If it's not trolling, it is something that resembles trolling.
Rob, it's not trolling. Trolling is when people want to get a certain reaction out of others and say ridiculous and nonsensical things that they themselves don't believe in. You think I am trying to anger people that don't use my approach, but in reality I am all for having a single MEP model?
It's only because of a strong passion for what I do and I can get a bit arrogant in the heat of the moment.
I am passionate about what I do as well.
It's not much to take away from this, but it is valuable as workflows vary as much as standards do.
Yes, workflows and standards can vary, but some are better than others.
The topic started with csheesley asking the following:
Right now we typically use One Revit model for all of our MEP work. The question has come up, should we use multiple Revit models? One Revit model for plumbing, one model for mechanical and a model for electrical. What are the pros and cons of having multiple models? Why would anyone want to have multiple models as your level of coordination goes down and are not able to sync and save the other disciplines work? Just would like some feedback based on your experiences. Thank You.
I have given the pros and cons of both approaches. I have given what my experience was dealing with single model monstrosities. The proponents of the "one MEP model to rule them all" approach defend their approach with the following:
- I would prefer one model for MEPFP which leads to a more open and coordinated effort. - kadmonkee
- From a Coordination point of view id never dream of splitting services into separate models it just makes your job so much harder. - chris.kershaw
- you lose a large portion of the BIM functionality that Revit provides, because building systems can't be connected across separate models. - bsammis
- If your staff are not particularly experienced they may not be working in the most expedient manner. When you work with a lot of customised content you can make global changes that take a lot of the work out of the revision and documentation process. - scott.dakin
- I find separate M, E and P models is a pain in the ass for coordination and correct system use as everything is supposed to be connected together. -scott.dakin
- Two options: use the copy/monitor tool to duplicate the mechanical equipment in your model, or a j-box/motor symbol classified as Heating/Cooling/etc. loads to create your circuits. Both options share the same problem that is the primary coordination complaint of everyone in this thread, including me, who is against separating MEP disciplines into individual models - namely, that a change to the equipment in one model is not reflected in the others. - bsammis
- Even such a simple thing as having to close one model, open the other, move a radiator out of the way of a socket, save, exit, open the first model and reload. It turns a 5 second job into a 5 minute job. - scott.dakin
- The more work Revit does for me the less I have to do, this is why I want to exchange data between different disciplines equipment categories in the same MEP model and this is not possible with shared models. scott.dakin
-
A - Frees up my time
B - Reduces the possibility of accidental electrical system error
C - If the mechanical engineer forgets to inform me of a change my systems will automatically correct itself to be right -scott.dakin
-
In order to achieve optimal coordination between the MEP disciplines, each discipline must be within the same Revit project file. -scott.dakin
- In a nutshell, if the project is fairly small to medium sized, it makes sense to stick with one MEP model. It's easier for coordination and work flow. - Spark.EE
- If you separate models by discipline you effectively remove a significant portion of the benefit of working in Revit - system coordination. If MEPT are all in a single model, a change to the load for an air handler is automatically pushed throughout the model, and panel/equipment schedules will update automatically. - bsammis
- Meanwhile every other user in this thread, and the makers of the software, prefer the other way. -bsammis
- Now then, unless you are working in a truly enormous model or are using a computer that is complete **** - Autodesk say you are wrong and 80% of the people in this thread say you are wrong, hell, even google says you are wrong, do you think you might just be.... wrong? scott.dakin
- From my experience Working on different models (Electrical and Mechanical) could bring you disaster. - jgalve
On most of these points, there is literally no elaboration or explanation that is given alongside them. They say something like "this will bring you disaster" without ever saying what the disaster is. They say something like "eliminating the benefit of working in revit" when they turn a blind eye to all the wonderful things revit offers and another blind eye to "we do this as well because architectural items are in the architect's models, other consultant's items are in their models ... we just like to say we're using revit as it's meant to be used and you're not". Optimal coordination? Again: zero explanation is given on what this "optimal coordination" entails that isn't found using multiple models. Literally, most of this list are feelings someone has with nothing to back it up.
Here's my concise (but incomplete, again my experience with working on single model monstrosities is very limited) list:
- If your model becomes corrupt for whatever reason (I had one become corrupt in Revit MEP 2008 for reasons unknown), the other models aren't affected. No need to spread the misery around.
- Less users working on less models.
- No missed saves (when multiple users try to save at the same time, first user saves, 2nd user doesn't).
- No need to relinquish other people's stuff if you accidentally do something.
- In order to sabotage someone else's stuff, on purpose or by accident, you need to go into their model. I once caught an architect messing with my stuff, I had a good talk with the architect about it.
- Smaller files, faster load times, faster save times by far.
- No need for complicated browser organization. You know where you stuff is and you know no one is messing with it.
- Views, views, views!!! I typically create 10x more views than what I put on the drawings. Others do as well.
- Easier turning other people's stuff on/off.
- No need to create a lot of worksets based on users/disciplines.
- Taking ownership of your stuff and others taking ownership of their stuff.
Before I forget, scott.dakin should read what he posted about disciplines (I think it came from autodesk, but he never challenged it).
scott.dakin (post #66):
By Discipline: This strategy creates separate project files for each MEP discipline; that is, separate Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, and Fire Protection files. ... In order to achieve optimal coordination between the MEP disciplines, each discipline must be within the same Revit project file. This organization allows disciplines to connect to each other's elements directly, like electrical connections or drain connections on mechanical equipment.
scott.dakin (post #97):
For myself I would always try to put everything in one MEP model, with each discipline having their own model. So any given building would have an MEP, structural, architectural and civils model.
me (post #98):
If this were the case, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection will get their own model. Your definition "having their own model" is incorrect. MEP is not a discipline.
scott.dakin (post #99):
We are an MEP installation company so MEP is a discipline. To suggest otherwise is a little strange.
I think scott.dakin is trolling me.
