Steve,

I think you can have a master project and phase projects. The phase projects can add details from the master project (not copies) so that edits to the details still sync in the phase projects, but then the phase projects have their own details sheets linked to their own refnotes and irrigation.

Have your list of details be in the main project detail folder. In the phase projects, import the details to the detail manager. This imports that exact detail, and bypasses any setting to copy details to a project specific folder.

You'd import irrigation and refnotes from the master project to the phase projects. You'd place details on detail sheets for the phase projects and the detail callout in the schedules for each phase will show the detail number and page for the location in the phase project detail sheets.

As for single model, the master would simply have imported xrefs of the DWGs from all the phases so it can all be seen together, although you'll likely cross reference and grey in phase drawings into each other for reference for drafters too.

Separate projects is the only way to get separate detail sheet packages.

-Amanda

Amanda,

Thanks for responding. Just so I'm clear, you are suggesting that there NOT be a master model (or models (planting irrigation, demolition, construction, etc. )). If the client request that the plan be split up, we split our model to separate drawings and have separate project's assigned to each (not use work areas)? That's a little more work on the front end, but much cleaner. There's a little more room for human error that way when it comes to irrigation. Managing multiple projects on a shared mainline can get tricky, but maybe worth it. The designers will have to make sure that modifications to pressures or flows be manually carried over to the affected phases.

You always have great input on workflows Amanda. Thank you.

Hello Amanda,

I work in the same office with Steve Cook, and one of our coworkers suggested a method to manage multiple phases project that i would like to get your feedback on, so basically the issue we ran into recently that at a later stage of a multiple phases project the clients requested to revise all shrubs from 5 gal to 1 gal, at this point we needed to do that for every phases since we separated the phases into different projects as advised for landfx best practice, which took longer time than what we would like to spend on that revision, our coworker idea was to have a master project that includes in addition to details, planting and irrigation ( so we link all planting and irrigation bases to that master project )and the separate projects for phases would just include the ref notes for layout ( so we can retain the proper ref note numbering for each phase) , so the site layout bases will be linked to a different projects in landFX than planting and irrigation bases . to me it sounded confusing but doable, so i suggested to run that option by you to check if you see any possible conflict using that method, please advise.

Steve, yes sounds like you've got a handle on the pros and cons of each option currently available for organizing a large phased project.

Another pro of splitting the phases into different projects is that as they get built, you can set the as-built projects to be more static.

For the irrigation, you first mentioned you're starting the whole project as one to begin with then splitting it to phases when asked to. That means you probably already started the irrigation as one whole. That would then be a bit more intuitive to design as one and then split out with caps for the connections between phases later.

Tala, yes, the main conflict is the one that Steve outlined in his first post here: you can only place a detail on a single sheet in one project. With the system's setup right now, the only way to place the same detail on different sheets with different numbers is different project numbers. So either you have an issue with the detail coordination with 1 project number, or you spend a little bit more time on edits to plants while all phases are still active with multiple project numbers.

If you guys envision a better system of organizing settings between phases, please let me know how you'd want it mapped out and behaving. It's on our radar but will be a bigger project especially with things like renumbering refnotes based on views possible, and we'd need to engineer that whole system to allow the system to see the detail location in a specific phase.

Specifically, what happens when Phase 1 is built, Phase 2 is under construction, and Phase 3, 4, 5 are still ongoing? Client/city requests a change from 50mm cal. trees to 60mm cal. trees. You don't want to change the as-built for Phase 1, and also changing the size in Phase 2 might be problematic since it's under contract and you don't want/need to cause an extra, but the change is needed for phases 3, 4, 5. Then changing the size across the board is a bad thing, and you need to somehow split them out more permanently. It'd be a larger thing to engineer, and a lot of moving parts to consider.

I'm thinking two directions might be easier/better, though (thinking/developing out loud).
1. Focus on a different wishlist item: import plant/refnote, if the plant or refnote code already exists, asks if you want to update it.
2. Maybe just develop a project detail phase system to allow multiple detail sheets and that's it. I'm still not a huge fan of the plant data being linked across phases. This just also sounds more error prone than having to update the same thing across all the phase projects. I say this coming from a support standpoint where a big source of problems stems from somebody using the same project number for multiple designs and editing a plant's data in an old project when they didn't intend to. The same thing would absolutely happen with linked phases where at some point you don't want the plant data of Phase 1 to be updated when you change Phase 8.

I'm happy to continue hashing this idea out with you (and others) here since it's been on the radar for a while and the issue will continue in our Revit plugin.

-Amanda

I'm re-reading your post, Tala, and see you're also suggesting phase projects for refnotes/details and one master project for planting/irrigation.

Possible points of conflict:
1. Do you need to link details to planting/irrigation? (There's an option to include the detail number in both schedules)
2. Do you call out details at all on planting/irrigation plans?

Otherwise that would probably work, if you don't feel my points on accidentally changing past phases will be a big issue.

Amanda,

This subject has been occupying a lot of my head space over the last few days. I know. I'm weird like that, It's like a puzzle. But the conversation between Tala and you, and your response to me, has pretty much galvanized the thought that the Phases should be spread into the individual project numbers. Tala is correct, it is a little more work to change the entities (all disciplines plants, valves benches, paving elements, etc.), but maybe that's better. But maybe it's not. Oh no. Now the indecision has crept back. It's filling my headspace again.

Steve, I just talked to Tala on the phone this morning. She's going to go ahead and try her solution of having Planting and Irrigation in a single master project but Refnotes and Irrigation in separate projects and report back with any additional questions or suggestions.

-Amanda

Amanda,

I believe that education and flexibility are keys to success. That's one reason that I appreciate LandFX. LandFX excels in both areas. I'm sure that Tala has made a good decision based on the information that she has processed. She is not locked into this workflow for each project. If a Project Manager, or other "responsible" party, has made a decision based on facts and experience, and NOT by directive, I'm in full support! If the next project presents different challenges or situations, the workflow can be changed to meet those variables.