Thanks Aussie for sharing this and showing that the way Revision works in Revit does not comply with ISO, we have decided to interpret/twist the norm and don't use subgroup WIP and just use formal revisions, we have splitted the preliminary and construction with numeric and alphanumeric and use the issue by as the P or C as we are far yet from Revit 2022. Thanks again!
Yes if you are just using a P/C system with no WIP revisions then that would be the easiest approach. I've found in my experience it can be difficult to convince designers and architects not to track their WIP revisions however.
Hi Gavin, thanks again for sharing, it is definitely a progress however the problem that I can see with this approach, something you note on the video too, is the amount of multiple revision that we are forced to create, super complex to manage, for e.g. if we need to WIP revise a set of sheets one day some of them are P01.0..P02.0..,..P05.0 we need to create as many revisions as sub wip groups, crazy!
Indeed. I think now that Autodesk has put some effort into getting closer to the standard, it's time for the standard writers to review if the system itself is practical - even on paper it is quite convoluted for a basic architect to understand, let alone a platform to capture.
Very useful-thank you for looking at the different options and highlighting the problems with it. I won’t be replacing our custom addin to handle ISO 19650 revisions just yet!
Yes it isn't quite there vs some alternatives I'm aware of at various firms. I also wanted to get the issues out there before all the Revit fanboy/girls begin touting it as the final solution to the problem, when it isn't actually quite there yet - good to have it on hand when I come across these types! It's a heck of a lot better vs what we had, but more is needed.
Only WIP containers do have the additional two integers as in P01.02, once the information is to be shared or published within a CDE it should goes as P01, C02; The importance of P01.nn is for internal purposes within a team to keep track specifically of 3D models; Revisions in terms of internal Revit Settings are better kept @ Pnn, Cnn for better drawings management; A nice video as always, keep up the good work Gavin!
Yep, understood! The .01/.02 system seems quite dependent on how the CDE is managed. I've heard from some who still are forced to track this via excel schedules - quite worrying!
@@AussieBIMGuru based on personal experience with BIMsync CDE, the platform will consider any added package a revision automatically with no control over it, moreover and based on BS-EN-ISO-19650:1, revisions can be considered metadata, while this would comply with a given CDE, imagine working with one version of a file on your local drive with no increments over time :D.. That being said, I prefer to have my naming(s) with the .01/.02 and remove them once I share or publish, on my local drives and the adopted CDE platform, this way all of the information is aligned with each other both offline and online, always for better information management
@@elietrad thanks for sharing your experiences, i had a similar one on a transport project where we closely followed ISO19650 and the annex. The system automatically determined the revision and was moreso a metadata field, although the client insisted on the pxx.ox all on the revision titleblock - lots of shared parameters and mess to manage!
Nooooo Gavin!!! I had just put together an outline for a video on this exact thing last night! 😅 Brilliantly described as always anyway. Back to the drawing board! 😂
Interesting, they use status more then? I agree the P/C and sub revisions is overkill, but seems it is what most people are getting forced into by the pen pushers...
@@AussieBIMGuru We've 10 status purpose codes which are very aligned with the stages of a project: information; co-ordination; 4 for the different statutory approvals; pre-tender; tender; contract/construction; handover.
Dude just for your information the UK is no longer adopting BIM Level 2 and ISO 19650 does not state any BIM levels. In ISO 19650 is states BIM in accordance with ISO 19650 but in the UK it is ISO 19650 in accordance with the UK BIM Framework. Good overview video. Cheers 👌
Good point, thanks for clarifying! There sure is a lot of confusion around it all outside the UK, many definitions and decisions made at points in time superseded by others.
@@AussieBIMGuru Don’t worry that is the same here in the UK as well. 🤣🤣🤣 I would recommend looking at the work undertaken by the UK BIM Framework and the UK BIM Alliance RUclips channel. There is lots of information out there for everyone to read.
Thanks Gavin for sharing this another useful workflow! Do you know i dont have the column "numbering" in the sheet issues/Revisions? I actually use with the Revit 2022.1!
Thanks for this - but something I still can't figure out is the date field - if you have a different sheet and are doing by per sheet, the date field is going to be different - so don't you then need a series for every single sheet?
Yes unless you do project level revisions then date would be a compounding field potentially. It's not a perfect solution given by Autodesk unfortualnately, and not a very machine friendly revisioning system either (not sure which platforms have it perfectly covered currently if any).
Hey Gavin, im about to start my bachelor thesis in june. At this moment im trying to specify my theme. Is there a possibility i could wright you an email just to hear your opinion?
Usually we use Dynamo or apps to populate revisions from Excel. Fairly similar to parsing XML's to drive native functions. Always pays not to think inside the box that software developers give us! Each program available to us in AEC currently seems to have too much manual work required in one way or another, it just depends where the work is done. For example filling out a spreadsheet is still manual, just more efficient if you can process the data and input it in this way more effectively than the program itself. I still have yet to see a program that does all the heavy/unnecessary lifting for us (please, oh please - don't say BlenderBIM. Heaps of manual work there needed outside the data features).
do you mean that you would like to have export and import this 'Sheet/Issues revisions '? for what you would need it ? Do you get info like that from other program or maybe you get it from others Branch of designers?
The sub-sequence has a degree of workaround involved, yes. It's a shame that they got close, but didn't satisfy the system entirely (it effectively needs a secondary sub-revision field). Having delved through this iSO system i must say it's quite a convoluted one, definitely designed on paper only and not in practice - keen to know if any program captures it more effectively.
Good to see how this new feature works on a project. Thanks!
You're welcome!
Thanks Aussie for sharing this and showing that the way Revision works in Revit does not comply with ISO, we have decided to interpret/twist the norm and don't use subgroup WIP and just use formal revisions, we have splitted the preliminary and construction with numeric and alphanumeric and use the issue by as the P or C as we are far yet from Revit 2022.
Thanks again!
Yes if you are just using a P/C system with no WIP revisions then that would be the easiest approach. I've found in my experience it can be difficult to convince designers and architects not to track their WIP revisions however.
Hi Gavin, thanks again for sharing, it is definitely a progress however the problem that I can see with this approach, something you note on the video too, is the amount of multiple revision that we are forced to create, super complex to manage, for e.g. if we need to WIP revise a set of sheets one day some of them are P01.0..P02.0..,..P05.0 we need to create as many revisions as sub wip groups, crazy!
Indeed. I think now that Autodesk has put some effort into getting closer to the standard, it's time for the standard writers to review if the system itself is practical - even on paper it is quite convoluted for a basic architect to understand, let alone a platform to capture.
Very useful-thank you for looking at the different options and highlighting the problems with it. I won’t be replacing our custom addin to handle ISO 19650 revisions just yet!
Yes it isn't quite there vs some alternatives I'm aware of at various firms. I also wanted to get the issues out there before all the Revit fanboy/girls begin touting it as the final solution to the problem, when it isn't actually quite there yet - good to have it on hand when I come across these types! It's a heck of a lot better vs what we had, but more is needed.
Super useful overview, Gavin! 👍🏼 I know a couple of people who will be interested in a practical look at the new revisions, thanks!
Thanks! Hope they find it handy also
Only WIP containers do have the additional two integers as in P01.02, once the information is to be shared or published within a CDE it should goes as P01, C02; The importance of P01.nn is for internal purposes within a team to keep track specifically of 3D models; Revisions in terms of internal Revit Settings are better kept @ Pnn, Cnn for better drawings management;
A nice video as always, keep up the good work Gavin!
Yep, understood!
The .01/.02 system seems quite dependent on how the CDE is managed.
I've heard from some who still are forced to track this via excel schedules - quite worrying!
@@AussieBIMGuru based on personal experience with BIMsync CDE, the platform will consider any added package a revision automatically with no control over it, moreover and based on BS-EN-ISO-19650:1, revisions can be considered metadata, while this would comply with a given CDE, imagine working with one version of a file on your local drive with no increments over time :D.. That being said, I prefer to have my naming(s) with the .01/.02 and remove them once I share or publish, on my local drives and the adopted CDE platform, this way all of the information is aligned with each other both offline and online, always for better information management
@@elietrad thanks for sharing your experiences, i had a similar one on a transport project where we closely followed ISO19650 and the annex. The system automatically determined the revision and was moreso a metadata field, although the client insisted on the pxx.ox all on the revision titleblock - lots of shared parameters and mess to manage!
Fastest clic ever made. Was studying just this when your video came up. Thanks Gavin as always :)
Glad it was helpful!
Nooooo Gavin!!! I had just put together an outline for a video on this exact thing last night! 😅 Brilliantly described as always anyway. Back to the drawing board! 😂
Nothing wrong with another video on it! I had this one recorded about 2 weeks back i think.
@@AussieBIMGuru now you're just showing off 😂
interesting thanks
You're welcome!
The revisioning in the Irish NA is far friendlier: start at 0, then 1, 2, 3, etc. No prefix no suffix, no distinction between shared & published.
Interesting, they use status more then? I agree the P/C and sub revisions is overkill, but seems it is what most people are getting forced into by the pen pushers...
@@AussieBIMGuru We've 10 status purpose codes which are very aligned with the stages of a project: information; co-ordination; 4 for the different statutory approvals; pre-tender; tender; contract/construction; handover.
Probably the best thing about the Irish Annex by some margin. Thanks for sharing Conor.
Dude just for your information the UK is no longer adopting BIM Level 2 and ISO 19650 does not state any BIM levels. In ISO 19650 is states BIM in accordance with ISO 19650 but in the UK it is ISO 19650 in accordance with the UK BIM Framework. Good overview video. Cheers 👌
Good point, thanks for clarifying! There sure is a lot of confusion around it all outside the UK, many definitions and decisions made at points in time superseded by others.
@@AussieBIMGuru Don’t worry that is the same here in the UK as well. 🤣🤣🤣 I would recommend looking at the work undertaken by the UK BIM Framework and the UK BIM Alliance RUclips channel. There is lots of information out there for everyone to read.
@@garethspencer ah yes I've been going through that progressively. Its handy but my gosh it's definitely death by commitee sometimes!
i like it .THANK Bro!!!!.
You're welcome!
Thanks Gavin for sharing this another useful workflow! Do you know i dont have the column "numbering" in the sheet issues/Revisions? I actually use with the Revit 2022.1!
Forget it i find. I switch the numerotation per project and its appear ;)
No worries!
Thanks for this - but something I still can't figure out is the date field - if you have a different sheet and are doing by per sheet, the date field is going to be different - so don't you then need a series for every single sheet?
Yes unless you do project level revisions then date would be a compounding field potentially. It's not a perfect solution given by Autodesk unfortualnately, and not a very machine friendly revisioning system either (not sure which platforms have it perfectly covered currently if any).
Hey Gavin, im about to start my bachelor thesis in june. At this moment im trying to specify my theme. Is there a possibility i could wright you an email just to hear your opinion?
Sure, no problems!
@@AussieBIMGuru Thanks! Whats your Mail?
@@roofboinaz check my YT profile about section. I don't put it in chat due to language processing spambots trawling comment sections.
No XML import or export, all manual input, men o men, what a program.
Usually we use Dynamo or apps to populate revisions from Excel. Fairly similar to parsing XML's to drive native functions. Always pays not to think inside the box that software developers give us!
Each program available to us in AEC currently seems to have too much manual work required in one way or another, it just depends where the work is done. For example filling out a spreadsheet is still manual, just more efficient if you can process the data and input it in this way more effectively than the program itself.
I still have yet to see a program that does all the heavy/unnecessary lifting for us (please, oh please - don't say BlenderBIM. Heaps of manual work there needed outside the data features).
do you mean that you would like to have export and import this 'Sheet/Issues revisions '?
for what you would need it ? Do you get info like that from other program or maybe you get it from others Branch of designers?
So basically it does not work for ISO19650-2 and it's yet another Revit workaround.
The sub-sequence has a degree of workaround involved, yes. It's a shame that they got close, but didn't satisfy the system entirely (it effectively needs a secondary sub-revision field).
Having delved through this iSO system i must say it's quite a convoluted one, definitely designed on paper only and not in practice - keen to know if any program captures it more effectively.
excuse , what's l&apos?
A typing error for 'I'm'?