Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
Greater alignment with BS1192 (for UK users) particularly in terms of revision sequences (ability to have P series, D series and C series for different sheets) and also Uniclass 2015 instead of Omniclass would be beneficial as would better support for ~BS1192 sheet naming conventions.
Revision schedule creation that comply with geographic standards..i.e UK (BS1192:2007). Currently I cannot use the OOTB revision schedules and comply with the guidlines set out in BS1192:2007 without a very complicated workaround which virtually removes the automation and greatly increases the chances of errors.
I am not familiar with those standards, but i will echo that Revisions and Revision Schedules are seriously lacking in flexibility. We should be able to add shared parameters to Revisions (just like any other category) and creatively filter within Revision schedules to schieve just about anything.
Add to this rotating text in section lines - with BS1192 drawing numbers these can get quite long (too long IMO) and we need to be able to deal with them...
As the BS and PAS 1192 standards are going through a process of internationalisation (ISO 19650-1 & 2), this will become relevant globally, so needs a proper fix, not just a localisation or work-around.
This would be very helpful, at the moment you can go through different stages of a project without a work around in place!
i.e: if you use P as a prefix for planning stage, then B for building control stage (Numeric + alphanumeric) you can not add an automated third prefix to make a distinction in between the stages to follow!
This is an essential feature that currently requires individual workarounds. Ideally this would be an instance text field that could be added to the 'Revisions on Sheet' dialogue allowing a user to map a sheet's BS 1192 WIP and published code to the appropriate Revit revision sequence information.
ISO 19650 has now been released showing that BS1192 was a great standard to works towards. It would be great if Revit could provide more flexibility for Revision Codes and Status Codes.
Alox, the workaround I have found so far is to manually input into Alphanumeric - P01, P02, P03, P04 - and set revisions by sheet. This doesn't solve anything related to internal versioning (P01.01. P01.02) but can be used for the initial sharing.
In addition, moving to 'published' (C01, C02, C03) requires another workaround. You could possibly use a parameter on the titlesheet to move between P issues and C issues but then you have to be careful about regulating the revisions on the sheet. All the above is a nightmare for document controlling!
I think the BS ISO document does a good job of explaining how the process works and I would hope it wouldn't be too much trouble for Revit to implement as it is only text and nothing relating to graphics.
I agree with Kevin's last point about the implementation not being too difficult and with the standards now a full international one, this is no longer a localisation for Revit, but a global requirement now.
In regards to the minor revision, I'm not sure this really works for Revit models at all. To implement properly, each time a change is saved back to the central model, by rights the minor revision would increment. Having ten modelers saving ten times a day each, it would go from 00 to 99 within a working day, and for what gain? If you are uploading to WIP on a scheduled basis, that could be a different story, but only the authoring company sees the WIP version, so how is it helping them? I tend to ignore it for models.
Formal revisions should be numbered sequentially, marking the revision as either preliminary (P0n) or contractual (C0n).
Marking the revision does not reset or start a new sequence. Revit happily adds numeric sequences. The only work around is re-using the Issued parameters for 'Suitability' and Revision Mark. This is also how any document management system would work. The versioning would be independent from any meta data.
Sheet schedule
Revision dialog
As for WIP revisions. They should never be issued so Revit need not support this.
