Our Product Managers are looking into possible improvements regarding Graphic Overrides. To help them here are a few questions. Any valuable insight is greatly appreciated.
The ability to override individual parts of an element or object.
i.e. override just one material (surface) and not the entire element.
Probably only around half a dozen regularly used.
But I have set up many more for Quality Control to check if things are done correctly - this is a bit of an experimentation at the moment - not really used.
Currently assigning a prefix to keep those not used out of the way.
With no folder structure, this is all we can do.
BIM manager (me) has set up in template, and views set to use applicable GO.
A better method if importing/exporting and updating rules and updating GO would be appreciated. There is no way to update (override) at the moment from one file to another.
It is a case of import, duplicate, replace.
We don't usually need to modify them.
The ability to be able to override sub-elements. An example would be the glass in a door or window to differentiate obscure glazing in a schedule or on elevations.
22 Graphic override combinations that are used in all our commercial schemes. Almost 100 different rules that are pretty much all used.
I don't structure them at the moment. Graphic override combination has a prefix number. It would be great to be able to structure them in folders.
All the time. I am the BIM manager and I am constantly tweaking them to make them work better or suit different situations. Our office template contains all rules. They are difficult to manage though as exporting the rules from a master template to replace in live files is not possible. the rules are only exported as part of a combination and if they already exist (because they have been tweaked) the new adopted rules are not imported.
Where a project has a slight variation or a better method has been found of achieving the same process.
They need to work on subparts. This belongs to the broader topic of a revamping of the reno filter.
We NEED to override only subparts, and GDL objects should no longer be second class citizen. We need to override based on GDL parameters, we need to override parts of an object, like just the frame of a window or a tread.
Also there MUST be parity with the other places where you can select by filters: The interface of Find&Select, Interactive Schedule, and GO should be unified.
Around 50–80 rules and 30 combinations.
Big thing that needs to improve, and I hope we see folders there sooner than later, too.
Personally I use an text abbreviation in front and then the pipe char like "GFX | ..."
The list, especially of rules, get's clogged very easily and makes it difficult to traverse.
Once the template was done the biggest part was set. There is continuous improvement of course as always. 😉
Also since every project is different there are always 1–5 one-offs specially created for the project and its needs, which also evolves from the early design stages to the later phases.
It wold be nice with a little refresh of the GO system. It's a really useful tool!
In every project we have between 50 and 100 rules and around 10 to 20 combinations. They are sorted by using keywords in the same way @Barry Kelly show in his example. Most is set up in our office template that is based on the Norwegian teamplate. But every project change the rules in some degree. Sometimes because they need a different ecstatic but mostly because the values the GO rules use are different than what the template assume they should be. Mostly it's the architects them selvs that change the rules, but when they are complex the experts need to step in to help.
The fire resistance parameter value can be written "EI60" or "EI 60" or even have exstentions with different letters added in the end as well. So the rules need to be changed to accommodate what's in the specific project. And there is often some uncommon value that is not added in the template so that has to be added as a new rule.
In the example of fire resistance there could be nice to have control of which color each value has but in many other situations there is not important what color it is, only that its different per value. Being able to make a rule that gives each unique value a colour/lineweight/etc would in many cases reduce the amount of rules drastically. This would be a nice cleanup in cases where you don't need control over wich color is used. I think that would be ok in most control situations. Just think of rules that control classifications or things like that have a large amount of different values.
There is also the issue of learning from each project. So after a big project is ended we go through the rules that have been developed and se if there is some that can be added to our template. It would be avsone if we cloud have a library in the BIMcloud or something like that so you can "shop" the rules you would like. That should also be extended to most attributts and things.
Like previsously said:
I would add:
For example, I want to be able to color with different colors all the different flat of a particular building. I don't want to create a rule for each zone number.
If I want to color each classification on my project and be able to create a schedule displaying the same colors.
I use numbering at the Begining, and rules with a name like "-----------------------" as separators
I set them up at the beginning but I have to edit them constantly.
For example, to use the audit Graphic Override that check if the elements are on the right layer, I have to change manually the layer to check:
The same process for classification, load bearing, interior/exterior...
The order of rules in a combination needs to be changed to have some logical sense. See:
If the rules in a combination are to be interpreted in order, top-down, as the Help says... then that should be it. Period. If a rule matches something, and a subsequent rule also matches... then the subsequent (linear / top-down interpretation) rule should take effect - rather than the first rule 'sticking' permanently regardless of what follows as stated in the Help.
Absolutely. Baffled from day one with this. The logic should run down stream. It shouldn't matter if on line 3 I turn my walls red, and on line 4 turn them blue, that is a user problem. As an example I assign sweeping values to pens and fills for a neutral base plan and then add additional rules to highlight relevant feature e.g. fire rated walls and user data faults e.g. dimensions on the wrong layer. It is just so wrong adding a new rule to the Combo and then having to drag it to the top of the list because the rule will be applied last!
Also further to this and an expansion on the renovation filter there should be a function that allows us to save multiple states of the same element. e.g. a wall in one state is 2m high while the same wall in another state is 3m high. Same element just 2 different states.