The practice of adding the word "central" to a project file name came about in the early days of Revit to help users see the difference between any stand alone project file, their own local file and the actual central file for their project. Unless you notice a folder with a matching name plus "_backup" there isn't anything obvious to tell us that a file is "special" (central or local file). We used to copy the central file to our own computer and change the name to include our username to identify our local file as different from the central file. With the extra "-central" in the project file name it was easier to see its "specialness".
Since Autodesk changed how to make a local file it is less desirable to add the "-central" to the name. This is because when Revit creates the local file it adds our username to the resulting local file. If we use "-central" in the name we get something like this:
1234 BigProject-central.rvt (the central file)
1234 BigProject-central_Username.rvt (local file, including the -central part)
What made sense then doesn't now.
There are firms that still use a customized process to generate local files (there are other threads about that). For them it may still be advisable or desirable (even required) to continue including the "-central" in the project file name. If you just use the Open and check the "Create New Local" option it isn't as desirable or necessary.
Since Autodesk changed how to make a local file it is less desirable to add the "-central" to the name. This is because when Revit creates the local file it adds our username to the resulting local file. If we use "-central" in the name we get something like this:
1234 BigProject-central.rvt (the central file)
1234 BigProject-central_Username.rvt (local file, including the -central part)
What made sense then doesn't now.
There are firms that still use a customized process to generate local files (there are other threads about that). For them it may still be advisable or desirable (even required) to continue including the "-central" in the project file name. If you just use the Open and check the "Create New Local" option it isn't as desirable or necessary.
7 comments:
Steve, what is your preference/opinion about these 2 methods for a user who open his/her share of the work every day: 1) Opening an existing local copy by double clicking on a shortcut icon, or 2) Creating a new local every day by opening the central with "create local copy" and "overwrite existing file"?
Nick, I think seeing the word central in the local file name creates as much confusion as not seeing it in the central file can create. Pick your poison ;)
Alfredo, I prefer to make a new local file each day regardless. I append a time stamp to the existing file and clean out the extra files that accumulate every now and then. The local file isn't meant to be "precious", its a throw away working copy of the project.
On large teams I find that a new local is a must to avoid large discrepancies in file "synchronicity" because people contribute at different intensity and frequency.
Solo practitioner's can usually get away with the same local everyday, if they choose to use worksets at all..
I've said this many times before, but I wish the whole "Create Local File" option would just go away. The behind-the-scenes part still needs to works the same. There still needs to be a Local file, but I believe that Revit should just ALWAYS make a Local copy without the user knowing about it. The user should ALWAYS go to the network and ALWAYS open the "Central" file. Then Revit - behind the scenes and without user intervention - makes it's own Local Copy.
The way it is now, it's far too easy to open a no-longer-compatible local file, or open the Central directly (double-click, anyone?).
If this all happened out of sight, we'd see a lot less errors. Of course, an administrator needs some back-door method of opening the Central directly, but it shouldn't be easy to get to accidentally.
As I've suggested years ago, it would be nice to have different file extensions such as:
.rvt = non-workshared file
.rvc = workshared (central) file
.rvl = local file
This would end all the confusion.
As I've suggested years ago, it would be nice to have different file extensions such as:
.rvt = non-workshared file
.rvc = workshared (central) file
.rvl = local file
This would end all the confusion.
Tom D. @reviteer
As Nick says adding Workshared instead of Central clears the confusion. If it says workshared vs. workshared_user then it's all good: you can differentiate between non workshared files that don't contain this and users can identify the central from their local.
I like the file extension concept, I've had a few people suggest that over the years.
Including WS or worksharing or worksets in the name is a nice alternative.
For many firms worksharing files are the rule not the exception. For them it doesn't really warrant the extra info, all files are using worksharing. It's a simple training item, once learned...move on.
Just like some users think that having "(recovery)" at the end of the file name gives the file some super powers.
Post a Comment