Smart Elevations

[addesigns]

Is it possible to have two different level elevations with the same name? I know that you cant have the same name, but my company does not like that it is not possible. I am hoping there may be a trick or a special way to make this happen. The reason I ask is because we have a few diff buildings and they like to use the same name for first level for example even though it may be at diff elevations. Any help is appreciated

[RobDraw]

I have yet to do a campus type of project but using a separate model for each building will allow that. However, once the buildings are linked into a project with all the buildings in it, you may have to create level names with a reference to the corresponding building.

Edited April 6, 2013 by RobDraw

[irneb]

Yep, linked models per building is probably the way to go.

 

Wat I've done previously is to prefix level names with some form of building indicator (e.g. A-1st, B-2nd, C-1st, etc.). Similar for stuff like grids.

[addesigns]

Unfortunately that option is unnacceptable at my company. We suggested that but it is a no go. Thanks for the imput though. Maybe it will take some "beneifts" to get them to do that

[RobDraw]

It always baffles me that a perfectly good way of doing something is deemed "unacceptable". Good luck with the project and let us know what you come up with.

[tzframpton]

Why is it unacceptable? At the very least, the only thing you need in the model that is being Linked into the host project would be levels. Then use Filters to get the results you want by distinguishing which level name is needed for the building shown in the view. This way all the model components are still in one host project file, which is the only reason I can see why it would be unacceptable to not break out each building as a Link.

 

It always baffles me that a perfectly good way of doing something is deemed "unacceptable". Good luck with the project and let us know what you come up with.

+1 on that comment, Rob.

[Lee Roy]

Do you want multiple plans with the same name on the sheet? That's accomplished through selecting the view on the sheet, then changing the "Title on sheet" field in the Properties palette. Have the levels/plans named whatever you want in the Project Browser palette, then make them appear as whatever you need them to. We do this with elevations, sections and details quite often.

 

As far as seeing levels in section/elevation and having them named the same...that's bad drafting, imo.

 

"Hey Frank, I'm measuring the roof as nine three from finished floor. What the f***?"

"John, I dunno where you're getting nine three, I'm getting seven six from finished floor."

"Frank, are you looking at the bottom finished floor or the top one?"

"The one in the middle..."

 

No good can come from that.

[RobDraw]

I think you misunderstood the OP. There was no mention of sheets or using the same name for different levels within the same building. These are different buildings with similar levels named the same, as in Level 1 for building A and Level 1 for Building B which was stated in almost every post.

Edited April 6, 2013 by RobDraw

[Lee Roy]

Is it possible to have two different level elevations with the same name?

In the same project, no.

 

I know that you cant have the same name, but my company does not like that it is not possible. I am hoping there may be a trick or a special way to make this happen.

If it's not possible, it's not possible

 

The reason I ask is because we have a few diff buildings and they like to use the same name for first level for example even though it may be at diff elevations. Any help is appreciated

Put the buildings in different projects if they can't share the same level.

 

I think you misunderstood the OP. There was no mention of sheets or using the same name for different levels within the same building. These are different buildings with similar levels named the same as in Level 1 for building A and Level 1 for Building B which was stated in almost every post.

I did misunderstand. I thought he wanted the levels named the same so his plans would be named the same on his sheets. Are you happy now? Perhaps you missed the second half of my post which does indirectly reference his issue.

 

As far as seeing levels in section/elevation and having them named the same...that's bad drafting, imo.

 

"Hey Frank, I'm measuring the roof as nine three from finished floor. What the f***?"

"John, I dunno where you're getting nine three, I'm getting seven six from finished floor."

"Frank, are you looking at the bottom finished floor or the top one?"

"The one in the middle..."

 

No good can come from that.

[addesigns]

It alright I solved it. I will share I suppose. The problem was exactly stated above. There are multiple building in the same project and all levels have different elevations but the company says the name HAS to be the same. The solution.... Create a new level and give it the desired elevation. Click in the title so you can change the name. Type in the name but DO NOT hit enter. Instead right click and select Insert Unicode control Character. A submenu comes up and just pick one of the many selections. This will work for as many selections there are, but it will not work if you are picking the same selection. What I mean to say is if you have 7 elevations that need to say Third Level then pick six different selections from the submenu, otherwise t will give the regular error that Revit gives. You are welcome. I AM GENIUS

[tzframpton]

That's not a solution, that's defying the purpose in a non-logical fashion. Most of us know about the Unicode "secret" but oppose it. That technique would be subject to a phone call from the BIM manager in my office. Why use Revit if all you're going to do is work around the parametric capabilities? Shoulda kept using AutoCAD.

 

My $0.02 on this.

[addesigns]

I dont know where you work or what you do at your job but some companies run differently. We have projects that have multiple buildings and sometimes they are not at the same elevation. Hence the need to have elevations with the same name. Im not going to tell my boss that its not possible and that the company needs to change. My job is pretty awesome and Im not going to step on my bosses toes. Its funny that you say you knew about this solution but were unable to help. I can only imagine that your not very helpful to coworkers as well. Thats too bad, we get rid of employees like that

[tzframpton]

I can only imagine that your not very helpful to coworkers as well. Thats too bad, we get rid of employees like that

You could not be any further from the truth on this. My company has something called QA/QC, eg: quality assurance/quality control. It's good to have standards that will guarantee accuracy so good luck in maintaining QA/QC in this project. With this "genius" override, I sure hope you don't forget to check your levels before the submittal of your CD's.

 

[addesigns]

I just dont understand what makes you think that someone would screw up CD's and not be able to follow the project. Yes this is unconventional but it is a solution and if you know you elevations then you know what building it belongs too. We have QA/QC as well. I just dont understand why you are on a forum but cant at least offer some helpful advice. I guess you just know it all.

[tzframpton]

I just dont understand what makes you think that someone would screw up CD's and not be able to follow the project. Yes this is unconventional but it is a solution and if you know you elevations then you know what building it belongs too. We have QA/QC as well. I just dont understand why you are on a forum but cant at least offer some helpful advice. I guess you just know it all.

*shrugs*

 

I guess we have different standards. I've already made my motivation clear about why that method is unacceptable. In case you didn't realize it, it's because people tend to love easy workarounds. This puts our company at risk. Sure, you can place a dimension, click Replace With Text and in the text box, right-click > Insert Unicode > LRM to "blank" the actual value and override it. But what if that dimension was forgotten about, and made us at fault for a coordination issue when the design is in the construction phase? Guess who eats the change order cost from the RFI? We do. All because of a "genius" workaround.

 

If you want to use Revit and utilize BIM, then why not use it in the manner it was intended? That's all I'm suggesting to you. It's not about me being a know-it-all, it's about using proper procedures to ensure accuracy and mitigate possible issues later that could be costly. Just remember.... bad habits are hard to break.

 

[Lee Roy]

I dont know where you work or what you do at your job but some companies run differently.

I'm the CAD/BIM Manager at my company. I agree 100% with everything Tannar has stated and know others that I have worked with that would agree as well.

 

We did a lot of work at a national monument in California. The buildings are VERY off-elevation from each other. Each building was a separate Revit project, like I said to do earlier. For Civil/Site work, that was another project with the individual buildings linked in to their elevations respective to each other.

 

It's not as difficult as you make it seem.

 

I just dont understand what makes you think that someone would screw up CD's and not be able to follow the project.

If it can be screwed up, it will be screwed up. Your drawings need to be bulletproof; even then, field workers can botch it and cost you dearly.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Lee Roy

[RobDraw]

addesigns, I have to totally disagree with your off topic comments. Styk is very good at what he does and is passionate about doing things right. He is absolutely spot on with withholding a workaround and trying to direct you to the "best practice" way of doing it in this forum. This isn't "CADCheaters".

[irneb]

Agreed. If you HAVE to keep the levels named the same, you HAVE to keep each building in its separate file. As someone's stated, a workaroud (acceptable but still not too great) is to only have the levels in those linked in files and your models inside the "grand-master" file.

 

Especially with a project consisting of numerous buildings, linking is much more useful than you might think. Even in ACad I'd recommend this principle. Due to personal experience from a project with 20 high-rise buildings (and 100's of 3 to 7 storey buildings) on one site. If they al share the same origin, you're screwed when one of those buildings are moved by a design change. It would necessitate you adjust crops and reference tags for all views showing the changed building. In the project I worked on this happened several times (even during construction as issues on site were found during excavation), each move required the team (30 drafters) to go through all of 10000+ drawings to ensure that the views were all perfectly aligned to the new positions (sometimes took a week of extra useless work). If each has its own origin then a "move" simply requires you to move one thing (the linked in model / xref) - a 1minute exercise (at worst).

 

The principle is you see each building as a sub-project on its own. It has its own views which are relative to its own building. The containing project links in these projects to show how they relate to each other. You can still place linked in views into the containing project's sheets. This also allows you to name those Levels / Sections / etc. the same since they are in different RVT files. But if you created the views in the containing RVT file, such move again causes huge quantities of extra work, not to mention you have to keep each level/view named uniquely (either with some prefix or the dangerous unicode workaround you've mentioned).

 

So rather than draw differently from how you envision the project, draw exactly as you see the project in your mind. I.e. each building has its own levels, thus each building is in effect separate from its neighbor. I.e. each building is its own RVT file. The site RVT file contains all those building.RVT files.

[tzframpton]

addesigns, please don't take this as everyone "taking my side". My comments were not intended to be condescending, but they are firm and honest opinions from personal experiences. You obviously have every right to do as you please, but all of our strong opposition to this method is intended to warn you and all I ask is that you please consider revising your decision with this method for previously stated risks and benefits.

 

I sincerely hope this eliminates any possible hard feelings.