Transform the Design Options Tool

[tobias.tschorn]

Here in our big enterprise, we often are pushed to deliver plenty of different design proposals by our clients. The road to organizing the different proposals and the final layout on the final plan sheets feels a bit "bumpy".  My ask to you: can you kindly re-think the organization of the Design Options Tool? For me and some other users, the phasing tool does a better job and feels much easier to use, which leads sometimes to a "misuse" of the tool to show different options. Any improvement is highly appreciated. I am pretty sure that I am also speaking in behalf of other Revit users delivering different proposals during their design studies.

[mhiserZFHXS]

There have been many ideas on this that are a lot more specific. Pretty much everyone agrees the Design Options tool needs to improve. Find the specific ideas that you support and vote for them, or post them on your own. Vague ideas like this aren't very helpful.

[jose_castell]

Adding to this, as part of our business process we are required to submit different design options for approval and presentation to the customer. Currently we have to duplicate the revit file and "Save As" Design A, Design B, and so on. This creates a large number of files with different names, difficult tracking and discussion of multiple design versions, and of course impacts our storage needs.

We need a simplified workflow where are able to easily create multiple design variants for the same project that we can keep in the same file, whilst being able to compare design options and submit the successful one for internal approval.

[mhiserZFHXS]

@jose_castell 

Have you used the actual Design Options tool?

[tobias.tschorn]

Many thanks, mhiserZFHXS, I would be happy to be more specific, but it is very difficult to describe all the details just in a single text. 

In my opinion, as a quick win, I firstly would totally change the management of the assignment elements/families on the different options. You can use the "Add to Set" tool or alternatively copy/insert in place to assign the instances into the different options. To move the elements after being set to an other option the command does not work anymore. Sorry, but I do not know why.

Also, the visible tracing of which instance is assigned to which option could be better using a highlighted toolbox. That causes a lot of worries for my trainees.

I am a bit wondering why Revit does not use the properties to assign / re-assign on a specific option like it is doing with the phases. 

Are you an Autodesk member? If you like we can have a quick video call to give you a short demo of my issues. Looking forward to hearing from you!  

[psmGBPVX]

@Anonymous, 

You can copy and paste between different design options. 

I think what it build down to is how you are thinking of design options, while phasing is the same building but at different 'times' design options are completely different versions of parts of the building. 

So you cant just flip items between design options, because you may have for example a wall in the same place in multiple options, but those are different walls in each option, not just one wall. (don't know if that makes sense).

Personally I'm against changing the design options tool, maybe finesse how it treats interactions between the main model and design option elements. but other than that it does what its meant to. 

(PS im a user, not from autodesk)

[tobias.tschorn]

@psmGBPVX ,

Many thanks for the info. For sure, I know that the phasing and design options are two different pairs of shoes. 

I am already working with the copy/cut & paste aligned to the place (with customized short key: ctrl + alt + v) commands. I totally agree with you, this workflow helps definitely to "move" elements between the different design options.  But in my opinion, the visual tracking, helping to quickly check which element is placed on which of the options, switching to edit different options, and the idea of transferring components using a dropdown menu (like the phases), could be improved. Maybe consolidating all of the tools and commands under one umbrella, e.g. an own design options window/dialog may help here in addition. So, finally, my point is more about the handling of the tool than the main idea of the tool itself. 

[colinqBYUV9]

A few simple fixes for me would be to automate some of the dreary but necessary repetitive tasks. For example, when design sets are created views that are locked to that design set should also be created. And even sheets (if that’s possible). Maybe a dependent view or something similar for each plan elevation etc. per option so I don’t have to duplicate, VG, design options ……….. endless times on endless views.