Detail Management

[bhiggins]

Hi Engineers!

After getting through a huge residential project that had 120+ details, I am wondering if there is a better way for managing a drawing with a large number of details and section cuts. Inevitably drawing sheets will be added/removed, details will be renumbered and shifted around, or changes will occur that will mess up your section cuts. I feel that for a big project, detail management sucks up the majority of my time.

If you are using traditional CAD software (AutoCAD), are there any available plugins that will streamline the whole experience? Perhaps automatically link section cuts with a detail. If you move a detail to another sheet the section cut will update automagically. What do the big players in large firms do to streamline the process? Do you have any personal tips or tricks? Or is this one of those "do it right the first time" situations? It really sucks to have to manually check that every section cut matches the detail and sheet number. It is really time consuming and is prone to error.

I know there will be some of you that will say just do the project in Revit. It is my opinion that Revit plain sucks for producing structural drawings, most especially for wood design.

 

[DETstru]

Revit does all the things you're asking for natively.
There are also add-ons/extensions that make it even more powerful.

 

[bhiggins]

I am still not sold on Revit, especially for wood framing. On every project we will draw live details, then the architect will move all the walls around which will require all the details to be fixed. It seems like you need to know the exact work-around in order to do specific things outside of Revit's toolbox. In the end I find that fixing the model is even more time consuming than just doing the project in old fashioned CAD.

 

[DETstru]

For wood projects I still think revit is best.
I model the walls and use the scheduling features to manage wall types and tags.

90% of the details are drafting views though. I hardly use live cuts for wood projects.

 

[dik]

Do you have a series of standard details that you have developed for other projects? You could start by organising them into a standard detail book/directory... Mine is based on the old masterformat designation.

It may take a little time... but will save you big time in future.

Dik

 

[KootK]

It is my opinion that Revit plain sucks for producing structural drawings, most especially for wood design.

If you feel this way, it's likely because you and/or your team aren't good enough at Revit. I know, that sounds a bit confrontational. And, while I don't wish to offend, I feel that it's important for you to hear this in a non-watered down fashion.

I shared your opinion for a very long time. Then my wife's firm, which specializes in wood buildings, decided to adopt Revit for all projects, regardless of whether or not the architect was working in CAD. Everyone thought the productivity sky would fall and Christmas bonuses would be a thing of past. Several of her drafters are also my drafters at times and, to a man, not one of them wants to go back to CAD for anything. They'd rather draw entirely in 2D in Revit rather than have to go back to CAD.

Lately, I've actually been doing some of my own Revit. And I can see how the strong Revit preference comes about. The learning curve is rough but it really does seem to be just a matter of commitment. I do precast fabrication drawings sometimes. At first blush, these would appear to be ridiculous as Revit projects. I'm actually considering it though. Much of the effort involved goes into QC on scheduling the components. As goofy as it sounds, being able to draw a precast plank with just enough intelligence that it's aware of its own width and length, is a huge time saver. HUGE!

So, in summary: suck it up buttercup.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[OldBldgGuy]

I have yet to see a real detail in Revit that is a real detail. Every one I've ever seen degenerates into big black lines and no information if you zoom in on it. Yes, it does coordinate well in 3 dimensions and updates everything when you move one thing, but its resolution is about the same as a 2" paintbrush. It is fine if you want to look at something from across the street or you like pretty 3-D pictures. I spent a considerable amount of money and time taking a Revit course before deciding not to buy it, and I deal with a pile of architects who use it and swear by it, but I'm still waiting for a detail worthy of the name.

 

[KootK]

My impression is that the state of the union is that we've all more or less agreed to draw "dead" details and just use the 3D section information as a guide to sorting out spatial relationships. Even without live details, there's still gobs of value in it. Another place where that value resides is in the largely automated documentation of revisions. Clouds, triangles, issue titles... yada yada. Revit kicks the bajeezus out of CAD on that front.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.