Linked Details - 3rd Party Tool Options

This is an update to a much earlier post after getting a couple comments on that thread. These are three companies I'm familiar with that are providing solutions that contend with sharing details between projects and multiple model projects.

Revolution Design - Revit Workflow

26 Degrees Software - ViewAQC

Parallax Team - Parallax Linked Details

Check them out!

Copy Monitor - A Different Way?

Morning musing...

It's my observation that there is a prevailing mostly ambivalent attitude toward the Copy/Monitor (C/M) features. 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. Specifically they are listed left to right: Levels, Grids, Columns, Walls and Floors.

C/M isn't hard to use but once it is in play we've got some new rules and warnings to contend with. The process depends on us identifying the elements we want to live in the C/M system. I understand the logic of that choice. Revit asks us to tell it what is important enough to us to engage the system.

Perhaps we need a completely different way to attack the problem? One that doesn't require the advance work. One that is more a reaction to work as it is created and shared, that merely exists.

I wonder if it would be more betterer if we could run a Level or Grid check as a process. The application would compare elements and compile a report, observations and differences. It could be something we read afterward or presented in a dialog for immediate action.

For example, it could just start with: "Hey Steve, there are 27 grids in your model and 30 in theirs. 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."

Does 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. The rules or conditions that are interesting need to be defined.

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). It still requires two or more elements though; mine, yours and theirs. The redundancy is annoying but it does provide us with flexibility within our own models.

I imagine much of what I'm describing (and more) is possible via the API and Dynamo. It just needs someone to decide it is an interesting enough thing to do.

Getting Started with Collaboration for Revit (C4R)

Below are a couple of links that describe the process for getting your project started using Collaboration for Revit (C4R).

It all begins with creating a project using your A360 account/subscription. Naturally you've got to create an account first so this assumes you've done that. The linked page also explains how to upload your current project to the A360 project if necessary.

If you're responsible for putting your active file on the A360 Project, READ ME, it has a video too.

There is a ton of information lurking at Autodesk, just use your Google-fu.

Revit 2017 - Reference Plane Subcategories

As I shared in the What's New post the other day, we can create our own Reference Plane subcategories; in both projects AND Families.

It is my opinion that Families should NOT bring Object Style subcategories for Reference Planes into Projects when they are loaded.

I realize that this is carry on baggage because Object Styles are loaded from a family into a project, that's how it works. However, it would be much better if something we can't even see or actually use in the context of the project doesn't get added to its database.

If people really like this enhancement and start using in all of their content then it could get really messy. The only people that won't incur the wrath of this are those that manage their content library aggressively. I really hope we don't end up with this...

I sure hope this is something the folks at the Building Content Summit will consider discussing to get out in front of it some.

Copy Monitor Wall Location Line Selection

I mentioned in a previous post that 2016 quietly introduced a parameter that lets us choose which Location Line is important to reference when we use the Copy part of the Copy/Monitor features.

Now that I've been trying to use it regularly I'm running into a quirky situation since installing R2 (I can't say for certain it doesn't happen in the previous version too). When I select a wall it works on the just the first wall. When I choose additional walls I get this warning.

Initially I thought it was happening because I thought it is important to assign the Location Line of the walls in the source linked file to be the same as intended in the host file, but then I don't remember having to worry about that earlier...pause...

Then it occurred to me that whatever Location Line setting I used for the last wall I sketched, in the host model, might somehow influence the process. I tried that and I don't think that matters at all; and it shouldn't in my opinion.

After experimenting a bit further it only works reliably when I use the Multiple selection option to choose all the walls I want to use Copy/Monitor on. I've repeated this using stock content (Imperial) and Architectural and Structural templates. If you'd like to corroborate my findings please try these steps:

• Start a project with the Architectural template
• Create six walls with: Basic Wall Exterior - EIFS on Mtl. Stud
• Use Location Line: Wall Centerline
• Save the file as Test CM

• Using the Structural template link Test CM
• Create a Stud 2x6 wall type (6" because the stud layer in the linked wall is 6")
• Start Copy/Monitor
• Map the linked wall type to the host's Stud 2x6 wall type (in Options)
• Choose Location Line: Core Face: Exterior (in Options too)
• Start Copy and select one wall (no message)
• Select another wall (Error message yes?)

I suspect the nature of wall joins is affecting whatever method they are using to evaluate the wall for the C/M process.

• Use Undo and Start again before using Copy/Monitor
• Set Options again, just to be sure
• Start Copy
• Select Multiple
• Select all six walls
• Click the little Finish button (no error?)
• Click the big Finish button

Earlier I mentioned being concerned about the Location Line setting of the walls in the linked model. I tested for that by starting with walls in the linked model assigned to Location Line: Core Face: Exterior. It didn't make any difference in my testing (see next image). Fwiw, when I first saw this new option appear I did think that was what they intended us to do but Revit just places our version of the wall according to the chosen Location Line position, not according to what the source wall is actually assigned to.

Thinking about it further I realized that if we really could influence this by changing the value in the linked model it should have already been easy for us to use C/M; if they just allowed us to swap wall types based on their setting. Revit was biased to only use Wall Centerline, ignoring the others.

I was nearly convinced that all I had to do was make sure to select the walls using the Multiple option but then in another file it didn't seem to matter or help regardless. Then I noticed any wall I was successful using C/M on (picking them individually) but was touching a wall that generated the error message also needed to be eliminated so I could start again clean. When I used Multiple after getting back to a clean slate I was able to use Copy/Monitor without an error message.

I conclude that the safest way to ensure Copy/Monitor doesn't generate a confusing warning is to isolate all the walls we want to use C/M on and choose the Multiple option. Remember the little Finish button before using the Big Finish button!

Also remember that anytime C/M gets ornery we can just use Stop Monitoring on the affected elements. Fix the problem elements and then use the Monitor part of C/M to let Revit start watching them again.

Upgrade Projects from 2015 C4R to 2016 C4R

The Revit Clinic offered a post describing the steps to move a project from 2015 to 2016 versions of Collaboration for Revit. It isn't as straight forward as we might think. It isn't as simple as opening a 2015 project via A360 with 2016 and waiting for it to be upgraded to 2016.

Take these steps:

• Open Revit 2015 (with C4R installed)
• Browse to the A360 project that you want to upgrade
• Open each Revit model and save it to your local workstation
• Create a new project to be used with A360 Collaboration for Revit 2016 in your A360 team hub
• Open Revit 2016 (need C4R installed for 2016 first of course)
• Open each Revit model that you saved to your local workstation save it after it upgrades to 2016
• Initiate Collaboration on each model and specify the 2016 project name that was created on A360 earlier
• The model is associated with the new A360 Collaboration for Revit 2016 project
• Re-link any Revit models as required
• Let everyone know that they should use the 2016 project now

There are now two separate and distinct projects (2015 format and 2016 format). Everyone must use the upgraded (2016) project and models now. Remember to rename the 2015 version of the project or deactivate it via A360.

Revit 2016 - Collaboration for Revit 2016 is Available

The 2016 version of C4R (Collaboration for Revit) is available now.

Click this to download or click the image for an overview

You'll need to visit your Subscription page to access the download to install it. Look at the Services page and it should be listed among whatever services you are entitled to. If you don't see it then you'll have to sort out your A360 account first.

This is the video they offer at the online help documentation site to explain how to initiate a project with C4R

Shared Coordinates and Collaboration for Revit

I've not written anything about Collaboration for Revit (aka C4R) yet. It's a recent development that puts a project in the cloud to give a project team access to the project data regardless where they are.

When it comes to Shared Coordinates, the Publish Coordinates tool is disabled. Acquire Coordinates does work.

As I understand the issue, Publish Coordinates is the only time that Revit has to be able to write changes to a linked file. The current A360 and C4R infrastructure doesn't support allowing that to happen...yet. They do understand it is something we want and need to do.

Regardless I'd still use Acquire Coordinates on a source survey file within a Master Site file, as usual. Then I'd link any building files and position them on the site, just like I'd normally do. To cope with the loss of Publish Coordinates I'd put location markers (a unique family for example) that allow me to figure out how to link and align Master Site in each building correctly afterward.

As I just mentioned, in each Building file I'd link the Master Site model and move, rotate and elevate it as required. Then I can use Acquire Coordinates and pick Master Site. This will pull the correct Shared Coordinates into the building model. I'd repeat that for each building.

I'd do the little building position dance in Master Site even though I could probably figure out how to do the reverse (position Master Site in each Building) somehow. I'd find it a little easier to work out each building's relationship to the Master Site model this way, seeing them all together at the same time in Master Site. I think it provides for better context.

When other trades get going they just need to link the Architecture model using Auto - Origin to Origin and then use Acquire Coordinates, picking the Architecture model. It's a cascading nested understanding of the survey coordinates, using Acquire Coordinates all the way down.

SMEP-Models - AC from - A-Model - AC from - Master Site - AC from - Site Survey

When they return their files to the architect they just need to be linked using Auto - Origin to Origin too. Technically if they do use Acquire Coordinates using By Shared Coordinates would work but if they didn't Auto - Origin to Origin is reliable...as long as they understand it is important that they start out using Auto - Origin to Origin themselves, when they link the architecture model.

Survey Point - Post 3 - Five Minutes with Shared Coordinates

I created a video that goes through the process I described in the previous two posts. It is set to a four and half minute song by Michael Lee Firkins called "The Window". If you've never heard his music I believe you owe it to yourself to check him out, very talented and unique sounding guitarist and song writer.

Survey Point
Survey Point - Post 2

Starting View

I was reviewing old posts for something I thought I wrote about Starting Views. I was befuddled when I didn't find anything. I guess that's to be expected when I write things here and on several other webs sites like AUGI, RevitForum, and Autodesk Newsgroups. Enough about my confusion. Since I don't seem to have one already, here's one now.

Revit developers observed that users were creating simple drafting views that contained some project information and then encouraging or insisting users remember to open this particular view when they saved and closed their projects. This way when someone opened a project for the first time they'd always be greeted by this special view. It also takes Revit less time to open a simple view with no model representation involved. In response they introduced the Starting View as a feature. This special view can be assigned to any view including a sheet view.

Initially people were pleased and just referenced the view they were already using. Then some began experimenting with other view types. The Sheet View is particularly useful because it can use a custom title block family to provide the framework we might want for our Starting View, imagine the office bulletin board with a variety of important and often timely info about office parties and upcoming events. In the context of a project that means we can reference actual project information through labels/parameters instead of having people type some of this same information into text. This connection to live data is a natural progression, even expectation.

More recently Andre Carvalho shared (at RevitForum, see link below) how he uses a linked project file to manage project notes that need to be visible to projects that have several or many models or even expand beyond one project to all projects in the office. He can update the master project file and since all the related projects have this file linked into them the information is updated automatically for him each time any project file is opened. Pretty clever stuff, working within the confines of the tools we've got. If you'd like to read more CHECK IT OUT.

If you aren't taking advantage of Starting Views, let me encourage you to consider doing so.

Starting my Project after Receiving a Model

From a Revit MEP or Structure perspective getting a project started, without delving into subtlety, should look something like this.

• Link the architecture model - Auto - Origin to Origin
• Examine an elevation - Make sure your levels match theirs (it's also helpful to get a better sense of the scope vertically)
• Use Copy/Monitor to create (levels you don't have) and watch the levels for coordination (optional but a good idea)
• Room Bounding (MEP) - The arch link has a Type Parameter called Room Bounding, this should be checked if/when you are using Spaces
• Create views for each level after you've made sure yours match theirs
• Repeat this for each discipline, HVAC, Plumbing etc...
• Phases between files should be mapped (same place as Room Bounding, and to truly work they need the same names too)
  
• If you need your own grids to adjust how your documents look - use Copy/Monitor to get a watched set of your own grids

As I alluded to in the beginning, there are other subtle things like worksets that can factor in as well, but assuming the above is all done, you're ready to start adding your own work.

Copy Monitor Walls and Openings

I've mentioned in the past that we need to be careful using the Copy/Monitor (C/M) tool on walls when we use the option Copy windows/doors/openings.

When Revit examines the geometry of the family used to create the opening in the C/M'd wall it looks at the overall geometry to define the opening's size. That's usually not good because trim on the face of the wall does not define the opening required. The stock door families (and windows) are good/bad examples of this in action.

This is an opportunity to bring up another advantage of creating doors like described in A Door's Life, they behave when you use C/M. Why do they behave? There isn't any native geometry in the host door family. The frame, door panel, swing and hardware geometry are all based on nested families and the C/M tool doesn't "see" them when it creates the equivalent opening in the C/M'd wall.

Here's a comparison based on stock and not stock doors, in plan view.

The openings created from the stock doors are as large as the trim elements that surround the opening of the door (3" wide trim). The openings for the not stock doors as as large as the opening in the host family and all the nested components are designed to fit inside the opening that's used in the family. The nestedness of all the components prevents them from being detected by C/M.

Here's the elevation of the same doors.

It is a Training Problem

I frequently get involved in conversations that start with someone wishing Revit would help resolve "x" problem. The essence of "x" is that somebody on the team keeps doing something that the team wishes they wouldn't. So we want Revit to fix a user, or make it impossible for a certain user to do something.

Usually it is just growing pains and those WILL subside after enough time is invested and experience is gained. That's the purpose of training, we can shorten the time required with training. Yes, I do work as a trainer but I'm not just saying that because I'm a trainer (the carpenter thinking every problem needs a hammer). The whole point of hiring a training consultant or going to classes (for anything) is to reduce the time it takes to become productive or knowledgeable.

We SPEND money to SAVE time and invest in our skills.

Too many firms don't invest in their staff (or if they do, they don't do it effectively). They expect or assume that their staff will just manage to get by on their own. Give them a book, they're smart, they'll figure it out. They probably are smart and they will figure it out...eventually. How long can you wait for that to happen? They might pay for training but then after three days in a class they've been trained and therefore are experts! At least that's the perceived expectation or assumption. After all, that's why architecture is such a easy degree to get and getting licensed is a snap, right?

Getting training is a piece of the puzzle. Putting that training to work is how experience is gained. The training makes it possible to shorten the learning curve toward experience. No matter which way you approach the learning don't underestimate the importance of the experience of doing the job, the project. You'll just enjoy the job or project more if you get some good training and spend less time getting frustrated.

If a firm really keeps track of how much time is lost to inefficient task completion and inexperience leading to rework. They'd find out eventually that hiring that consultant or training facility would have been a bargain. If we don't treat "time lost" as "money spent" we don't realize how much it really cost. So many firms behave this way, they don't pay attention to the money going out the door the slow and "invisible" way. It goes out so slowly they convince themselves it isn't happening. If you are serious about seeing a return on investment (ROI) you need to know what it costs to do everything now (the established or "old way") and then later after becoming proficient with Revit. As they say, you can't manage what you don't measure. Keep in mind that lots of data doesn't necessarily mean it is useful.

A senior architect mentoring an intern architect is the same thing, your experience helps the future senior architect become one. You can be a mentor in your office for Revit and bring people up to speed sooner too! So it's not just about hiring a great trainer, it's also about striving for better continuously.

We sprung for training and people are still making mistakes and they've been warned repeatedly!

Mistakes are one thing, we all make them. If people know better but keep doing the same thing over and over again you now know what they really think of you and the firm. They don't care! They don't care enough to "play along", be a "team player" (OMG, holy catch phrase Batman). Sorry but AEC is a team sport.

Messing up other people's work IS a training issue, until it ISN'T anymore.

If people are trained and continue to be RUDE and refuse to work well with others it is no longer a training issue. It's a HR (Human Resources) problem, yeah I mean "possibly cost them their job". A firm (and it's staff) shouldn't have to tolerate people refusing to work together well. That's easy to write, not as easy to work through, I know that. Someone once said to me, "Yeah we have a few people who should work for our competition". So I say, "why aren't they?" (big grin)

Ignoring the problem, yeah how's that working?

Plaaaaay BALL!

Wall Floor Interaction and Linked Models

When we have architecture and structure in separate Revit models we end up with somewhat clumsy graphics in wall sections. This is more pronounced if the structural slab is in the structure model only. It could look like this.

The wall continues past the floor as if it isn't there. One possible solution that allows us to keep the structural slab in the separate file and avoids the copy/monitor scenario is to place a Reveal on the interior side of the wall. The profile needs to be equivalent in size to the slab thickness and the wall thickness (inside surface plus however far the slab extends toward the exterior). This approach creates a bit better result.

I should mention that this works the other direction too, since the reveal is part of the wall it will leave a "hollow" space for the structural model's floor slab to occupy.

Dept. of Off Topic - openingdesign.com

Ryan Schultz with openingdesign.com has occasionally asked me to offer some feedback on what they are working on. They went live with their site in May. It isn't about Revit, rather collaboration in the A/E/C realm. Here's what their website says:

...snip
OpeningDesign.com is a collaboration platform for A/E/C professionals—offering a real-time sketching and markup tool, and a place building and construction professionals can exchange expertise.
...snip

On their home page it discusses "The Tool" and "The Network". Regarding each it describes a problem and their solution.

The Tool:
...snip The Problem: On the phone, it's often difficult for A/E/C professionals to communicate a ‘visual idea' to another member of the team—whether it be a change to a floor plan, or small amendment to a shop drawing detail....snip

...snip The Solution: SketchSpace is an online tool that allows you to upload a PDF and sketch or mark-it-up, in real-time. If someone draws a circle around a foundation detail in New Orleans, the same circle instantly appears in Chicago, or Singapore for that matter. We like to think SketchSpace is the digital equivalent of having your entire team huddled around a set of CD's. Give it a try... ...snip

It's this SketchSpace you can experiment with now and it's pretty neat. They are looking for feedback to help expand and improve on its current capabilities.

The Network:

...snip The Problem: Unlike larger A/E/C firms, smaller firms do not have the luxury of a broad and deep pool of in-house experts they can consult for help....snip

...snip The Solution: Although it's not quite ready yet, we are currently developing OpeningDesign.com into a community platform where A/E/C professionals can collaborate and share expertise with other fellow building professionals. Whether it's getting help on a building code question, or soliciting feedback on a schematic design idea. Shoot us your email and we'll let you know when its up and running... ...snip

They've got a video on their site to help get a sense of what it's all about.

What is OpeningDesign.com? from OpeningDesign.com on Vimeo.

Sharing Data and Language

Interesting thing is happening to a friend and his firm as they collaborate with an engineering firm based in China. Language is an obvious issue for project meetings and documentation. At a little deeper level how about between applications. Let's say using Navisworks and exports from Revit...

There is no translate option during export!

Seems to me the "solution" to sharing this is to use a common language for the modelling/software/documentation. Easier said than done perhaps to choose English as the "language of business"? What if the project is to be built in China? Better make sure you have native Chinese speakers on staff?

Architecture/Engineering work is increasingly international and multi-national, I imagine we haven't seen the last of this sort of thing.

Project Coordination - Early Days

This post attempts to outline how a project will develop (understanding there are exceptions) when considering multiple firms/models and attempting to keep each model aligned both in Revit's model environment and relative to the site location and survey information. It differs from previous explanations I've offered here because the separation of models tends to challenge the traditional Publish and Acquire Coordinates tools. These tools work more readily when all the models co-exist on the same network, shared among the team. Less so when that isn't possible.

In the beginning..."You" (an architecture firm) start your project without a reliable survey. Sometimes the survey is a hand drawn document from a "couple years ago" or it's just a legal deed description. Maybe it is just from a survey you don't trust? Regardless you are less than excited about relying on it completely. Someone arranges for a survey or less convincingly...one is being promised.

Using a new project template (your killer office template of course), start your Revit project at (near) the origin in Revit (project basepoint). Don't even worry about the survey information for the moment. Draw the concept so it is easy to put on paper, on a printed sheet. Doesn't matter if it is angled or new fangled, just orient it so it is "easy" to draw.

When the survey comes in or you are forced to do some site documentation (guessing) create a new Revit project file (for example call it: Site Master or Master Site) and create whatever information you intend to use in this file. The presiding reason to create this separate file is to minimize the pain and suffering should the building location change or if there is more than one building involved. Work in this file, orienting everything with North as the top of the view, North is "UP" (like World Coordinates "WCS" in AutoCAD).

You also need to match the coordinate system of the Master Site Revit project to the survey. The most reliable way to do this is to agree on a benchmark location in the survey and use those values with the Specify Coordinates at Point tool to define that same spot in Revit. The reason it is most reliable is that large coordinate values do not get extracted properly using the Acquire Coordinates tool. Safer to use the one that "always" works, I think. When the survey is imported into Revit use Auto-Center to Center so that it is near Revit's own origin. Then the Specify Coordinate at Point tool will adjust the Survey Point to indicate where the survey 0,0,0 (origin) is. If you "un-clip" the Survey Point first you can use it to mark the benchmark and it won't shift to mark the survey origin.

Now that this file exists you have some understanding of the site and hopefully have an idea about where the building ought to go. Import your building model using Manual at Origin and "plop" your building somewhere on the site. Move it into position, align/rotate it and raise it to the ideal ground floor elevation (literally move it up/down in a section or elevation view). Once the building is where you believe it should go you can define the important site information to share with everyone else. Contrary to typical convention don't bother with Publish Coordinates. More on this in a bit, hang in there.

Let's pause, back up and insert some stuff between the building model and the site model coming into being, before you get reliable site information (or faking it).

Let's assume you decide to hire a structural engineer (and MEP) and they use Revit too. You send them a copy of your model (remember, before any notion of real site position information). They import your model Auto-Origin to Origin. The reason for this is that the extent of your model is likely to be different than the extent of their template. Using Auto-Center to Center will not guarantee that your origin and their origin are at the same place. You want the Project Base Point (Revit's project origin) to be the same in both files. The MEP consultant does the same. The engineers match up their levels and grids to yours using Copy/Monitor (most likely...or probably should).

At this point everybody has models that are at the same location from one Revit file to another. Importing any file into another will end up at the same spot in each other's file. If you never deal with site you are all good to go.

If we assume that you and the engineers have traded files a few times we can reconcile the site conditions when they become available. When a real survey exists (or even a fake, good enough for now one does) you add it to the site master file and use it to define (as described earlier) the actual coordinates so the master site model and the civil information are in sync. Assuming you have to adjust the building you do it here, in the Site Master file. Move it, align/rotate and raise/lower it but as I mentioned before, DON'T bother using Publish Coordinates.

When you are passing models back and forth the process (FTP/Uploading/Downloading) of publishing coordinates breaks down if/when your architecture model has to be moved on the site. The relationship between the site and your model is easy. Not so easy for the other models and your model to say in sync. The goal should be to keep the project origin intact between files. Instead of Publish Coordinates, we will use the Specify Coordinates at Point tool to tell each project file what the site information is. This is done by determining what the necessary information is in the Site Master file and passing it along to each team/model. It's a simple list: East/West & North/South Coordinate for a established location like Grid intersection A1, Elevation at that location and the building Rotation relative to East or West. It looks like this when you've got it entered into a building/structure/mep model.

You extract this information from the Site Master file by using the Report Shared Coordinates tool at Grid Intersection A1 (or something agreed upon). This gives you the E/W and N/S coordinates and the Elevation. Rotation is determined by finding the angle between True North and the Grid (or something) that represents Project North.

As mentioned above, you don't actually publish coordinates or acquire them. You use Specify Coordinates at Point in each model to tell Revit what the real world coordinates are at that point (Grid A1), what the elevation of the project is and what the rotation of the project is. As soon as you enter the information Revit "adjusts" the project but it never really moves. All the project views are intact. The only time that major changes are required by everyone are when the model itself is redesigned to different angles or shapes. It's hard to avoid that kind of rework. Repositioning the building on the site however is updated with much less trouble or downstream heartache.

You just repeat those steps if the site conditions or something forces a change and pass the new coordinates, elevation and rotation information along to the engineers. They use Specify Coordinates at Point, enter the data...back in sync. If they don't update the information the models still stay in sync between Revit files. The failure to do so only becomes apparent when the model is exported to Navisworks or a cad file for Civil to use.

In a flow chart the concept looks like this.

The coordinate data in the dashed boxes could be as simple as four lines in an email, like this:

The new project coordinate information is a follows

• E/W Bearing: 1,500,000
• N/S Bearing: 1,250,000
• Elevation: 142'-0"
• Rotation: 25 degrees Relative to: West

If there are multiple buildings involved the process is the same except they'll each have their own unique coordinate information ultimately derived from the building model located in the Site Master file.

This is my first pass at documenting this...so if I've missed something or described it poorly...I'll be back. I'm also planning on a video capture or two...

Revit Worksharing - Instant Messaging via Bluestreak

Project Bluestreak on Autodesk Labs has introduced a new communication feature

Overview
Autodesk Project Bluestreak is a cloud-based collaboration solution that helps AEC project teams collaborate informally and coordinate their work efficiently. Project Bluestreak simplifies AEC project team communication by consolidating the information silos used alongside design, analysis, and data management applications. Project Bluestreak is the first collaboration solution to integrate informal project team communication and automated notifications from AEC applications, starting with Revit. By combining team communication tools with Revit worksharing notices and one-click file access in a compact desktop app, Project Bluestreak consolidates multiple tools for BIM processes, making team modeling more efficient.

The most recent update includes the following enhancements:

Bluestreak Desktop - a compact window that works alongside any Autodesk or other desktop application so you can stay connected to your distributed AEC project team with real-time communication and automated application notifications.

Autodesk Revit Activity Stream App – an app that connects Revit to Bluestreak cloud services. It combines automated notifications of Revit worksharing events with informal team comments so team members can communicate when models are saved to central to ensure efficient hand-offs.

Autodesk ID - Autodesk Bluestreak now uses Autodesk ID so you can sign in to multiple Autodesk applications with a single username and password, making it easier for you to remember and manage your account information.

Liability? That a firm must allow users to participate in Autodesk Bluestreak so that they can collaborate. One more thing for EyeTee to do, so to speak.

Revit and WAFS

Okay two posts with funny acronyms in a row, sorry! The previous one was playing around but this one is real, Wide Area File Services (WAFS).

I spoke with Marc at Globalscape yesterday. They have been providing services for file replication/mirroring (among other things) for many years but recently they've been focusing on solving the Revit central file collaboration situation. More and more firms are trying to share work among their own offices as well as among other consulting firms. The first is a little easier to solve when the firm is dealing with its own wide area network ("intranet" WAN). The second is harder, harder still when firms are not able to share a common network resource regardless.

What is intriguing about them is that it is a software solution applied to project servers. One firm takes the lead as primary and purchases software ("agents") equal to the number of team member firms involved. The primary firm's project hub server gets its own server side software agent. The lead firm distributes agents to each firm that is part of the team. This hub server and the other agents manage Jobs (shared projects and their folders) and use a Vault (file access data) that keeps the single central file replicated at each agent site.

From their "BIM meets WAN" site page:

...snip...

Facilitating multi-user, multi-site collaboration is often one of the most challenging obstacles for organizations. When you pair Autodesk® Revit® Worksharing capabilities with GlobalSCAPE WAFS users from locations across the world can access and share files over a WAN at LAN speeds. This means faster and more reliable element borrowing and multi-user access to entire worksets.

More specifically, file replication ensures current copies of the central files and worksets exist at all locations that require collaboration. Real-time file locking prevents users from concurrently borrowing the same workset or entity. Once a user is finished, the common Save-to-Central command publishes changes back to the local central file copy, and then WAFS instantly mirrors those changes and unlocks the workset at all sites on the network.

...snip...

From the Revit user perspective they really have no idea what is going on behind the scenes. They create local files, work and synchronize with central as usual. The software does the work behind the scenes. They can use Revit's companion application Worksharing Monitor to see what other users are up to which is invaluable when teams are spread far and wide.

Interested in learning more? Visit their website. They have a couple documents you can review (though I couldn't find convenient links on the site for them) and a video you can watch.