Revit and Office workflow... And office hardships.

This post isn't a glamorous one to write about. There aren't many pretty pictures, and there isn't much philosophy about the Revit content and methodology that we've come to enjoy, on the many many many Revit blogs that are now in circulation.

If you've been here before, you've noticed that i haven't written here in many months. It isn't lack of wanting, or lack of content, so much as it is a different form of hardship with the subject at hand: frustration and confusion.

I got on board with revit exactly 2.5 years ago. I was an ArchiCAD user in a 2 man firm, a Vectoworks user in a 4 man firm, a Digital project user on a 15 person team, and an AutoCAD user in an office of 30. Only in the firm on DP did a similar issue come up, as the one I've been faced with, in a Revit office: Suddenly, strategy matters. (To be fair, it didnt matter in the other firms because we were always isolated in projects...)

Let us take the following example for a minute: A section of "glass block wall". How would you model it? (I anticipated pictures for this point, bit i digress... this entry will be for the hardcore geeks only, no pictures.) I can think of a number of ways to model a portion of glass block wall, i guess it goes back to what do you consider a glass block wall to be?

1. Wall with surface pattern. (it is, after all... a wall)
2. Curtain Wall/System with panels of glass block
3. Window family that has pieces in it for Glass block (perhaps in a parametric array)
3a. NESTED Blocks (families) in a window family
4. Line Based family with a nested array or family (James and i love L.B. Families...)
5. And my absolute favorite (kidding...) an IN PLACE FAMILY, lol.

My point is, very different methods. This got me to thinking: How much does Revit help us, and when does it hold us back? I found the moment i started using this software, that i personally, could do a better job, while i was using it. As long as it wasn't tripping me up (i was lucky, it wasn't) i was free to produce more, produce better, and get more wow results in the process.

Then the "in-fighting" started. In my quest for Revit streamlining and wanting to make a large group of people efficient, there was a sudden and unexpected struggle for power over controlling methodologies. Where i wanted to reign with what we call "Container files" (nothing more than a file loaded as group with a Model group of standard partitions and an embedded detail group of the "partition schedule") some of the "old school" crew wanted to reign with a simple drafting view with lines and text (manually coordinated with the type mark values and construction assemblies of the wall types), as the partition schedule.

Where i wanted to reign with a minimalist and *additive* project template (an argument i will continue to fight to the death), they wanted to reign with every wall type and door type known to man embedded in our project template.

And then there is the Glass Block. And the family content. And the tags. When is it text? When is it a smart Material Tag? Or Tag By Catagory?

My question is not about methods, which are right and wrong. Its not even about who makes those decisions: Yes Dan, i concede... we need a Revit manager. No, my question is about: What do you do, when something as small as Revit (a tool only, after all) can actually divide a group of users in an office? Those of us that believe we are correct in our theories and methodologies, are always willing to have constructive conversations about pros and cons of each method (willing to explain to the head chiefs why minimalist and additive is better, and willing to listen to Dan telling me 3D curved furniture is bad, mmmkay?) but there does come a point, when its just no longer worth the argument.

****

I do architecture. You do architecture. While we wax poetic about the importance of the tool, and how much it CAN change our work, and make us more efficient.... At the end of the day, it is not the end product. It is the means to a Building, and the success of that building will be judged on its own merits. But as a passionate Reviteer, are we to throw up our hands and resign to the fact that it wont be done correctly?

Fatalistic as the question sounds, i put to you this: (And id LOVE to hear your answers, please!) Where do you draw the line ,on how much of this you will fight for? Successful architecture notwithstanding, how hard would you fight to see it done the right way?

Revit, Linking, Scalability, and Nuclear Families (not the Revit kind...)

Not in the sense of a family, anyway. :)

So by now, everyone has read the press release on features coming in Revit 2009. I'm happy to say i've had the opportunity to play with it a bit, but rather than cover features already covered, id rather wax philosophical on what ONE of the features might mean. I say MIGHT, because this post was coming before i found the feature, because for me... It is a necessity. There are a lot of plusses, RE: revit and scalability. There are some Negs too. Ill try to point them out as i go.

(I may break this up in to several posts over the week, as there is a lot i personally want to cover on the subject of Revit, large projects, and linking.)

Background: Revit, being a large database of objects, is capable of fantastic feats of documentation. In one model, of a 230,000 SF facility, we have 2 sets of full Construction Docs (with two demolition packages), about 60 sets of leasing package documents (6 sheets each), and as many working views and worksets as we felt was necessary to break it apart.

Problem being, a 280 MB file is still 280MB's, and its still slower than all hell on some of our lesser workstations. Even opening with specify worksets, and only turning on pertinent Bldg locations, its slooooooow. File linking presented an opportunity to skirt the issue.

On my current project, we were heading for links, regardless of the 2009 features. At roughly 540k Square Ft, with the amount of documentation we do, it just wasn't appropriate for one file and worksetting. Especially considering the campus style set up seen at left.

My original plan was to meticulously outline the project necessities, and have the pertinent documentation for each building in that buildings files, with the Generic Documentation in a "main" file. This was necessary, circa RAC08, as there was no clean way to document Wall Sections for a linked Building.

Reasons:

1. Edit Cut Profile doesn't work with linked elements.

2. Tags do not work with linked elements (Category or Material)

Regardless of the above two, even if they did, since we had to go in the links to edit the geometry, it only made sense to Document there. BUT, then i read the Press release, and discovered that LINKED VIEWS were now available for wall sections and elevations. (Positive Item 1) At right, a Plan with Linked View, which we've had in previous releases. Document your plan in the link, and in the VG dialogue of the "parent" file, set the "child" file to "By linked view" and select the view you annotated in the link.

Now that i heard i could do this with my sections and my elevations, i put on my Pinky and the Brain even sinister smile, and got in to it. So i hashed it out, and it DOES work every bit as great as it should, in my humble opinion. Now, there ARE some shortcomings, but they are completely subjective, as many people may not WANT revit to behave in the way I'm about to complain about.
So there it is, and it works great. The first shortcoming I've found is pretty obvious in a model centric environment: (Negative 1) You need to place a Live Section in BOTH projects. This doesn't seem like a huge deal, but consider: If you use intelligent Material/Category tags (hell, even if you use text notes), if a section shifts an inch or two, and a sloping roof or a pitched object is cut, now your live geometry is in the wrong place, and your tags turn to question

marks.

On the surface, not a huge issue. But it makes me wonder: Why cant we USE the view from the link, instead of using a linked view IN a view. I know the arguments: View annotations cant show through links, because the potential exists for view "2/a3.1" or sheet "a3.1" to exist in both projects. Herein lies my nuclear family theme: i want to be able to link files, but also get the option to call one a "Parent" of SEVERAL "children" files. Parents can include sheets of children, views of children, etc. ANNNND..... Children have to follow Parents rules.

What in hell do i mean by that? Well, I'm REALLY loving the file linking, but here was my second negatory in this ordeal, and it was one i expected, it just keeps tripping me up.

I'm sure we all have different strategies for modeling, and i wont presume mine is the best. Actually, i will. But it goes like this: I model with generic walls, and then as the project progresses, i create actual walls with the correct materials, thicknesses, coping, etc, as the project documents develop. We also use Model Groups extensively. With things like Wall Types, this gets cumbersome.

Both towers at right are identical Model Groups, but they've been placed in two links. The building on the right has been progressed farther, so the roof is now the actual materials, as are the walls in the model group. Both the roof and tower at left are still generic. So, whats a man to do? I can technically save the group out, and reload it in to the other link, but the roof and wall types too? perhaps, if i make a model group with my entire bunch of *typical parts*, but this doesn't hold very well. I had trouble with reloading a wall type with the same name (exactly) and different compositions. No lie, i could set the walls next to each other, but only one was in the drop down menu.

My point being, what if i want the PARENT file to have control over the CHILDREN files Groups, Wall Types, Elements, Families, etc? One of Revit's selling points over ArchiCAD (to me, when i started) was that once an object is LOADED, its IN the model. It doesn't HAVE to reference the library. This is great, as libraries move, and old models were getting KILLED back when i used archiCAD. But.... But what if i WANT it to reference a library, a la the parent file?

At the risk of being taboo, i always want to imagine my Wall Type Dialogue is an AutoCAD Layer Manager. My list of walls native to this project on top, then underneath it, the list of Wall Types from the PARENT project. So if i draw with a wall type from the parent project, and it gets edited in the parent project, it edits in the Child project. Now, obviously there are hardships there: Warnings generated sporadically when elements join/overlap/whatever, but cest la vie, yes? Organize the project team! And what happens if someone purges it from the Parent? Maybe it the Parent has Children, purge gets more complex, i don't know. But i can DEFINITELY see a desire for this in all things type cataloged. We already know such types can be read, as an element in a linked file can be selected and have its properties listed in a project.

Also, don't we already KIND OF get this with Shared Families? Nest a shared family in to a family, then load it in to a project; edit and repeat... And it WARNS you: The families are different. Which should i use? If it would do that with wall types, materials, and elements, Revit would be unstoppable, scale wise. I mention materials and elements, because the Material tags have been killing my inner child.

I respect their right to not be tied to one another, but they don't respect my right to WANT them to be, haha. Granted, I'll only have to type "STANDING SEAM MTL ROOF" once in every model... But then if i want to change that note, i need to change it SEVEN times. Hmm... Parent/Child would handle this.

And on that subject... I have to believe its getting close. Sheets and RVT link locations already show up in the drawing list... But view annotations and views themselves wont come across for reasons of possible mis-coordination. BUT, this gives me hope that one or two iterations away, its going to be there.

There are more improvements, and more things i want to see pushed further... Ala tagging, Rooms/Areas, and all that those things imply. This was the first layer of the cake though.

What are your thoughts? Currently, all 7 of these models are still flying, because they're much smaller than their predecessors, which ran all in one file, with a bunch of worksets. BUT, its got a price. Training for linking views, training for meticulousness in assuring that whatever you load in ONE model is loaded in SEVEN, etc... And.....

Then there is Model Sharing and coordinating with consultants. I'm touching that one tomorrow... :)

Share your thoughts on this, i'm curious what other end users and developers alike are seeing this as...

"Edit Cut Profile" failure with Wall By Mass- RAC 2008, and Doors in Tapering Walls

So, until we get the capability to give a Wall a vertical angle in Revit without using a Mass/GM family and a Wall By Face tool, that remains my preferred method for putting walls up in non-vertical orientation.



That said, everyone who's worked with me knows im a notorious hater of Filled Regions, in Wall Sections. Even with the capability to lock/constrain them to the modeled objects, i always take the side of using Edit Cut Profile on the cut patterns of the modeled objects, wherever possible.

Most of the time this is simply for detailing and cleanup in small areas, but it also comes in to play in areas such as beam wraps, where a Wall may be used (built as a chase) instead of walls and a ceiling below, for simplicities sake. In any event, while working on detailing the above pictured tower, it become evident that Edit Cut Profile cannot be used on Walls that are created with the Wall By Face command.

When you attempt it, you are able to get in to sketch mode, and you can work until you try to finish the sketch. That is when you get the ominous "Fatal Error has occurred" window.



This file and a test file were submitted to Autodesk, who have passed it on to development, as it appears to be a code issue. Hopefully they will have it resolved in the 2009 release.


As the self proclaimed "Model Nazi" you can imagine the amount of anxiety i had, at having to concede to a project team that they could detail this portion of the building using Filled Regions, haha.






These walls presented another interesting issue as well:


When i went to place a door in the wall, the door was only able to be hosted at the very base of the wall (Right at the Level T/O Slab). As i was trying to place an Access Door from the roof, this was not useable. It would not allow us to place the door on the ground and raise it up, eiher. We received an error that the door failed to cut the wall, and that it was deleted.


The fix for this was interesting: We were able to place WINDOWS inthe walls without incident, so we used Edit Family to make a copyof the door family. We then changed the families catagory to a Window Family, and then we placed it in the tower. AFTER having placed the "window", we were then able to go back to the fmaily, and change its catagory back to a Door Family. This let it stay placed in the desired location in the tapering wall, while still scheduling it as a door.


Fun times with Tapering Walls!

Two long personal months!

I must say, writing here about the tribulations and adventures that we partake in while modeling in revit, is one of the few things that i really enjoy totally "rocking out" while doing. Suddenly, i blink, and two entire months have gone by. On the one hand, it would appear i simply had nothing of value to say anymore, LOL! In actuality, its been a fantastically busy couple of months.



The below mentioned trip to Autodesk University happened, which was adventurous as always. A few notes on my adventures in Vegas;



1. If someone asks you if the MGM and the Venetian are within walking distance, ask then to QUANTIFY walking distance. I was yelled at relentlessly all week for that one, but everyone! Be green, people! Walk! :)


2. Trying to continually follow things on the 360 degree screen on the mainstage will almost make you want to throw up. :) Awesome show, as always.

3. It WAS certified on this trip that coffee from the venetian food court CAN be an absolute substitute for sleep. :)



4. AU Unconference is a great idea. I absolutely loved the sessions i attended. I missed a few that i really wanted to sit in at, and i HOPE they continue and even expand on it in the following years. I could see the unconferences running the entire week while the classes are going on. I got some great feedback from the attendees in the session on strategies for dealing with multiple users of multiple skill levels all working together, and i've been meaning to post up about it. Ive been a bad boy, and didn't update the AU wiki either. The family Editor discussion Steve Stafford led, had a lot of great theoretical conversation, which i imagine could have gone on for hours. I would have rather enjoyed that. I STILL don't believe in the "super door" family, but then again, i don't agree with the entire tool that is in-place families, and obviously it serves a purpose. :)


In my defense for not having written in almost 60 days!! WHILE all this was going on at AU, i also had a project under a serious time constraint deadline, and i was in the middle of purchasing a house... My first one! Since i usually try to include a lot of pics here (who really wants to read anyway?) ill toss some in. Its a cute little cape, perfect for little me, all by myself. :) There is also a perfect room for the
computer, where i will spend my evenings geeking out with Revit models, as always. Oh the exciting life of a twenty-something, LOL!

I hope the 3 of you that faithfully read (har har) will still check back often. I DID get a lot of worthwhile table discussion material at AU, that id love to hear thoughts on... ALA DWF/RVT, information exchange, and the need and/or desire for what we all wan tout of our Revit models, and why. I can see DWF as the answer to so many peoples different desires from the wondrous file format that is RVT... but we really have to convince the powers that be of the validity of those wishes, or we'll never see the DWF that we (or at least i) want.

In any event, i will be updating again soon with some of these discussions... After one furious weekend of moving, which is coming up this weekend! Any of you within a few hundred miles are welcomed to the party! :)

AU Unconferences- Check it out!

Im looking forward to a productive unconference about Modeling strategies with more than one Revit modeler in a large project... Its Wednesday afternoon at 4:20 pm, for those of you attending.



Also, there are some killer unconference sessions! I can definetely tell ull be anntending a lot of the others, instead of some of my classes, hehehe.



Here is the schedule so far. (This is not final, i snagged the image from Joseph W's AU Blog (BLAUGI?):


























EDIT: The schedule is already out of date. It changes quickly. Heres a link to where it is: http://au.centraldesktop.com/auunplugged/Schedule

TRIG IN REVIT... TAKE 2!

So if you recall from two posts previous, the issue was this: We needed the angle "Theta" to generate the arc length in the trig formulas. Now, for whatever reason (can anyone efficiently articulate what we call the "Revit behavior"?) we are able to constrain the Reference Lines to the springpoint of the arc, and to the intersection of the center reference plane, and the T reference plane. This flexes perfectly... Right up until we assign Parameter Theta to the angle dim between the ref line and the center ref plane. Once we do that, it tries to hold the value, and prompts us to remove the constraints. Boy, would it be nice if we could make the constraints override a value that isn't derived by any other incidental. So, we needed to derive Theta in some fashion other than with the angle dim.

James quickly realized that he could obtain Theta as follows: The sin of "Half Theta" is equal to 1/2 Chord, divided by Radius, if we look at the triangle produced. (SOH CAH TOA anyone?)hehe). So, having created parameter Half Theta, he used an arcsin function in his formula for Half Theta "=asin((0.5*CHORD) / (RADIUS)) and achieve Half Theta, and obviously he then made Theta = twice Theta. We obviously could have achieved this in one parameter, but Half Theta came about while exploring potential ways around our math problem. Now, we obviously don't need Theta (or Half Theta) to actually be used as a label in the family itself, as I've shown it in the first image, since its being driven by the math, and not by the reference line now.

What a fun refresher about High school Math this has been. Anyone else starting to think they've lost a little bit in our old age? (lol)

We have an answer!

Dont have time to capture and post it now... But James (the coworker with the original task) has found a way around the Theta Constraint problem...

Can you say "arc sin"....?