<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Best Practices with Revit Groups: Rule #1</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.seandburke.com/blog/2010/02/28/best-practices-with-revit-groups-rule-1/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.seandburke.com/blog/2010/02/28/best-practices-with-revit-groups-rule-1/</link>
	<description>Revit, sustainable design, digital musings</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:59:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean</title>
		<link>http://www.seandburke.com/blog/2010/02/28/best-practices-with-revit-groups-rule-1/comment-page-1/#comment-769</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Oct 2011 00:46:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seandburke.com/?p=893#comment-769</guid>
		<description>1) Regarding the multiple links, using a container file to bring them into the site makes sense, however, unless you are using shared coordinates, that behavior is difficult to investigate. 

I would expect that you may need to recreate one of the central files, or at least open them up individually with Audit enabled.

2) It&#039;s possible that the view was corrupt, and that was why it was displaying differently in 3D versus plan.

One situation I have come across frequently is elements such as furniture become hosted to a floor, versus associated with the level datum. This can happen even when families that are not designed to be hosted are placed - very unpredictable. 

When the floor face is hosting members of a group, it becomes very difficult to place the group on a different level, as those elements belonging within the new group instance become &quot;sticky&quot; to the original floor. The only way around this is to ensure the floor category is not visible while placing the original elements you intend to group, or place them off to the side, outside the building and then move into position.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1) Regarding the multiple links, using a container file to bring them into the site makes sense, however, unless you are using shared coordinates, that behavior is difficult to investigate. </p>
<p>I would expect that you may need to recreate one of the central files, or at least open them up individually with Audit enabled.</p>
<p>2) It&#8217;s possible that the view was corrupt, and that was why it was displaying differently in 3D versus plan.</p>
<p>One situation I have come across frequently is elements such as furniture become hosted to a floor, versus associated with the level datum. This can happen even when families that are not designed to be hosted are placed &#8211; very unpredictable. </p>
<p>When the floor face is hosting members of a group, it becomes very difficult to place the group on a different level, as those elements belonging within the new group instance become &#8220;sticky&#8221; to the original floor. The only way around this is to ensure the floor category is not visible while placing the original elements you intend to group, or place them off to the side, outside the building and then move into position.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shawn</title>
		<link>http://www.seandburke.com/blog/2010/02/28/best-practices-with-revit-groups-rule-1/comment-page-1/#comment-763</link>
		<dc:creator>Shawn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:07:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seandburke.com/?p=893#comment-763</guid>
		<description>Ok - I&#039;m sitting here and had this crazy idea to recreate that particular floor.
Suddenly, the groups act likes groups. Blue box, highlight all elements at once, etc.
Revit!? - can&#039;t explain that one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok &#8211; I&#8217;m sitting here and had this crazy idea to recreate that particular floor.<br />
Suddenly, the groups act likes groups. Blue box, highlight all elements at once, etc.<br />
Revit!? &#8211; can&#8217;t explain that one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shawn</title>
		<link>http://www.seandburke.com/blog/2010/02/28/best-practices-with-revit-groups-rule-1/comment-page-1/#comment-762</link>
		<dc:creator>Shawn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:05:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seandburke.com/?p=893#comment-762</guid>
		<description>Since you guys are talking groups and links (or were a while back). We are having a couple of issues. Maybe you can provide insight.

1. Links: We link units into a building and then the building into the site. The site file has become impossibly difficult to deal with. We have about 20 unit types and around 450 instances of those 20 types. Is it normal to have this much difficulty with a double linked file? Our site file crashes often and is very slow. There is definiltey something wrong and I am troubleshooting as best I can.
2. Groups: We have one floor of the building that seems to &quot;ungroup&quot; the groups that are placed on that floor. The groups are still identified as groups when you try to change a wall or element but each individual element looks detached from the group. You don&#039;t get the normal group box when hovering over the group. You still get the box in a 3D view but not in plan. Any thoughts?

Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since you guys are talking groups and links (or were a while back). We are having a couple of issues. Maybe you can provide insight.</p>
<p>1. Links: We link units into a building and then the building into the site. The site file has become impossibly difficult to deal with. We have about 20 unit types and around 450 instances of those 20 types. Is it normal to have this much difficulty with a double linked file? Our site file crashes often and is very slow. There is definiltey something wrong and I am troubleshooting as best I can.<br />
2. Groups: We have one floor of the building that seems to &#8220;ungroup&#8221; the groups that are placed on that floor. The groups are still identified as groups when you try to change a wall or element but each individual element looks detached from the group. You don&#8217;t get the normal group box when hovering over the group. You still get the box in a 3D view but not in plan. Any thoughts?</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Garry</title>
		<link>http://www.seandburke.com/blog/2010/02/28/best-practices-with-revit-groups-rule-1/comment-page-1/#comment-531</link>
		<dc:creator>Garry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:53:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seandburke.com/?p=893#comment-531</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the reply.  The second townhouse project has units linked into buildings which are linked into the site.  It seems to be behaving very well except that my site plan is littered with refrigerators, closet shelves, and vanity counters from all the floors.  It seems these don&#039;t like to behave with the change in height (up 83 ft.).  I will take your advice and place these into their own workset at the unit level so I can turn them off on the site plan.  Otherwise, this is definitely the way to do these townhouse projects.
I started AutoCAD when they just added the DIM command for dimensions and they still had only the 7 named colors.  I was on AutoDesk Architecture when it was still Softdesk version 7.  The last place I worked at, they used an AutoCAD / Sketchup combination for all their drawings and it worked fine.  Now this place I am at is a Revit only shop and I have to get used to the amount of control Revit has over the database.  I am still finding my way!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the reply.  The second townhouse project has units linked into buildings which are linked into the site.  It seems to be behaving very well except that my site plan is littered with refrigerators, closet shelves, and vanity counters from all the floors.  It seems these don&#8217;t like to behave with the change in height (up 83 ft.).  I will take your advice and place these into their own workset at the unit level so I can turn them off on the site plan.  Otherwise, this is definitely the way to do these townhouse projects.<br />
I started AutoCAD when they just added the DIM command for dimensions and they still had only the 7 named colors.  I was on AutoDesk Architecture when it was still Softdesk version 7.  The last place I worked at, they used an AutoCAD / Sketchup combination for all their drawings and it worked fine.  Now this place I am at is a Revit only shop and I have to get used to the amount of control Revit has over the database.  I am still finding my way!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean</title>
		<link>http://www.seandburke.com/blog/2010/02/28/best-practices-with-revit-groups-rule-1/comment-page-1/#comment-524</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:41:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seandburke.com/?p=893#comment-524</guid>
		<description>Groups are so touchy. This I will agree. When their contents are complex, and contain many interrelationships with each other, they don&#039;t always behave as expected. For instance, rotating  or mirroring a group that contains a gridded ceiling gets very confused. What I have begun to tell designers is that the preference for repeatable elements in the model are: Family, Linked Model, then Group. I will be exploring the Assembly feature in Revit Architecture 2012 to see if there is a new opportunity to rethink this.

So since your collections of repeating elements contain walls, linked Revit models would be your best approach. Thankfully, The Factory gave us the ability to save a group as a RVT file, which can then be linked in. When projects become very large, the other advantage of this approach is you can document and create sheets for the units as a standalone file. You can also manage how much detail is brought into the main project, by placing those things you do not need to see in the assembled building into their own worksets, and choose not to include those worksets when linking.

This approach goes back to the way we did unit plans back in AutoCAD, and later ADT at the first firm I worked almost 15 years ago in the little city of Newburyport, Massachusetts. Check it out if your ever travelling. It&#039;s a great little New England town. Stop in to EGA Architects, and tell them I said hey!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Groups are so touchy. This I will agree. When their contents are complex, and contain many interrelationships with each other, they don&#8217;t always behave as expected. For instance, rotating  or mirroring a group that contains a gridded ceiling gets very confused. What I have begun to tell designers is that the preference for repeatable elements in the model are: Family, Linked Model, then Group. I will be exploring the Assembly feature in Revit Architecture 2012 to see if there is a new opportunity to rethink this.</p>
<p>So since your collections of repeating elements contain walls, linked Revit models would be your best approach. Thankfully, The Factory gave us the ability to save a group as a RVT file, which can then be linked in. When projects become very large, the other advantage of this approach is you can document and create sheets for the units as a standalone file. You can also manage how much detail is brought into the main project, by placing those things you do not need to see in the assembled building into their own worksets, and choose not to include those worksets when linking.</p>
<p>This approach goes back to the way we did unit plans back in AutoCAD, and later ADT at the first firm I worked almost 15 years ago in the little city of Newburyport, Massachusetts. Check it out if your ever travelling. It&#8217;s a great little New England town. Stop in to EGA Architects, and tell them I said hey!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Garry</title>
		<link>http://www.seandburke.com/blog/2010/02/28/best-practices-with-revit-groups-rule-1/comment-page-1/#comment-521</link>
		<dc:creator>Garry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:09:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seandburke.com/?p=893#comment-521</guid>
		<description>I am working on a multiresidential townhouse project that is built on a slope.  I have my unit types as groups defined off to the right of the site.  I am having no end of grief with placing the groups at the proper rotation and elevation without them fixing themselves, uniquing themselves or deleting themselves.  Some groups refuse to be copied, one refused to rotate 180 degrees but let me mirror it twice for the same result.  The thing is I would like my groups to not try and heal themselves at each transform until they are in their proper place.  For my next project I am trying to make each unit as a separate project linked into each building as a separate project linked into the site plan. Grandfather, father, child.  It looks promising.  But I am hoping I can fix these groups in this project so I don&#039;t have to redraw them.
Do you have any suggestions on creating a three storey group that does not mind being raised and lowered to other levels?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am working on a multiresidential townhouse project that is built on a slope.  I have my unit types as groups defined off to the right of the site.  I am having no end of grief with placing the groups at the proper rotation and elevation without them fixing themselves, uniquing themselves or deleting themselves.  Some groups refuse to be copied, one refused to rotate 180 degrees but let me mirror it twice for the same result.  The thing is I would like my groups to not try and heal themselves at each transform until they are in their proper place.  For my next project I am trying to make each unit as a separate project linked into each building as a separate project linked into the site plan. Grandfather, father, child.  It looks promising.  But I am hoping I can fix these groups in this project so I don&#8217;t have to redraw them.<br />
Do you have any suggestions on creating a three storey group that does not mind being raised and lowered to other levels?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean</title>
		<link>http://www.seandburke.com/blog/2010/02/28/best-practices-with-revit-groups-rule-1/comment-page-1/#comment-495</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2011 06:34:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seandburke.com/?p=893#comment-495</guid>
		<description>We don&#039;t accept it, but I have since learned to live with the fact that all software has shortcomings. For all that Revit excels at so thoroughly well, since there are many ways to represent repetition, including families, links, and others, it ain&#039;t so bad.

Having constrain-based, parametric modeling, which also allows sustainable design analysis makes me happy. The ability to simultaneously have multiple designers work on a single file across the WAN on both ends on the country or the opposite side of the world in real time makes the firm happy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We don&#8217;t accept it, but I have since learned to live with the fact that all software has shortcomings. For all that Revit excels at so thoroughly well, since there are many ways to represent repetition, including families, links, and others, it ain&#8217;t so bad.</p>
<p>Having constrain-based, parametric modeling, which also allows sustainable design analysis makes me happy. The ability to simultaneously have multiple designers work on a single file across the WAN on both ends on the country or the opposite side of the world in real time makes the firm happy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: van aardt</title>
		<link>http://www.seandburke.com/blog/2010/02/28/best-practices-with-revit-groups-rule-1/comment-page-1/#comment-420</link>
		<dc:creator>van aardt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 07:57:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.seandburke.com/?p=893#comment-420</guid>
		<description>I can&#039;t believe you guys accept these kind of bugs in a software package! Groups and blocks are supposed to be part of any modern CAD package, not some wonderful extra feature or add-on.  Revit is being touted as the best software out there and only recently  could you successfully mirror groups?! And changing the level of a group causes problems when drawing in Revit is based on levels?!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can&#8217;t believe you guys accept these kind of bugs in a software package! Groups and blocks are supposed to be part of any modern CAD package, not some wonderful extra feature or add-on.  Revit is being touted as the best software out there and only recently  could you successfully mirror groups?! And changing the level of a group causes problems when drawing in Revit is based on levels?!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

