I think I brought something up like this before, so sorry if I am repeating...
I would like to see support in the projects for multiple phases / parcels. Currently, we are creating a template for the project, then using that template for each phase (or parcel) of that project, so that they are consistent. Then the projects all have the same project number and name, but with the phase appended in the name. There are two problems:
1. we don't always know all of the details (refnote specifics, plant list, actual details) at the beginning when we make the template.
2. things change
So, we are left coordinating updates and/or changes to the refnotes, plant list data, and details between the multiple project (phases) so that they are consistent.
We used to use ONE project, and do all the phases under that project, but one major problem was details. Even though most details were the same between each phase, those details may be on different sheets with different numbers between sets. It also meant we couldn't use the sheet legend.
My suggestion would be the ability to create a multiple plan sets within each project. Each plan set would have its own sheet legend, and separately track detail locations. But would maintain the same master refnotes/planting/irrigation data.
I'm sure this is not an easy request... so I'll let you think on it.
Just for grins, I am putting in a poll... basically because I just saw it and thought it would be fun.
I would like to see support in the projects for multiple phases / parcels. Currently, we are creating a template for the project, then using that template for each phase (or parcel) of that project, so that they are consistent. Then the projects all have the same project number and name, but with the phase appended in the name. There are two problems:
1. we don't always know all of the details (refnote specifics, plant list, actual details) at the beginning when we make the template.
2. things change
So, we are left coordinating updates and/or changes to the refnotes, plant list data, and details between the multiple project (phases) so that they are consistent.
We used to use ONE project, and do all the phases under that project, but one major problem was details. Even though most details were the same between each phase, those details may be on different sheets with different numbers between sets. It also meant we couldn't use the sheet legend.
My suggestion would be the ability to create a multiple plan sets within each project. Each plan set would have its own sheet legend, and separately track detail locations. But would maintain the same master refnotes/planting/irrigation data.
I'm sure this is not an easy request... so I'll let you think on it.
Just for grins, I am putting in a poll... basically because I just saw it and thought it would be fun.
_______________________________________________________________
Timothy Starkey, RLA, APA, LEED AP BD+C
Director Landscape Architecture
CVL CONSULTANTS
4550 N. 12th Street • Phoenix, Arizona • 85014
LinkedIn • website • facebook
Timothy Starkey, RLA, APA, LEED AP BD+C
Director Landscape Architecture
CVL CONSULTANTS
4550 N. 12th Street • Phoenix, Arizona • 85014
LinkedIn • website • facebook
Accepted Answer
Tim,
Well it's easy enough to just copy a project (Backup to LFX file, Restore back as a new number). That gives you a copy of the project, albeit still referencing the same details. Yet, the details could be on different sheets.
So it seems that accomplishes most of the goals. If the goal was more coordination and consistent data between the different phases, that is far more complicated and I don't see that happening anytime soon. An ability to just copy a project to a new project number could be a nice addition, but as mentioned, it takes barely a few seconds to do manually.
When it comes down to it, each phase needs to be a different project. Whether or not Land F/X displays it as a nice hierarchy or whatever is besides the point - fundamentally, the source project needs to be copied. By doing that, at least from my understanding, most of the goals of this have been achieved, yes?
--J
Well it's easy enough to just copy a project (Backup to LFX file, Restore back as a new number). That gives you a copy of the project, albeit still referencing the same details. Yet, the details could be on different sheets.
So it seems that accomplishes most of the goals. If the goal was more coordination and consistent data between the different phases, that is far more complicated and I don't see that happening anytime soon. An ability to just copy a project to a new project number could be a nice addition, but as mentioned, it takes barely a few seconds to do manually.
When it comes down to it, each phase needs to be a different project. Whether or not Land F/X displays it as a nice hierarchy or whatever is besides the point - fundamentally, the source project needs to be copied. By doing that, at least from my understanding, most of the goals of this have been achieved, yes?
--J
Here's some documentation we have:
Advance a Project into a New Phase
Power Tip: Show a Phased Planting Plan
One thing I'll add about the details: if your office normally forces a copy of a detail for each new project, it is still possible to bypass that and use the insert button in the detail manager to add a detail to this new phase's project without copying it, allowing edits to details to auto-update in both phases without duplicating edits.
If you have copying details set and you import the reference note, it will also copy the detail, if like Clay mentioned, you'd rather not have edits in Phase 2 retroactively also change Phase 1 details.
Advance a Project into a New Phase
Power Tip: Show a Phased Planting Plan
One thing I'll add about the details: if your office normally forces a copy of a detail for each new project, it is still possible to bypass that and use the insert button in the detail manager to add a detail to this new phase's project without copying it, allowing edits to details to auto-update in both phases without duplicating edits.
If you have copying details set and you import the reference note, it will also copy the detail, if like Clay mentioned, you'd rather not have edits in Phase 2 retroactively also change Phase 1 details.
Yes, projects can reference details from multiple different folders. I'm not sure how all the programming works but it does.
Regarding the Refrence Notes and Planting you're correct, still not a great option. You can create them in the master project and import into each phase and reassign details if necessary. Importing into a new phase might actually be better. Once a project is approved and set for construction you wouldn't want to unintentionally make a change that would retroactively change a specification for an already approved phase.
Regarding the Refrence Notes and Planting you're correct, still not a great option. You can create them in the master project and import into each phase and reassign details if necessary. Importing into a new phase might actually be better. Once a project is approved and set for construction you wouldn't want to unintentionally make a change that would retroactively change a specification for an already approved phase.
Clay - in your example... if you have a set of details in the 'master project', and then supplemental details in the 'phased portion' of the project, your phased project can reference details from both folders... and then the ref notes correctly show them on the page they are placed for each plan set... is that correct? That works for detail consistency if that is the case.
Unless I am missing something, that still doesn't address refnotes that are common between phases, plant list, etc.
I haven't looked... is there a LandFX video or help article on best practices for setting up phased projects?
Unless I am missing something, that still doesn't address refnotes that are common between phases, plant list, etc.
I haven't looked... is there a LandFX video or help article on best practices for setting up phased projects?
Ryan,
This is similar to what we ended up doing. Create a master project for the entire community with its own detail folder assigned to it. All details get saved to that folder. Each phase gets its own project number and detail folder for phase specific details. Phases reference details in the master to keep continuity.
Learn to use the Organization tab in the Land F/X Projects.
This is similar to what we ended up doing. Create a master project for the entire community with its own detail folder assigned to it. All details get saved to that folder. Each phase gets its own project number and detail folder for phase specific details. Phases reference details in the master to keep continuity.
Learn to use the Organization tab in the Land F/X Projects.
I'm trying to come up with a standard practice for dealing with phases as well. The only current challenge/limitation I see is if we have the same detail placed on multiple hardscape detail sheets because of different phased submittals then the refnotes schedules won't callout the correct sheet (unless details were placed on sheets with the same page number/name). I like the simple idea of just having all of the details in the same set for ease and callout which phase they are associated with but what are your thoughts on the workaround below if we're requested to only show details of a certain phase?
Have a "master" project which all plants across phases are associated with to create symbol consistency.
Create a new project for each phase which FX site and detail features would be placed but link this to the same detail folder so we don't have to make detail changes multiple times as changes come about. The downside is if we have to change a paving type, furnishing, etc. after it's already separated into different phases then that change would have to be duplicated on other phased .lfx files. (or if there's a lot of changes could do it once, back up and restore the .lfx to assign to the other phased .dwg files)
Have a "master" project which all plants across phases are associated with to create symbol consistency.
Create a new project for each phase which FX site and detail features would be placed but link this to the same detail folder so we don't have to make detail changes multiple times as changes come about. The downside is if we have to change a paving type, furnishing, etc. after it's already separated into different phases then that change would have to be duplicated on other phased .lfx files. (or if there's a lot of changes could do it once, back up and restore the .lfx to assign to the other phased .dwg files)
How about a master list, with preferred numbering as you mentioned. Those numbers could be revised to be unique at the phase level when a schedule is generated.
I could be wrong, but I am thinking this would be easier since there is really one list (the master list), and not separate lists that may contain portions of a master list, but also separate little bits specific to the phase. If a refnote from the master list isn't sued in a phase, it wont generate in the schedules, and the numbering would be unique to each phase. One master list with preferred numbers, and each phase has way to set unique numbers.
combine the ability to have detail sheet numbers specific to a phase, and I think that would probably cover 90% of the cases I can think of.... would be a great start anyways.
And Jeremiah, with respect to "which note needs to be revised".... I would probably be reviewing a set of plans when I made this comment, so I would say Note SF104 on the phase 4 plans (which might happen to be SF108 on phase 1, or SF102 on Phase 3). They go into that plan set, revise the refnote, and shazam, its updated across all phases... in my world... but not in the world we outlined above. So instead maybe when editing a refnote at a phase level, replace the "OK" button with two options "Make this change to the master list" and "Make this change unique"... the more I think about it, it would probably have to work this way... How would I go into the 'master list' to make any edits? A project is assigned to a drawing. Once in a drawing, I can edit the schedules associated with that drawing. In our scenario, the only thing associated with the 'master project', might be a preliminary master plan. It would be weird to go into an old master plan to edit a refnote for CD's So maybe combining Clay's filter idea... adding tabs or buttons (see pic) at the top of the refnote manager would let you see either the filtered list of notes in the phase, or all notes. Then you could stick with the single OK button. A change made in the phase tab is unique. A change made in the master tab is universal. sorry, thinking as I type.
However, Jeremiah, you have a good point... ideally I may ask someone to print the master refnote list for review, prior to generating schedules or anything... so having 'preferred' numbers at a master level does make sense. You win.
I gave you an upvote.
Thanks!
Tim
- New notes added at the master level become available for all phases
- Changes made at the master level reflect across all phase
- New notes added at the phase level show up at the master level as available to all phases, at the end of the list with a 'preferred' number. It would be visible to all phases, just may not be used.
- Changes made to existing note at the phase level results in the creation of a new refnote, at the master level, available to all phases, although they may not be used. (If it was easy to determine, if a change was made to a refnote at a phase level, but that note was only being used in that phase, it wouldn't generate a new note, just update the existing one in the master list)
I could be wrong, but I am thinking this would be easier since there is really one list (the master list), and not separate lists that may contain portions of a master list, but also separate little bits specific to the phase. If a refnote from the master list isn't sued in a phase, it wont generate in the schedules, and the numbering would be unique to each phase. One master list with preferred numbers, and each phase has way to set unique numbers.
combine the ability to have detail sheet numbers specific to a phase, and I think that would probably cover 90% of the cases I can think of.... would be a great start anyways.
And Jeremiah, with respect to "which note needs to be revised".... I would probably be reviewing a set of plans when I made this comment, so I would say Note SF104 on the phase 4 plans (which might happen to be SF108 on phase 1, or SF102 on Phase 3). They go into that plan set, revise the refnote, and shazam, its updated across all phases... in my world... but not in the world we outlined above. So instead maybe when editing a refnote at a phase level, replace the "OK" button with two options "Make this change to the master list" and "Make this change unique"... the more I think about it, it would probably have to work this way... How would I go into the 'master list' to make any edits? A project is assigned to a drawing. Once in a drawing, I can edit the schedules associated with that drawing. In our scenario, the only thing associated with the 'master project', might be a preliminary master plan. It would be weird to go into an old master plan to edit a refnote for CD's So maybe combining Clay's filter idea... adding tabs or buttons (see pic) at the top of the refnote manager would let you see either the filtered list of notes in the phase, or all notes. Then you could stick with the single OK button. A change made in the phase tab is unique. A change made in the master tab is universal. sorry, thinking as I type.
However, Jeremiah, you have a good point... ideally I may ask someone to print the master refnote list for review, prior to generating schedules or anything... so having 'preferred' numbers at a master level does make sense. You win.
I gave you an upvote.Thanks!
Tim
This makes complete sense.
To be clear on why the Master absolutely needs numbers - guys, come on. Do you really want to try to explain to someone which note needs to be edited if it doesn't have a number??? "The walkway note." "The concrete walkway or the asphalt one?" "Concrete." "Wait, there's 3 concrete walkway notes, which one?" It would be madness. You need the number to identify it.
--J
To be clear on why the Master absolutely needs numbers - guys, come on. Do you really want to try to explain to someone which note needs to be edited if it doesn't have a number??? "The walkway note." "The concrete walkway or the asphalt one?" "Concrete." "Wait, there's 3 concrete walkway notes, which one?" It would be madness. You need the number to identify it.
--J
--J
Clay,
Nice thoughts, it's very helpful to see more simple examples and brainstorming.
Although, I just don't think the user field option would be viable, as for instance Tim's case of 25 different parcels -- the possible combination of parcels that the note would show up in would require a whole additional interface to check off which ones it is in.
However, your thoughts did jog my mind a bit. I like the idea of somehow filtering the RefNote Manager to only the notes that are in the current drawing. If we bring in the idea of a Master list, the master list could have the preferred number for each note, and then the number could vary on each sheet as necessary, but still have access to its preferred number.
Keep the ideas coming!
--J
Nice thoughts, it's very helpful to see more simple examples and brainstorming.
Although, I just don't think the user field option would be viable, as for instance Tim's case of 25 different parcels -- the possible combination of parcels that the note would show up in would require a whole additional interface to check off which ones it is in.
However, your thoughts did jog my mind a bit. I like the idea of somehow filtering the RefNote Manager to only the notes that are in the current drawing. If we bring in the idea of a Master list, the master list could have the preferred number for each note, and then the number could vary on each sheet as necessary, but still have access to its preferred number.
Keep the ideas coming!
--J
Good points Clay. Based on what you are saying, and if you are not attaching details to refnotes, then you could probably do all your phases in one project. We also rarely attach the planting details (although its a good practice) to each plant either. Even if we did, our plant and irrigation detail sheets are so standard they don't really change pages or numbers.
Jeremiah mentioned the renumber tool earlier that might apply to your situation. You could have all your refnotes in one project, but when you run your schedule, renumber them to remove gaps. You will just need to remember to do that with each phase, every time you run a schedule.
Your user field for phase idea seems to have merit. But it also sounds like your thoughts would require the refnotes to not be numbered until the schedule is ran... not sure we will get Jeremiah in alignment with that. I am just glad they are thinking about it.
Thanks,
Tim
Jeremiah mentioned the renumber tool earlier that might apply to your situation. You could have all your refnotes in one project, but when you run your schedule, renumber them to remove gaps. You will just need to remember to do that with each phase, every time you run a schedule.
Your user field for phase idea seems to have merit. But it also sounds like your thoughts would require the refnotes to not be numbered until the schedule is ran... not sure we will get Jeremiah in alignment with that. I am just glad they are thinking about it.
Thanks,
Tim
After reading everything and thinking through things, I think one of the biggest helps (for me) would be to run reference notes schedules base on the active dwg. Similar to plant legends. However I don't know how this would work with details. I rarely attached details to plants so that's never been an issue for me using the same plant list for multiple phases. Since the detail is assigned to a plant it doesn't matter which page it is on. Often only 1 or 2 pages of planting details in a project anyways.
Maybe there could be a way to use "user fields" and a filter process. Currently Ref Notes don't allow duplicate numbers but if this were allowed a user field could be applied assigning a specific ref note to a phase. Then in the REFNOTE MANAGER there could be a way to filter notes based on which phase is assigned in the "user field".
Example Project Name:
Eagle Ridge
ER2201
Reference Note Manager
Example:
NOTES DETAIL USER FIELD
4" TYPICAL CONCRETE HEADER ER2201-01 Phase 1, Phase 2
6" TYPICAL CONCRETE HEADER ER2201-02 Phase 1, Phase 3,
8" TYPICAL CONCRETE HEADER ER2201-03 Phase 2, Phase 4
LANDSCAPE BOULDER ER2201-04 Phase 1, Phase 2
The number would be assigned once a schedule is run. Maybe the "Place/Callout" buttons would simply place "placeholders" much like the detail builder. Once the schedule is run then the placeholder gets updated with the correct number.
When a schedule is run the user could select to run base on a user field.
Phase 1:
SYMBOL DESCRITION DETAIL
1 4" TYPICAL CONCRETE HEADER 101/1
2 6" TYPICAL CONCRETE HEADER 101/2
3 LANDSCAPE BOULDER 101/3
Phase 2:
1 4" TYPICAL CONCRETE HEADER 101/1
2 8" TYPICAL CONCRETE HEADER 101/2
3 LANDSCAPE BOULDER 101/3
This wouldn't necessarily automate the universal changes in Reference Notes but it would allow them all to be in a single project where making a change would be quicker than having to open separate projects. This would still require some thinking on how to handle detail numbering.
hopefully this makes sense.
In either case. I do love the software and am constantly learning new and exciting ways to integrate it into projects. SO MUCH easier than having to do leaders and typing out all the notes.
Maybe there could be a way to use "user fields" and a filter process. Currently Ref Notes don't allow duplicate numbers but if this were allowed a user field could be applied assigning a specific ref note to a phase. Then in the REFNOTE MANAGER there could be a way to filter notes based on which phase is assigned in the "user field".
Example Project Name:
Eagle Ridge
ER2201
Reference Note Manager
Example:
NOTES DETAIL USER FIELD
4" TYPICAL CONCRETE HEADER ER2201-01 Phase 1, Phase 2
6" TYPICAL CONCRETE HEADER ER2201-02 Phase 1, Phase 3,
8" TYPICAL CONCRETE HEADER ER2201-03 Phase 2, Phase 4
LANDSCAPE BOULDER ER2201-04 Phase 1, Phase 2
The number would be assigned once a schedule is run. Maybe the "Place/Callout" buttons would simply place "placeholders" much like the detail builder. Once the schedule is run then the placeholder gets updated with the correct number.
When a schedule is run the user could select to run base on a user field.
Phase 1:
SYMBOL DESCRITION DETAIL
1 4" TYPICAL CONCRETE HEADER 101/1
2 6" TYPICAL CONCRETE HEADER 101/2
3 LANDSCAPE BOULDER 101/3
Phase 2:
1 4" TYPICAL CONCRETE HEADER 101/1
2 8" TYPICAL CONCRETE HEADER 101/2
3 LANDSCAPE BOULDER 101/3
This wouldn't necessarily automate the universal changes in Reference Notes but it would allow them all to be in a single project where making a change would be quicker than having to open separate projects. This would still require some thinking on how to handle detail numbering.
hopefully this makes sense.
In either case. I do love the software and am constantly learning new and exciting ways to integrate it into projects. SO MUCH easier than having to do leaders and typing out all the notes.
Thanks Jeremiah,
Agree on the irrigation schedule approval prior to design. And we usually do try. Unfortunately, we had been working on a project for a year with a client, and then out of the blue they send our plans to their maintenance person, and now our irrigation equipment is changing. Why this didn't happen earlier... well... lessons learned.
I could live with your suggestion that universal changes happen at the master level, and changes made at the phase level are specific to that project. The reason that I like the automation over the way we are doing it is that the human way is definitely error prone
If we change a a specified site furnishing (bench) for the entire project, staff would need to go into potentially 5 to 10 separate phases to change the keynote, vendor, color, etc.
I disagree on the master project refnotes needing to have numbers to start with... at least from my perspective. From how the coding works in LFX, it may be mandatory though. The example I would use would be a template we use for typical single family home parcels. Our template may have 30 'typical' refnotes that we use. As far as I am concerned, they do not need to have a number assigned, until they are used in the project. But how we do it now is that they come from the template, numbered 1 through 30... we may only use 15 of them on a given project, then use the renumber tool. I would be OK with something like that.
You have a lot of valid points on using a 'single project' for all the phases. Irrigation and Planting would work great... the schedules generated are based on what is in the drawing (or attached xref if chosen) You are correct that it is keeping the refnotes synced, and the inability to have differing sheet/detail numbers. It is this reason that we had to move to separate projects for each phase. I think our biggest is around 10 or 15 phases for a single project. In fact, when we first started with LFX, we did use one project across all phases. But once we started using the detail manager and refnotes heavily, we couldn't continue that way.
And yes, there are risks with making a mistake change that propagates through all the phases. Also agree that simple is better.
Thanks for pondering. I would be happy to go over other case studies we run into if you want more background. I guess I would summarize with this... master planned community work (one large project with anywhere from 5 to 25 or more parcels) can be highly repetitive. Clients expect to be able to tell us something once, and we are responsible for making it so on all aspects of the project moving forward. This seems ideal for some type of automation or syncing.
Have a great evening!
Tim
Agree on the irrigation schedule approval prior to design. And we usually do try. Unfortunately, we had been working on a project for a year with a client, and then out of the blue they send our plans to their maintenance person, and now our irrigation equipment is changing. Why this didn't happen earlier... well... lessons learned.
I could live with your suggestion that universal changes happen at the master level, and changes made at the phase level are specific to that project. The reason that I like the automation over the way we are doing it is that the human way is definitely error prone
If we change a a specified site furnishing (bench) for the entire project, staff would need to go into potentially 5 to 10 separate phases to change the keynote, vendor, color, etc.I disagree on the master project refnotes needing to have numbers to start with... at least from my perspective. From how the coding works in LFX, it may be mandatory though. The example I would use would be a template we use for typical single family home parcels. Our template may have 30 'typical' refnotes that we use. As far as I am concerned, they do not need to have a number assigned, until they are used in the project. But how we do it now is that they come from the template, numbered 1 through 30... we may only use 15 of them on a given project, then use the renumber tool. I would be OK with something like that.
You have a lot of valid points on using a 'single project' for all the phases. Irrigation and Planting would work great... the schedules generated are based on what is in the drawing (or attached xref if chosen) You are correct that it is keeping the refnotes synced, and the inability to have differing sheet/detail numbers. It is this reason that we had to move to separate projects for each phase. I think our biggest is around 10 or 15 phases for a single project. In fact, when we first started with LFX, we did use one project across all phases. But once we started using the detail manager and refnotes heavily, we couldn't continue that way.
And yes, there are risks with making a mistake change that propagates through all the phases. Also agree that simple is better.
Thanks for pondering. I would be happy to go over other case studies we run into if you want more background. I guess I would summarize with this... master planned community work (one large project with anywhere from 5 to 25 or more parcels) can be highly repetitive. Clients expect to be able to tell us something once, and we are responsible for making it so on all aspects of the project moving forward. This seems ideal for some type of automation or syncing.
Have a great evening!
Tim
Tim,
First regarding the irrigation, again it just seems best to use a single project for all phases. As there doesn't seem to be a need to retain the former equipment types for all projects. But also! Something we've mentioned a lot to many users - run an irrigation schedule with the Entire Palette option, and send that to the client! Get them to sign off on your equipment choices *before* you place everything.
For the rest, I really don't like an option for "change in all" versus "change in only this phase". I think it's confusing and error-prone. Changes that will impact every phase need to be done in the master project, done and done.
But that is also impacting, how are these edits to be done? How much time does it take to open up the master project to make edits, versus just doing it the way you are now, replicating across X project phases as necessary. It's going to be difficult to engineer anything that is simpler, easier, or saves more time, than simply doing it the way you are.
I'm definitely still open to the idea, but it certainly needs a lot more pondering. Concepts like this typically need to be watering way, way down, to a much simpler idea. For instance, adding a TBD capability for the master project numbering is just not going to fly. The master project absolutely has numbers, and has the ability to affect all phase projects.
A note regarding the Planting - I'm not seeing an instance where you have different Size versions of the same plant across multiple phases. If this is the case, then here too is not so much a need to have multiple projects. As long as you only have a single size version of each plant by code, the system will auto-correct to match the data. So in your example, simply using a single project for multiple phase drawings, you can change the Size and it will auto-correct in all drawings.
The only time you absolutely need the multiple projects, is for the differing sheet and details numbers, and differing RefNotes. The dilemma here is just what is less effort - duplicating a change across 3 projects, or opening up the master project to make it there (and then likely still opening the 3 dwg's to confirm the change).
--J
First regarding the irrigation, again it just seems best to use a single project for all phases. As there doesn't seem to be a need to retain the former equipment types for all projects. But also! Something we've mentioned a lot to many users - run an irrigation schedule with the Entire Palette option, and send that to the client! Get them to sign off on your equipment choices *before* you place everything.
For the rest, I really don't like an option for "change in all" versus "change in only this phase". I think it's confusing and error-prone. Changes that will impact every phase need to be done in the master project, done and done.
But that is also impacting, how are these edits to be done? How much time does it take to open up the master project to make edits, versus just doing it the way you are now, replicating across X project phases as necessary. It's going to be difficult to engineer anything that is simpler, easier, or saves more time, than simply doing it the way you are.
I'm definitely still open to the idea, but it certainly needs a lot more pondering. Concepts like this typically need to be watering way, way down, to a much simpler idea. For instance, adding a TBD capability for the master project numbering is just not going to fly. The master project absolutely has numbers, and has the ability to affect all phase projects.
A note regarding the Planting - I'm not seeing an instance where you have different Size versions of the same plant across multiple phases. If this is the case, then here too is not so much a need to have multiple projects. As long as you only have a single size version of each plant by code, the system will auto-correct to match the data. So in your example, simply using a single project for multiple phase drawings, you can change the Size and it will auto-correct in all drawings.
The only time you absolutely need the multiple projects, is for the differing sheet and details numbers, and differing RefNotes. The dilemma here is just what is less effort - duplicating a change across 3 projects, or opening up the master project to make it there (and then likely still opening the 3 dwg's to confirm the change).
--J
Hi Jeremiah,
Thanks for the reponse. Yes, I think you are understanding what I am trying to describe. One comments:
Just to make sure I am getting the finer details across... This is a long response, but its mainly examples in table form. And apologies... I couldn't find a table format tool. If I were to break down the various parts:
Refnotes
The master project contains the list of all refnotes. By that I mean they have the text for the note, and all the associated fields. They are even assigned to a category if appropriate (K-Rock, W-walls, etc) They just dont have a number assigned.
Example:
Master
# / Keynote / Color / Comment / Detail
TBD / Screen Wall / Tan / Stucco / Library Detail 1
TBD / View Fence / Bronze / Powdercoat / Library Detail 2
TBD / Dog Fence / Bronze / Powdercoat / Library Detail 3
Phase 1 has a screen wall and view fence, so its refnotes schedule would look like
# / Keynote / Color / Comment / Detail
W101 / Screen Wall / Tan / Stucco / 4/L105
W102 / View Fence / Bronze / Powdercoat / 5/L105
Phase 2 has a view fence and dog fence, so its refnotes schedule would look like
# / Keynote / Color / Comment / Detail
W101 / View Fence / Bronze / Powdercoat / 1/L103
W102 / Dog Fence / Bronze / Powdercoat / 2/L103
If I want to change the color of the view fence to be Grey and Painted, I could change it in either phase, and it would reflect across all phases. (I am editing the text/fields at the master level, but the number assignment, and detail page reference are happening at the phase level.
Master
# / Keynote / Color / Comment / Detail
TBD / Screen Wall / Tan / Stucco / Library Detail 1
TBD / View Fence / Grey / Paint / Library Detail 2
TBD / Dog Fence / Grey / Paint / Library Detail 3
Phase 1
# / Keynote / Color / Comment / Detail
W101 / Screen Wall / Tan / Stucco / 4/L105
W102 / View Fence / Grey / Paint / 5/L105
Phase 2
# / Keynote / Color / Comment / Detail
W101 / View Fence / Grey / Paint / 1/L103
W102 / Dog Fence / Grey / Paint / 2/L103
Say I have a third phase, and for the screen wall, I want it to be ground face CMU. But only for that phase. I would create a new keynote in Phase 3, and it would sync with the master list, but just not be used in the other phases. (It would show up in the other phases as 'unnassigned')
Master
# / Keynote / Color / Comment / Detail
TBD / Screen Wall / Tan / Stucco / Library Detail 1
TBD / View Fence / Grey / Paint / Library Detail 2
TBD / Dog Fence / Grey / Paint / Library Detail 3
TBD / CMU wall / Pebble / Groundface / Library Detail 4
Phase 1
# / Keynote / Color / Comment / Detail
W101 / Screen Wall / Tan / Stucco / 4/L105
W102 / View Fence / Grey / Paint / 5/L105
Phase 2
# / Keynote / Color / Comment / Detail
W101 / View Fence / Grey / Paint / 1/L103
W102 / Dog Fence / Bronze / Powdercoat / 2/L103
Phase 3
# / Keynote / Color / Comment / Detail
W101 / View Fence / Grey / Paint / 1/L103
W102 / Dog Fence / Bronze / Powdercoat / 2/L103
W103 / CMU wall / Pebble / Groundface 3/L103
In writing this out, it might be helpful to know which keynote are being used in across phases. For example:
Master
# / Keynote / Color / Comment / Detail / Used?
TBD / Screen Wall / Tan / Stucco / Library Detail 1 / Ph1
TBD / View Fence / Grey / Paint / Library Detail 2 / Ph1, Ph2, Ph3
TBD / Dog Fence / Grey / Paint / Library Detail 3 / Ph2, Ph3
TBD / CMU wall / Pebble / Groundface / Library Detail 4 / Ph3
TBD / Brick Wall / Red / Pretty / Library Detail 5 / Not Used
It would be a reminder that you are editing something that will impact other phases, so you might rather create a new keynote.
Obviously, any changes to the library details are reflected across all phases. Some details may be phase specific, but they are all in the library available for all phases. I think the details library already kinda works this way... I can point multiple projects to the same detail folder and reuse details, and they get assigned the page reference at the project level.
You idea of using one projects for all phases, then 'renumbering' the keynotes would work for the number part, but correct me if I am wrong, once I inserted "Library Detail 2" onto 1/L103 in phase 2, it would also change the sheet reference in phase 1 and 3. Also, since we are working on the phases simultaneously, it would mean running renumber every time. That might be OK, just not sure what downstream impacts it would have.
Planting
Similar to the planting schedule. And this one seems easier, since I can have hundreds of plants in my project (if I had them in the original template), but only use a handful of plants. There are two key parts to my request... (1) If I add a new plant to one phase, it would show up as available in all the phases. and (2) if a change is made to a specific plant in the list, it would reflect across all phases.
Example:
Master
Plant / Size
Palo Verde / 36" box
Live Oak / 36" Box
Sephora / 24" Box
Pistache / 24" box
and lots more...
Not all the plants are used across each phase, so individual phase schedules may look like
Phase 1
Plant / Size
Palo Verde / 36" box
Live Oak / 36" Box
Pistache / 24" box
Phase 2
Plant / Size
Palo Verde / 36" box
Live Oak / 36" Box
Sephora / 24" Box
Pistache / 24" box
Phase 3
Plant / Size
Live Oak / 36" Box
Sephora / 24" Box
Pistache / 24" box
Now say client wants to add Cascalote as an accent tree to some phases, and wants to change all the Pistache Trees to Elms across all phases, and change the Sephora in Phase 2 only to Sweet Acacia. And they do not want any 36" box trees. All 24" box. I am oversimplifying the change to Elm. But the point being, a change to the specific plant is reflected across all phases. Or maybe a better way of looking at it, is each phase is looking at the same master plant list. If a change or addition is made in one phase, its to the master list that all phases are looking at.
Master
Plant / Size
Palo Verde / 24" box <--- editing this plant size info is reflected across all projects. They keep the same symbol.
Live Oak / 24" Box <--- editing this plant size info is reflected across all projects. They keep the same symbol.
Sephora / 24" Box <--- no change
Sweet Acacia / 24" Box <--- New Entry for Phase 2
Cascalote / 24" Box <--- New Entry for all phases
Elm / 24" box <--- This one is trickier... to avoid having to add a new plant to the list, then going into each phase and using the replace tool, and it also having a new symbol, I am thinking you could (1) just edit the plant name and plant code, OR (2) add a new plant to the list (Elm), then open the plant editor for Pistache, and use the change plant button. But I am not sure how that works. The goal would be to change the Pistache to Elm, keep the symbol, keep them planted where they are, just change the schedule.
and lots more...
Phase 1
Plant / Size
Palo Verde / 24" box
Live Oak / 24" Box
Elm / 24" Box
Cascalote / 24" Box
Phase 2
Plant / Size
Palo Verde / 24" box
Live Oak / 24" Box
Sweet acacia / 24" Box
Elm / 24" Box
Cascalote / 24" Box
Phase 3
Plant / Size
Live Oak / 36" Box
Sephora / 24" Box
Elm / 24" Box
Irrigation
The simplest example would be changing an irrigation component, and having it reflect across all phases. Say the original design used a Hunter Controller, and Hunter MP Rotators in the turf. Client wants to switch to Rainbird. I change it once in a phase, and its reflected across all phases. Yes, there may be some redesign to adjust for spray coverage/radius.
Other scheduling tools
Same concept would apply to concept plant manager, concept graphics, zoning graphics, lighting manager.
Thank you again for your responses and ideas.
Tim
Thanks for the reponse. Yes, I think you are understanding what I am trying to describe. One comments:
- I would be OK with changes in one phase reflecting across all phases. If the change is unique to a phase, I would be OK creating a new unique key note. Or maybe there is a radio button that says "change only for this phase", which effectively creates a new unique ref note in the master list.
Just to make sure I am getting the finer details across... This is a long response, but its mainly examples in table form. And apologies... I couldn't find a table format tool. If I were to break down the various parts:
Refnotes
The master project contains the list of all refnotes. By that I mean they have the text for the note, and all the associated fields. They are even assigned to a category if appropriate (K-Rock, W-walls, etc) They just dont have a number assigned.
Example:
Master
# / Keynote / Color / Comment / Detail
TBD / Screen Wall / Tan / Stucco / Library Detail 1
TBD / View Fence / Bronze / Powdercoat / Library Detail 2
TBD / Dog Fence / Bronze / Powdercoat / Library Detail 3
Phase 1 has a screen wall and view fence, so its refnotes schedule would look like
# / Keynote / Color / Comment / Detail
W101 / Screen Wall / Tan / Stucco / 4/L105
W102 / View Fence / Bronze / Powdercoat / 5/L105
Phase 2 has a view fence and dog fence, so its refnotes schedule would look like
# / Keynote / Color / Comment / Detail
W101 / View Fence / Bronze / Powdercoat / 1/L103
W102 / Dog Fence / Bronze / Powdercoat / 2/L103
If I want to change the color of the view fence to be Grey and Painted, I could change it in either phase, and it would reflect across all phases. (I am editing the text/fields at the master level, but the number assignment, and detail page reference are happening at the phase level.
Master
# / Keynote / Color / Comment / Detail
TBD / Screen Wall / Tan / Stucco / Library Detail 1
TBD / View Fence / Grey / Paint / Library Detail 2
TBD / Dog Fence / Grey / Paint / Library Detail 3
Phase 1
# / Keynote / Color / Comment / Detail
W101 / Screen Wall / Tan / Stucco / 4/L105
W102 / View Fence / Grey / Paint / 5/L105
Phase 2
# / Keynote / Color / Comment / Detail
W101 / View Fence / Grey / Paint / 1/L103
W102 / Dog Fence / Grey / Paint / 2/L103
Say I have a third phase, and for the screen wall, I want it to be ground face CMU. But only for that phase. I would create a new keynote in Phase 3, and it would sync with the master list, but just not be used in the other phases. (It would show up in the other phases as 'unnassigned')
Master
# / Keynote / Color / Comment / Detail
TBD / Screen Wall / Tan / Stucco / Library Detail 1
TBD / View Fence / Grey / Paint / Library Detail 2
TBD / Dog Fence / Grey / Paint / Library Detail 3
TBD / CMU wall / Pebble / Groundface / Library Detail 4
Phase 1
# / Keynote / Color / Comment / Detail
W101 / Screen Wall / Tan / Stucco / 4/L105
W102 / View Fence / Grey / Paint / 5/L105
Phase 2
# / Keynote / Color / Comment / Detail
W101 / View Fence / Grey / Paint / 1/L103
W102 / Dog Fence / Bronze / Powdercoat / 2/L103
Phase 3
# / Keynote / Color / Comment / Detail
W101 / View Fence / Grey / Paint / 1/L103
W102 / Dog Fence / Bronze / Powdercoat / 2/L103
W103 / CMU wall / Pebble / Groundface 3/L103
In writing this out, it might be helpful to know which keynote are being used in across phases. For example:
Master
# / Keynote / Color / Comment / Detail / Used?
TBD / Screen Wall / Tan / Stucco / Library Detail 1 / Ph1
TBD / View Fence / Grey / Paint / Library Detail 2 / Ph1, Ph2, Ph3
TBD / Dog Fence / Grey / Paint / Library Detail 3 / Ph2, Ph3
TBD / CMU wall / Pebble / Groundface / Library Detail 4 / Ph3
TBD / Brick Wall / Red / Pretty / Library Detail 5 / Not Used
It would be a reminder that you are editing something that will impact other phases, so you might rather create a new keynote.
Obviously, any changes to the library details are reflected across all phases. Some details may be phase specific, but they are all in the library available for all phases. I think the details library already kinda works this way... I can point multiple projects to the same detail folder and reuse details, and they get assigned the page reference at the project level.
You idea of using one projects for all phases, then 'renumbering' the keynotes would work for the number part, but correct me if I am wrong, once I inserted "Library Detail 2" onto 1/L103 in phase 2, it would also change the sheet reference in phase 1 and 3. Also, since we are working on the phases simultaneously, it would mean running renumber every time. That might be OK, just not sure what downstream impacts it would have.
Planting
Similar to the planting schedule. And this one seems easier, since I can have hundreds of plants in my project (if I had them in the original template), but only use a handful of plants. There are two key parts to my request... (1) If I add a new plant to one phase, it would show up as available in all the phases. and (2) if a change is made to a specific plant in the list, it would reflect across all phases.
Example:
Master
Plant / Size
Palo Verde / 36" box
Live Oak / 36" Box
Sephora / 24" Box
Pistache / 24" box
and lots more...
Not all the plants are used across each phase, so individual phase schedules may look like
Phase 1
Plant / Size
Palo Verde / 36" box
Live Oak / 36" Box
Pistache / 24" box
Phase 2
Plant / Size
Palo Verde / 36" box
Live Oak / 36" Box
Sephora / 24" Box
Pistache / 24" box
Phase 3
Plant / Size
Live Oak / 36" Box
Sephora / 24" Box
Pistache / 24" box
Now say client wants to add Cascalote as an accent tree to some phases, and wants to change all the Pistache Trees to Elms across all phases, and change the Sephora in Phase 2 only to Sweet Acacia. And they do not want any 36" box trees. All 24" box. I am oversimplifying the change to Elm. But the point being, a change to the specific plant is reflected across all phases. Or maybe a better way of looking at it, is each phase is looking at the same master plant list. If a change or addition is made in one phase, its to the master list that all phases are looking at.
Master
Plant / Size
Palo Verde / 24" box <--- editing this plant size info is reflected across all projects. They keep the same symbol.
Live Oak / 24" Box <--- editing this plant size info is reflected across all projects. They keep the same symbol.
Sephora / 24" Box <--- no change
Sweet Acacia / 24" Box <--- New Entry for Phase 2
Cascalote / 24" Box <--- New Entry for all phases
Elm / 24" box <--- This one is trickier... to avoid having to add a new plant to the list, then going into each phase and using the replace tool, and it also having a new symbol, I am thinking you could (1) just edit the plant name and plant code, OR (2) add a new plant to the list (Elm), then open the plant editor for Pistache, and use the change plant button. But I am not sure how that works. The goal would be to change the Pistache to Elm, keep the symbol, keep them planted where they are, just change the schedule.
and lots more...
Phase 1
Plant / Size
Palo Verde / 24" box
Live Oak / 24" Box
Elm / 24" Box
Cascalote / 24" Box
Phase 2
Plant / Size
Palo Verde / 24" box
Live Oak / 24" Box
Sweet acacia / 24" Box
Elm / 24" Box
Cascalote / 24" Box
Phase 3
Plant / Size
Live Oak / 36" Box
Sephora / 24" Box
Elm / 24" Box
Irrigation
The simplest example would be changing an irrigation component, and having it reflect across all phases. Say the original design used a Hunter Controller, and Hunter MP Rotators in the turf. Client wants to switch to Rainbird. I change it once in a phase, and its reflected across all phases. Yes, there may be some redesign to adjust for spray coverage/radius.
Other scheduling tools
Same concept would apply to concept plant manager, concept graphics, zoning graphics, lighting manager.
Thank you again for your responses and ideas.
Tim
Tim,
Definitely helps.
As I'm understanding it, the ideal would be as follows:
- Master project is used to create multiple Phase projects
- Any edits to the Master project are replicated to all Phase projects
- Any edits to a Phase project are limited there
- Phase project would inherit the same detail sheet and number of the master, but could then be adjusted
Edits to the master project are the trickiest - features like renumbering RefNotes and even just choosing the next available number for a note would need to include all Phase projects.
It would be very easy to *create* the multiple phase projects, but then there is the tricky step of needing to open a copy of all dwg's and reassign to the new phase project - perhaps capability could be added to
BatchMan to switch a folder of dwg's to a different project.
I still think Irrigation would be best served by a single separate project, as the system cannot process a change to equipment as easily as it can for RefNotes.
Planting is also a bit tricky, in that it is not engineered to process changes made to a master project. But it would be a welcome addition, and would aid in using a single project across multiple dwg's.
Lastly, there is the issue of separate details entirely - for the case where the details themselves require unique edits per phase.
So, something kinda like that?
--J
Definitely helps.
As I'm understanding it, the ideal would be as follows:
- Master project is used to create multiple Phase projects
- Any edits to the Master project are replicated to all Phase projects
- Any edits to a Phase project are limited there
- Phase project would inherit the same detail sheet and number of the master, but could then be adjusted
Edits to the master project are the trickiest - features like renumbering RefNotes and even just choosing the next available number for a note would need to include all Phase projects.
It would be very easy to *create* the multiple phase projects, but then there is the tricky step of needing to open a copy of all dwg's and reassign to the new phase project - perhaps capability could be added to
BatchMan to switch a folder of dwg's to a different project.
I still think Irrigation would be best served by a single separate project, as the system cannot process a change to equipment as easily as it can for RefNotes.
Planting is also a bit tricky, in that it is not engineered to process changes made to a master project. But it would be a welcome addition, and would aid in using a single project across multiple dwg's.
Lastly, there is the issue of separate details entirely - for the case where the details themselves require unique edits per phase.
So, something kinda like that?
--J
Thanks Jeremiah,
I am not sure using a single project would work, as the details would be on different sheets for each phase (each plan set), and the sheet index in the project manager would contain sheets from all phases, and some with duplicate names/numbers. Also, the renumber tool works great within a single project, but we would have to use it each time we updated a schedule going from phase to phase. Let me know if you have another ideas on that topic because it would be a timesaver if it would work.
Regarding your comment on the other firm wanting to keep their phases separate - this does make it tricky, as there are revisions that are unique to a phase, and revisions that should reflect across all phases. As a general rule, I would think design elements may vary, but materials should be consistent between phases. But YMMV.
What I think we want is the ability to dynamically share refnotes, plant legends, irrigation schedules, etc, between phases of a project. But also need to maintain unique numbering and sheet references for details. Below is an actual project form our LFX. Simple, three phase project. Attached PDF lists the ref notes for each phase. As you can see, there is quite a bit of overlap, but some unique. And the numbers do not line up. I have highlighted some inconsistencies that exist in our data. Most are minor (just a change in phrasing). But some are actual changes in material (stone veneer to stucco wall, different planter). We try to keep a simple keynote list that goes on each sheet. Then print a detailed schedule at the front that has all the other information (vendor, color, whether we want a mock up or shop drawing, etc) This project is in progress, so a change made to one phase needs to reflect in another phase. Having a single project, and renumbering works great for the ref notes, but if I insert the same detail on another sheet, it screws up the sheet reference for all phases.
TEMPLATE DETAIL FOLDER
ROYAL OAKS - ALL PHASES P-RE-ROY-
NUMBER PROJECT DETAIL FOLDER
327701 ROYAL OAKS P-RE-ROY-
0327701_PH1 ROYAL OAKS - PHASE 1 P-RE-ROY1-
0327701_PH2 ROYAL OAKS - PHASE 2 P-RE-ROY2-
0327701_PH3 ROYAL OAKS - PHASE 3 P-RE-ROY3-
The same would apply for plant list. Say we have already forked our master project into three separate projects. And the client wants to change the turf variety, or wants to add a specific plant. With three projects, that is three changes. With a master project, we could add the plant to one list, and it shows up as available to use in all the phases (whether it gets used or not, its available).
Am I explaining correctly?
Thanks,
Tim
I am not sure using a single project would work, as the details would be on different sheets for each phase (each plan set), and the sheet index in the project manager would contain sheets from all phases, and some with duplicate names/numbers. Also, the renumber tool works great within a single project, but we would have to use it each time we updated a schedule going from phase to phase. Let me know if you have another ideas on that topic because it would be a timesaver if it would work.
Regarding your comment on the other firm wanting to keep their phases separate - this does make it tricky, as there are revisions that are unique to a phase, and revisions that should reflect across all phases. As a general rule, I would think design elements may vary, but materials should be consistent between phases. But YMMV.
What I think we want is the ability to dynamically share refnotes, plant legends, irrigation schedules, etc, between phases of a project. But also need to maintain unique numbering and sheet references for details. Below is an actual project form our LFX. Simple, three phase project. Attached PDF lists the ref notes for each phase. As you can see, there is quite a bit of overlap, but some unique. And the numbers do not line up. I have highlighted some inconsistencies that exist in our data. Most are minor (just a change in phrasing). But some are actual changes in material (stone veneer to stucco wall, different planter). We try to keep a simple keynote list that goes on each sheet. Then print a detailed schedule at the front that has all the other information (vendor, color, whether we want a mock up or shop drawing, etc) This project is in progress, so a change made to one phase needs to reflect in another phase. Having a single project, and renumbering works great for the ref notes, but if I insert the same detail on another sheet, it screws up the sheet reference for all phases.
TEMPLATE DETAIL FOLDER
ROYAL OAKS - ALL PHASES P-RE-ROY-
NUMBER PROJECT DETAIL FOLDER
327701 ROYAL OAKS P-RE-ROY-
0327701_PH1 ROYAL OAKS - PHASE 1 P-RE-ROY1-
0327701_PH2 ROYAL OAKS - PHASE 2 P-RE-ROY2-
0327701_PH3 ROYAL OAKS - PHASE 3 P-RE-ROY3-
The same would apply for plant list. Say we have already forked our master project into three separate projects. And the client wants to change the turf variety, or wants to add a specific plant. With three projects, that is three changes. With a master project, we could add the plant to one list, and it shows up as available to use in all the phases (whether it gets used or not, its available).
Am I explaining correctly?
Thanks,
Tim
Thanks for all the feedback. The more I think about it the more I just end up in a mental loop.
I think what I would find most helpful would be a master Ref. Note list that when modified would change all instances in all phases. But have the numbering of the reference notes done on a individual project basis. But once a project is approved for construction it should be difficult to make a change to the approved plans. So a master list of this sort would probably end up causing problems. Unless there is a way to specify which subprojects get updated. Once a project is approved it could be locked from updating.
I think the best option is to create a master project with all notes and plants then import them into each individual project. If a new note is needed it should be added to the Master Project them imported into the individual phase.
An issue that we would run into with doing the Backup/Restore method is that we often will be working on multiple phases simultaneously. So phase 1 won't even have all the notes in it prior to starting phase 2.
I do like the idea of archiving a project every time a submittal is made. I think I will suggest that to everyone in my office.
I think what I would find most helpful would be a master Ref. Note list that when modified would change all instances in all phases. But have the numbering of the reference notes done on a individual project basis. But once a project is approved for construction it should be difficult to make a change to the approved plans. So a master list of this sort would probably end up causing problems. Unless there is a way to specify which subprojects get updated. Once a project is approved it could be locked from updating.
I think the best option is to create a master project with all notes and plants then import them into each individual project. If a new note is needed it should be added to the Master Project them imported into the individual phase.
An issue that we would run into with doing the Backup/Restore method is that we often will be working on multiple phases simultaneously. So phase 1 won't even have all the notes in it prior to starting phase 2.
I do like the idea of archiving a project every time a submittal is made. I think I will suggest that to everyone in my office.
Tim,
Let's step back for a second. What are you actually trying to accomplish? If it is merely RefNote numbering, that is already handled by the "Renumber" option when running the schedule. That will allow you to use a single project for all phases, and each time you run the schedule simply renumber to remove gaps.
Secondly, for Irrigation, I'm not hearing any reason there needs to be 5 different projects for the different phases. So that too should be an easier fix, just use one project for the irrigation for all phases. Unless I'm missing something there?
But overall, just need to understand what is to be accomplished by the separating of the data. I was assuming that notes and details were needing to change independently. We have previously received wishlist requests, that as each phase is approved, it needs to be archived exactly as it is, to match the plan in case of plan changes. That was the other firm's struggle, in that they would be working on Phase 5, when suddenly a plan change to Phase 1 comes in, so they need to switch to editing that one but have it not affect any other phase.
But I would say that overall I need to understand more of what needs to change versus staying the same across all phases. If for instance there was a notional way to set up a multi-project group, I'm struggling with whether there needs to be a checkbox for certain edits to affect all projects in the group, or if it is simply automatic, or what.
--J
Let's step back for a second. What are you actually trying to accomplish? If it is merely RefNote numbering, that is already handled by the "Renumber" option when running the schedule. That will allow you to use a single project for all phases, and each time you run the schedule simply renumber to remove gaps.
Secondly, for Irrigation, I'm not hearing any reason there needs to be 5 different projects for the different phases. So that too should be an easier fix, just use one project for the irrigation for all phases. Unless I'm missing something there?
But overall, just need to understand what is to be accomplished by the separating of the data. I was assuming that notes and details were needing to change independently. We have previously received wishlist requests, that as each phase is approved, it needs to be archived exactly as it is, to match the plan in case of plan changes. That was the other firm's struggle, in that they would be working on Phase 5, when suddenly a plan change to Phase 1 comes in, so they need to switch to editing that one but have it not affect any other phase.
But I would say that overall I need to understand more of what needs to change versus staying the same across all phases. If for instance there was a notional way to set up a multi-project group, I'm struggling with whether there needs to be a checkbox for certain edits to affect all projects in the group, or if it is simply automatic, or what.
--J
Timothy Starkey
selected the reply #4472 as the answer for this post — 2 years ago
Hi Jeremiah,
Thanks for the reply. I am going to accept this as the answer since this has been posted for a long time, and it doesn't sound like its on the roadmap. And I am also doing a poor job of explaining. So we will keep doing it manually, which is similar to what you proposed (we make a template of the master project and use that for each phase). Keeping the details consistent between projects works fine by using the same library. But what is missing is keeping all the scheduling tools consistent between phases of a project. (Materials selections, plant selection and sizes, irrigation equipment, etc)
Simple example: If I have a project with 5 phases, and at the start, we are using an Ackerstone paver and a Landscape Forms Bench. Then a change is made to use a Belgard paver and a Wabash Valley Bench. I now need to go into 5 projects to make those change in the ref notes to keep the phases consistent.
Second simple example: Same project, but now client wants to add doggie waste stations. We missed that at the project set up, so now I need to go into 5 projects, and add the same refnote.
It happens more than I like to admit... in fact just in the past few weeks in a meeting with a client. Client asked us to change the irrigation controller for the project. Designer changed it in that phase (a stand alone LFX project), but forgot to change it on the other phases. Follow up meeting with the client, and he is asking me why we are still using the old controller. Designer be all like "Oh, I changed it in Parcel 3! This is Parcel 4... I didn't go into that separate project blah blah blah..." Client doesn't care about that... Point being, a redline/revision on one phase needs to be carried through on all the phases.
What I was trying to propose with the 'subprojects' is that just like the detail library (change a detail, and its reflected across all instances of that detail), the refnotes, the plant list, the irrigation schedule, the zoning/lighting/anything else scheduling tools are all pulling from the same "list". IF I change ackerstone to belgard, its reflected across all 'subprojects' using that master project refnote list. What the subprojects do is set the actual ref note number. Belgard paver is P105 in phase 3, but P106 in Phase 4 because phase 4 has more paving materials than phase 3, and now I don't have gaps in my numbering. (We get redline comments from our city reviewers if there are gaps in the keynote numbers) And the detail references on the schedule refer to the page the detail is on for that phase. In my second example above, the doggie waste station would be added to the master refnote list, but may/may not be used in the various phases of the project, so the number is assigned at the subproject level.
Anyways, I recognize this is a huge lift on your end, and this is probably a fringe case for the majority of your users. It just happens to be that one of our core markets is master planned communities... one project with multiple parcels. So there is a ton of duplication we need to maintain.
Happy new year!
Tim
Thanks for the reply. I am going to accept this as the answer since this has been posted for a long time, and it doesn't sound like its on the roadmap. And I am also doing a poor job of explaining. So we will keep doing it manually, which is similar to what you proposed (we make a template of the master project and use that for each phase). Keeping the details consistent between projects works fine by using the same library. But what is missing is keeping all the scheduling tools consistent between phases of a project. (Materials selections, plant selection and sizes, irrigation equipment, etc)
Simple example: If I have a project with 5 phases, and at the start, we are using an Ackerstone paver and a Landscape Forms Bench. Then a change is made to use a Belgard paver and a Wabash Valley Bench. I now need to go into 5 projects to make those change in the ref notes to keep the phases consistent.
Second simple example: Same project, but now client wants to add doggie waste stations. We missed that at the project set up, so now I need to go into 5 projects, and add the same refnote.
It happens more than I like to admit... in fact just in the past few weeks in a meeting with a client. Client asked us to change the irrigation controller for the project. Designer changed it in that phase (a stand alone LFX project), but forgot to change it on the other phases. Follow up meeting with the client, and he is asking me why we are still using the old controller. Designer be all like "Oh, I changed it in Parcel 3! This is Parcel 4... I didn't go into that separate project blah blah blah..." Client doesn't care about that... Point being, a redline/revision on one phase needs to be carried through on all the phases.
What I was trying to propose with the 'subprojects' is that just like the detail library (change a detail, and its reflected across all instances of that detail), the refnotes, the plant list, the irrigation schedule, the zoning/lighting/anything else scheduling tools are all pulling from the same "list". IF I change ackerstone to belgard, its reflected across all 'subprojects' using that master project refnote list. What the subprojects do is set the actual ref note number. Belgard paver is P105 in phase 3, but P106 in Phase 4 because phase 4 has more paving materials than phase 3, and now I don't have gaps in my numbering. (We get redline comments from our city reviewers if there are gaps in the keynote numbers) And the detail references on the schedule refer to the page the detail is on for that phase. In my second example above, the doggie waste station would be added to the master refnote list, but may/may not be used in the various phases of the project, so the number is assigned at the subproject level.
Anyways, I recognize this is a huge lift on your end, and this is probably a fringe case for the majority of your users. It just happens to be that one of our core markets is master planned communities... one project with multiple parcels. So there is a ton of duplication we need to maintain.
Happy new year!
Tim
Accepted Answer
Tim,
Well it's easy enough to just copy a project (Backup to LFX file, Restore back as a new number). That gives you a copy of the project, albeit still referencing the same details. Yet, the details could be on different sheets.
So it seems that accomplishes most of the goals. If the goal was more coordination and consistent data between the different phases, that is far more complicated and I don't see that happening anytime soon. An ability to just copy a project to a new project number could be a nice addition, but as mentioned, it takes barely a few seconds to do manually.
When it comes down to it, each phase needs to be a different project. Whether or not Land F/X displays it as a nice hierarchy or whatever is besides the point - fundamentally, the source project needs to be copied. By doing that, at least from my understanding, most of the goals of this have been achieved, yes?
--J
Well it's easy enough to just copy a project (Backup to LFX file, Restore back as a new number). That gives you a copy of the project, albeit still referencing the same details. Yet, the details could be on different sheets.
So it seems that accomplishes most of the goals. If the goal was more coordination and consistent data between the different phases, that is far more complicated and I don't see that happening anytime soon. An ability to just copy a project to a new project number could be a nice addition, but as mentioned, it takes barely a few seconds to do manually.
When it comes down to it, each phase needs to be a different project. Whether or not Land F/X displays it as a nice hierarchy or whatever is besides the point - fundamentally, the source project needs to be copied. By doing that, at least from my understanding, most of the goals of this have been achieved, yes?
--J
- Page :
- 1
- 2
There are no replies made for this post yet.
Contact
- Land F/X
Our software tailors AutoCAD® to the needs of landscape architects, irrigation designers, and other professionals. We automate your most tedious tasks and ensure accuracy, giving you more time to design.