limited functionality of P and C prefixes in the same file. It's still not BS1192 compliant as it doesn't support point revisions.

[Chris_D_UK]

It's frustrating that we have to go via the Ideas Board for issues like this and Sasha even closed the thread at one point (presumably it got merged with a similar open idea).

This is non-compliance with the primary published BIM standard in a major region, and Autodesk won't even spend a tiny bit of development time to fix it. It shouldn't have to be voted on!

[Anonymous]

Well BS 1192 only utilises P & C revisions. There are no Tender revisions. 

Tender is a P revision - status D2. 

With that we have set it so Alphanumeric is prefix P and have 01 - 20 listed out as it is more likely because of the status change to have many P revisions. 

We then set Numberic to C0 and the sequence starts at 1 so you can go to C09 no problem. 

With that all they need to do is allow Sequence number to have 01 and we can make prefix C instead so it could handle revision 10 onward accordingly. 

That by all accounts should allow us to conform to BS 1192 but just limit to only 9 construction revisions. 

[Keith_Wilkinson]

@Chris_D_UK - why do you say it's not compliant?

[Chris_D_UK]

Because

A) it's an inelegant undocumented workaround

B) it doesn't support a third prefix, namely T, which is a valid preifix under BS1192:2007+A2:2016 15.3.3 Note 2 "There is provision to extend this with project specific codes"

[Anonymous]

@Chris_D_UK

In fairness though the standard under BS1192:2007 means you don't have to utilise T and can use P with the status D2 which means you can make it comply just fine. The only issue is the need to manually update the .01 or .02 portion of a revision. 

[Keith_Wilkinson]

A) why does that make it non compliant?  The BS isn't written with any particular software in mind.  Granted it's workaround but sufficiently ticks the box.

B) Yes, if you use a third party prefix it doesn't work but that doesn't mean it's not compliant with BS1192, it's just not compliant with your way of using it.  

As I said I'd like to see this developed further and hopefully it will be.  But to say you can't produce BS1192 compliant revisions is wrong IMO.

[Anonymous]

We're not UK based but we'd also like to see the ability to make different revision groups/sets, each with their own numbering logic.

We have different sets of drawings in the same model, each dictating their own revision logic. The revisions for one set has nothing to do with the other sets. 

One might be 1,2,3,4 while another one would be A1,A2,B1,B2,...

Also, if groups/sets for revisions are implemented I hope the "add revision" dialog on the sheet will have an option to filter it per set, so we have an easier time finding the relevant revision. With big sets, the list of revisions get get very long.

[lionel.kai]

It would be great if Revision Numbers only need to be unique within each group. See also Allow duplicate Revision Numbers

[Anonymous]

Thanks for this discussion. I'm in the UK, new to Revit, and have just stumbled upon this thread as I thought it was just my inability to use the program causing my problems. I'm using 2018, anyone know if this problem has been fixed in 2019?