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
The current solution, as well as the workaround in the Evolve Consultancy link, don't recognise that project stages are not cleanly separated. You don't suddenly go from all Preliminary Drawings to all Construction Drawings. On any project, you will still be issuing new Preliminary drawings after you've issued your first Construction drawings. Even if you wipe revisions from sheets, you can't change the whole project from P to C overnight!
The Factory's implementation is deeply flawed and they need to fix it!
That way we can add our own prefixes to each revision, e.g. P or C or even P1. or C1. to allow for the full BS1192 numbering system P1.1, P1.2, C1.1, C1.2 etc
The revisions and revision bubbles work fairly well in the 2016 version... However it could use some upgrades. There needs to be a way of taking the revisions and placing them in categories so that the datum numbering can repeat if necessary. I.e. There are Addendum, Post Bid Addendum, RFI, ASI, Change orders, etc. It would be nice to be able to categorize the revisions. Therefore there could be a Addendum 1 with a datum numbered 1, and a Post Bid Addendum 1 with a datum numbered 1 also. Thanks.
Revisions need a lot of work. We don't use issued to/by parameters so most projects use "Issued to" as the sequence number. A basic project works fine with the revisions as they stand. Where it breaks down:
Changes during bidding vs changes during construction
Multiple packages from the same project with their own addendas and ASI's (think early release packages or phases separated late in design)
Some delta numbers that aren't needed (ie deltas 1-4 were for structural & MEP, delta 5 is the first architectural revision.j
Removing addenda's from the revision schedule without loosing the information (revisions ot early release packages, issuing consolidated sets without loosing revision information) Right now my work-around is to remove all data from scheduled fields, set the numbering to non and adjust the order as necessary.
Related, but separate issue is that a revision cloud schedule needs to be accessible in the project to lis the revisions, view or sheet and any comments associated with them.
Thanks for taking the time to submit your idea. Unfortunately, this idea did not get the support of the community over the last 6 months and as such we will not be pursuing it at this time. Please feel free to rework (titles and clear descriptions are really important) and resubmit this one down the road.
Firstly I wholeheartedly agree that the revisions needs to take another step forward and offer more control to the user. It can clearly be done.
That said. in the UK you should be following BS1192 which calls for 2 revision options - P and C
Anything prior to a document being published will be P01, P02, P03 etc. and anything afterwards will be C01, C02, C03 etc.
This can to some extent be handled in Revit from 2017 onward (maybe 2016 but I never installed that) - you can prefix your numeric revisions with P and then define your alphanumerics as C01, C02 etc.
The main issue I have with this is that P01 gets truncated to P1 which may seem minor but doesn't conform to the BS syntax.
I wish that we hard a third option (in addition to alphanumeric and numeric) : manual, which would enable us to just type in a number for each revision. The option for people who want to keep it simple 🙂
Ideally, this option would allow for duplicate entries as well. Some day I hope to be able to have multiple sets in one Revit file, and when that happens, having an option to have revisions with the same number but different issue dates etc is going to be critical.
@pieter5 Fundamentally Revit doesn't work like that and never will. You have no way to 'freeze' the state of a model at a point in time so having duplicate sheets with different revisions on them would be pointless not to mention the potential confusion it could cause if someone isn't paying attention...
Just noticing your post from last year. The T status' that you mention, are you using these as a 'Project Specific' code?
Ultimately I think AD need to introduce flexibility for revisions so that any combination can be defined, surely they have to start looking at it soon...
@Keith_Wilkinson yes, but project-specific on every project...! As you know BS1192 was written by people in ivory towers with no concept of the real world of construction, especially Design & Build.
That's cool. I just wanted to check I hadn't missed a critical revision type. Given that the industry is generally moving from an A, B, C style revisions system we generally find that P and C are sufficient when used in conjunction with Status codes but I can understand why you use T as well.
Generally speaking for most of the D&B jobs we do, drawings are issued for Market Testing before they reach A status and tend to go out with the appropriate D status with a P revision. Rightly or wrongly, we generally find that for D&B 'tender' drawings don't really exist any more...
Regardless of what status code we use, our written status has to be "TENDER" OR "CONTRACT" so that they're crystal clear in contractual terms. Our tenders are still very formal, and we also need to track tender revisions, so revision codes T1, T2, T3 etc are essential.
Absolutely. We all have our owns needs for this even though many of us are essentially following the same BS - hence the need for a comprehensive overhaul of the Revision setup in Revit - it would be nice is AD would at least put this topic under review, I think to them things like this are just seen as a 'nice to have' rather than something that is essential to the delivery of a BIM driven project.
One of the difficulties with the Revision Manager is the limitations of being able to organise the revisions by Issue Stages.
In our practice we use the prefixing of numeric with a 'P' and in the alphanumeric create the construction revision sequence. for tender and final issue we play around with the numeric prefix.
But in order to better organise and set up for internal review revisions this makes it more difficult (eg. P07.01...)
If the Revision Manager had an option to set up project stages so we could set up to work to the BS1192 Status Stages and have their own revision prefixes this would make the revision manager more beneficial.
@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? 🙂
