Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Suggestions for exterior wall design alternates

  1.    #1
    Senior Member PatrickGSR94's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 7, 2017
    Location
    Hernando, MS
    Posts
    699
    Current Local Time
    08:58 AM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Suggestions for exterior wall design alternates

    I'm working on a large industrial warehouse project where we need to show the client different options for the exterior wall design - one with full-height tilt-up concrete, another with tilt-up wainscot and the insulated metal panel (IMP) above, and possibly a 3rd option. Seems like a good use for Design Options, right?

    Problem is, in the few times I've tried using design options, it has turned out to be an absolute disaster. The whole building is already modeled with a stacked wall type for IMP over tilt-up. There are already hundreds of doors and windows everywhere. If the exterior wall face could stay in the same place for both wall type designs, I MIGHT could get DO's to work. Problem is that with the full height tilt-up option, I need to shift the exterior walls out an extra 3 to 4 inches. Which affects the roof edge above, and also affects a number of interior furring walls up against the tilt-up wall in the office area.

    To me it sounds like a recipe for disaster. But the only other options I can think of involve creating an entirely separate building model in another file, or perhaps copying the model off to the side a few thousand feet. In both cases, whatever other changes I make to the main building model, I'll have to remember to also change in the second model. Obviously a bit easier if both models are in the same file. I may be able to get away with just copying the exterior walls, doors and roof over into a second model in the same file, and not worry about the interior.

    Any other thoughts? I really, really want DO's to work, but I just don't think it's feasible given the number of things that have to be duplicated and included in each Design Option.

  2.    #2
    Administrator Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    11,691
    Current Local Time
    08:58 AM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    I would still use Design Options.

    Yes, its going to be "work." Its going to be work no matter which method you take.

    Sure, changing the thickness of walls is going to be an "effort" with Doors and Windows. Thats still going to be the case if you copy the building 1000 feet to the left. Still going to be an issue if you do a save as, too.

  3.    #3
    Moderator snowyweston's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 21, 2010
    Location
    C.LONDON
    Posts
    4,593
    Current Local Time
    02:58 PM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94 View Post
    Any other thoughts?.
    it "works" - we do it all the time - but "it" needs a grounding rationale from the get go, and to a point you raised specifically: the interiors do not (or should not) be factored if you're playing dress up.

    Yes, in the strictest sense, different facade conditions impact internal conditons (and roof edges like wise) but just like showing (the wrong) indicative furniture too early in an interior viz shot - there's zero value in you working up the innards to keep pace with the dress changes - so make sure there is a clear delineation (both in terms of activity and model-element-wise) that enables you to create DOs to your hearts content, whilst not infringing on that (internal work) part

    Yes, arguably, the innards could (should?) have their own DO - to enable the playing pairs; ala jeans+shirt or shorts+T, i.e. "int.A+ext.A", "int.A+ext.B", "int.B+ext.C", etc... but (as I tend to find myself repeating more and more these days) that all comes down to design management, not model management.



    ...but, speaking model wise (beyond, "yes, DOs are the way") this is where I find CWP elements that have play to be "thrown" in the Y-axis (sometimes instance-based but more often type) more handy than full ground-to-parapet stacked-wall configs, as there's more "play" per section/floor/module

    (Rhino folk be chuckling* in the corner about how it's sooooo relatively "easier" for them)


    *but that always (for me) raises the "bigger" question/counter; when using DOs (in Revit) you've ready-access (presuming a solid template/model) to some really rather swish comparitive abilities (read: schedules) off the bat - add in a some copied-change-DO-in-VT elevations & such, and you can readily build a infinite white space (non title block) "sheet" to overview the options all at once (and in detail) - without all the file admin and versioning faff other workflows demand.

Similar Threads

  1. Where is the core on an exterior wall
    By glkirk in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 10th, 2018, 10:30 PM
  2. Exterior Wall Modeling
    By cuervo383 in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: August 31st, 2017, 04:56 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: February 12th, 2014, 10:54 PM
  4. Positions Available: Exterior Cladding Design
    By jerry_fci in forum Career Corner
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 26th, 2012, 02:22 AM
  5. Exterior wall lamp
    By Pickens in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 3rd, 2011, 09:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •