Others may have better experiences and more history to share.That's a good point.
I cannot imagine, however, C/M an entire model. When you get the new model and reload, that's when you'll get the messages that items require coordination review. In your case, even though your linked model is not "live" I'm guessing it would be similar. If there are no changes, it's certainly not a big deal. The coordination reviews only occur when we open our models, or when we re-load the links. It's not a constant, up-to-the-second coordination, though. The only items I (being Structural) C/M is the grids and the levels. That being said, even though we share a network, we each have our separate Architectural Model and Structural Models. All of our HVAC and plumbing are consultants out of house. Many things are clearly observable as wrong while working on the model so getting yelled at by Revit is just one more source of aggravation.I work in a firm with just Architectural and Structural A&S in one office and some more A in a second office, 350 miles away. You can also elect to Stop Monitoring things that have settled down (or so you think). If there are some major changes it makes sense to use Stop Monitoring to avoid lots of warnings while you cope with the changes. Communication and cooperation between the disciplines can help make it a little easier to turn on/off each other's elements for that purpose. To some degree we might as well accept some redundancy if we're going to be able to produce acceptable documents (drawings) and manage our own scope properly. You could also place a composite wall that includes the structural layer and use Monitor to manage their relationship, well warn you if one is moved away at least (now that we can choose the Location Line relationship). It just needs someone to decide it is an interesting enough thing to do.ĭavid - Separate walls is more realistic but it can be tricky as you've noted.
I imagine much of what I'm describing (and more) is possible via the API and Dynamo. The redundancy is annoying but it does provide us with flexibility within our own models. It still requires two or more elements though mine, yours and theirs. This sort of element review and comparison doesn't have to be limited to the five that Copy/Monitor were designed for originally (overlooking the MEP elements that have been added in some fashion). The rules or conditions that are interesting need to be defined. You should look at them." Take it slightly deeper, "Hey Steve, there are three grids that share the same name but are not in the same location."ĭoes it matter that they used to be in the same location and they aren't now? The application would have to start storing records for past results to do that but it could be useful to determine when or how things got off track. It could be something we read afterward or presented in a dialog for immediate action.įor example, it could just start with: "Hey Steve, there are 27 grids in your model and 30 in theirs. The application would compare elements and compile a report, observations and differences. I wonder if it would be more betterer if we could run a Level or Grid check as a process. One that is more a reaction to work as it is created and shared, that merely exists. Perhaps we need a completely different way to attack the problem? One that doesn't require the advance work. Revit asks us to tell it what is important enough to us to engage the system. The process depends on us identifying the elements we want to live in the C/M system.
Specifically they are listed left to right: Levels, Grids, Columns, Walls and Floors.Ĭ/M isn't hard to use but once it is in play we've got some new rules and warnings to contend with. I've said before that I think the order of the tabs in the Options dialog are based on the likelihood that we'll use them. It's my observation that there is a prevailing mostly ambivalent attitude toward the Copy/Monitor (C/M) features.