Wishes
Post your wishes about Graphisoft products: Archicad, BIMx, BIMcloud, and DDScad.

Associate Renovation Status to Design Options

Marc H
Advisor

Would it be fairly easy to associate Renovation Status to Design Options? It seems this would be helpful for discreet demolition and new element design alternates in a given design set and may provide greater visual and documentation flexibility (e.g., work packages and phasing).

 

In recent years, my projects have required early design option costing (aka Pre-Design).  I have pre-design document sets for this purpose, including what I call a 'conceptual' set (for mostly new buildings) and a 'technical set' (for most remodels and logistical intensive projects).  These sets have a BIMx model, new and demo plans, as well as schedules I can export for use by consultants, estimators and pre-con GCs.  Presently, I copy an existing PLN for each option.

 

With the new AC Design Options, this tool appears to work well for broad new element/build options.  However, when dealing with remodeling, particularly in-wall elements (e.g., doors, windows, etc.) and differing element modifications between options, the Renovation Status often conflicts with the DO view sets.  I've tried a number of workarounds, but the inherent issue is the RS and DOs are, at times, mutually exclusive.  

 

It seems, however, the RS could be a DO model tool (i.e., associated and child to the DO model options) rather than assigned globally.  With that, by default, the Main Model would carry the traditional RS, but with the ability to assign all elements appropriately within each added DO to a given RS, should that be needed.

“The best thing about the future is that it comes one day at a time.” - Abraham Lincoln

AC27 USA on 16” 2019 MBP (2.4GHz i9 8-Core, 32GB DDR4, AMD Radeon Pro 5500M 8G GDDR5, 500GB SSD, T3s, Trackpad use) running Sonoma OS + extended w/ (2) 32" ASUS ProArt PAU32C (4K) Monitors
6 REPLIES 6
poco2013
Mentor

AFAIK - RS is assigned on a Object to Object basis - so it is independent of any Option Status as the RS is carried along with the element whether it is relinked or duplicated and can be reset separately, for any element within the option. The revision visibility works in any option setting, so-- by configuration, you could achieve now what you are asking for? What am i missing?

Gerry

Windows 11 - Visual Studio 2022; ArchiCAD 27

Indeed, the RS can be set for individual elements, including in-wall elements. However, there are a couple of issues when attempting to combine with the DOs:

 

a. The DOs, unlike the RS, cannot be set for individual in-wall elements (e.g., doors and windows). The result is an inability to assign, say a window or door to a DO without assigning the host wall.  To address the DOs limit, one can certainly break or duplicate the wall to isolate the individual element, but then the scope of demolition or new work may be overstated without more modeling and scheduling work.

 

b. If you have a few companion 'options', say for companion or sequential work packaging, you would want any separated package elements, be they prior or base model elements, to read in the correct state, say remain or completed in-place.  But with an RS setting for Demo or New on your additive option views, the base or prior DO elements will also show the state they are or were in (or invisible in some cases).  A workaround for this approach is to abandon the RS tool altogether.  One then creates additional DOs to address certain element visibility, create various GORs, and perhaps create duplicate elements to address appropriate visibility.  IMHO, this effort, on its own, is complex, time-consuming, and still prone to model and quantity take-off error.

 

Stepping back, it appears this is a structural opportunity to be taken between the RS and the DOs, if we see the synergistic value of both tools in a complex project, which for me, is where BIM value is greatest.  Hence, the suggestion to have the RS status serve the DOs models individually, as it currently serves the overall model.  Then, one could still assign RS status while limiting that RS view in the overall view with possibly other alternate DOs. For example, one could set the base or initial DO view to 'Planned', while a subsequent DO is 'Demo" so as to quickly visualize while providing clear scope in the work package/s.

 

[For my part, the above issues arose as a result of modeling a current project, wherein there are two complimentary infrastructure work packages, one with some remodel, and two building addition options; possibly one or both to be built depending on cost outcomes.  Hardly a project one wants to put into separate PLNs especially given the infrastructure connectivity, but I am yet to comfortably resolve the issues in utilizing the DOs with (or without) the RS.]

 

“The best thing about the future is that it comes one day at a time.” - Abraham Lincoln

AC27 USA on 16” 2019 MBP (2.4GHz i9 8-Core, 32GB DDR4, AMD Radeon Pro 5500M 8G GDDR5, 500GB SSD, T3s, Trackpad use) running Sonoma OS + extended w/ (2) 32" ASUS ProArt PAU32C (4K) Monitors

To clarify - is the wish for the ability to, for the same element, set different renovation status for different design options?

poco2013
Mentor

FYI -- Windows can be assigned to a Option in a Option Set if the Wall remains on the Main Module

Gerry

Windows 11 - Visual Studio 2022; ArchiCAD 27

Indeed, the ability to assign different RS for elements in different DO views would be a key measure of success.  

 

In a broad sense, it seems to me, these tools should be inherently aligned without inherent conflict.  At present, there are certain DO conditions where the resulting view is incorrect.  Perhaps another way to state it is that each view only allows one RS setting, even when the view may contain multiple DOs with differing modification needs.  If the DOs were merely to visualize 'as planned' design options, one can be in fairly good stead with some workarounds.  However, given a key DO purpose is for documentation, therein appear to lay the technical issues.

“The best thing about the future is that it comes one day at a time.” - Abraham Lincoln

AC27 USA on 16” 2019 MBP (2.4GHz i9 8-Core, 32GB DDR4, AMD Radeon Pro 5500M 8G GDDR5, 500GB SSD, T3s, Trackpad use) running Sonoma OS + extended w/ (2) 32" ASUS ProArt PAU32C (4K) Monitors

Yes. The concepts of alternatives and change are two sides of the same coin which bridges discrete states of the model - there is no real justification for having two separate and different technical solutions for them. So it's really unfortunate that GS has managed to end up with just that, more so with visibility control being dispersed even further. It could be questioned whether it is due to shortsightedness or narrowmindedness or both but it is obvious that the design option feature is developed to facilitate trivial user cases with a presupposed workflow where options are nothing more than simple side-tracks to rather quickly be deleted or merged.

 

Anything beyond that and the user end up having to juggle statuses, combinations, filters and multiplication of fundamentally the same element. Perhaps there could be some relief from the ability for elements to have different renovation statuses in different design options or the ability for different design options to have different renovation filters in the same view. But there seem to be a fundamental flaw in GS's approach that will leave an unnecessary burden on the user who really shouldn't have to do more than define and structure relevant discrete model states and keep track on which state is active for input while the software keeps track of which element is created/existing/modified/deleted in which state - leveraging computational power of computers for creativity of humans. 

So although I agree with the described issue - I'm not sure about the investment in the fix.

Start a new conversation!

Still looking?

Browse more topics

Back to forum

See latest solutions

Accepted solutions

Start a new discussion!