Design options with graphic overrides

[Paul King]

I am documenting a project that is heavily phased contractually and for compliance/approval purposes, such that every 3D based view, and even each 2D detail needs a way to visibly attribute all notes and objects to one phase vs another.

Elements that will form part of a future phase of work need to appear as dashed pen weight 0 outlines, while elements from past phases, that are not part of the current contract need to be grayed pen weight 0 outlines (or similar).

Elements in the current phase of work need the full range of pen weights, line types and fills to show normally.

As the project status progresses from one phase to the next, what had previously been dashed as future work, needs to now appear normal, and what had been normal, needs to now appear greyed out, as it has now become existing.

I don't want to redraw or remodel all the plans, details, sections and elevations and associated references each time the construction moves from one phase to the next, and every time a new set of consent documents must be lodged and new tenders must be called.

In all documentation, the overall context and final outcomes must be communicated efficiently, with the current phase of work vs future work, vs existing construction all being very clearly delineated in every affected detail and view.

Astonishingly, I could not see a way to use design options as a criterion for graphic overrides, though this seems like the most obvious strategy.

I don't want to multiply the number of layers required as a work around - these are already considerable.  and I really don't want to manually change thousands of things in many views from layer to layer as phases change, or individual features get migrated to different phases as the project evolves.

We don't know yet how many phases may finally be involved, or what will ultimately belong in what phase - this is all very much client driven, by a very hands-on developer client who likes the flexibility to do 'deals' on the fly, bringing aspects foreword or pushing them back, depending on an ever-changing array of factors.

How is phasing flexibility typically managed, avoiding duplication of effort, when knowing what belongs where, ahead of time, is not an option?

[Ignacio Azpiazu · Accepted solution]

In Graphic Overrides criteria, Design Options-related are hidden in ID and Categories. 

The following is just late night adventurous conjecture, I did not test it nor even sketch it: I diffusely suspect the cleanest solution must require having several plns, each but Phase 0 having its own layouts, using only Existing and Demo RS in each model: Phase 0 (that which will last forever of Phase 1), Phase 1 (Phase 0 hotlinked in+that which will become demo in Phase 2 modeled local, set here as demo but drawings showing all RS), Phase 2, Phase 3. Each model publishes its non-demo content as modules to the next one. On the next phase model, demo views can show demo as demo, and existing can be grayed by belonging to the module. As during the developer-led phase design process spaghetti things move from one phase to the next or previous, they are just cut-pasted to the other model. At all times there is a clean layout book for each tentative future phase.
I am not sure about elements built in Phase 2 that need to stay in Phase 3 and be demolished in Phase 4. Maybe that is where design options come in – Graphic Override Rules criteria allow for “Design Option Name” contains “- demo Phase 4” (so that one could have options “built Phase 2 - stays forever”, "built Phase 2 - demo Phase 4”). 
If design options+overrides can handle everything maybe there is no need for RS and the bunch of models, and it is only a bunch of layout books in a single AC file. 
This may very well make no sense at all but lead to some other idea. 

Design Options in Graphic Override rules criteria

[Paul King]

Thank you!   I completely missed that.

I will play around with it, but hopefully can now make it work.

[Erwin Edel]

My suggestion would've been to use modules with a master ID if the design options didn't work, but looks like you should be able to make it work.

You might need to stacks a few views on a layout to get things to look right, but with design options and layer combinations / graphic overrides you can get there.

We have a sort of similar approach to get structural engineering drawings from our architectural model. Stacking multiple views on layout to get the look we need with dashed lines, different fills etc