Thursday, May 14, 2009

Some thoughts about Revit files

So now with the new feature built into Revit that recognizes the “DNA” of a central file and automatically checks the option to create a local file with the appended username, adding the word “central” at the end could actually cause confusion when your local file is named myproject_Central_dbaldacchino.rvt. This is why we’re probably going to stick with a script for creating local files like in the past, so we can control the naming conventions, besides some other benefits. Hopefully we’ll have an even better user-friendly version, which is still in the works.

That brings me to the purpose of this post: Why don’t the developers implement a file extension system that identifies what type of file we’re dealing with? Perhaps .rvc for Central files, .rvl for Local files and leave the .rvt for non-workset enabled files. This would make it totally clear what you’re dealing with, eliminating the need for arcane naming conventions. A unique, easily identifiable icon for each file type would also be a very welcome addition.



Yogesh said...

Hi Dave,nice solution,if developers implement this system then it will help a lot to all revitiers. . . Hope we will get this system soon.

Anonymous said...

eIt seems even more obvious that The FACTORY developers have no idea as to how and why we actually use this stuff. They create these monsters without really knowing the ramifications for the end users and the difficulties they create. It's just like young Architects. I'm a firm beleiver that before an Architect get his/her License, they should hove to spend a year in the field on actually "building" a building so htat we they test and get Licensed, they know what they're doing "In The Real World".

Erik said...

Of course the fact that you have WRITTEN a kick-*ss script that takes your filenaming conventions into consideration really helps with that decision. :)

BTW, thanks for making that script available on AUGI. We haven't implemented it yet (but, only because it doesn't take our naming conventions and directory structure into account (ironic, huh?) and no one has had time to look at the code to see how much effort it will take to change.)

Elisa said...

Having a different icon would be of more help I think. The file extension difference may not work so well, as I see most users open files through windows explorer, not Revit, and default view doesn't show file extensions.

Dave Baldacchino said...

Erik, the script is actually very simple to edit. The parts to edit are clearly marked and it's fully commented. In the future I'm thinking about pulling editable information out of the script and into an ini file, but that will be in a newer version with a GUI option. The file pattern (for naming conventions) is a bit harder to make editable snd is probably something that is easier to edit directly in the script to suit a firm's convention. Through the AUGI post I learned about a couple of fixes I need to implement soon and when it's done I'll post again on that thread and here too.

Dave Baldacchino said...

Elisa, it might not be as useful if extensions are hidden. I personally enable them ;) But programmatically-speaking, it would be extremeoy helpful when writing scripts because you can identify them without requiring any prefix/suffix in the name, which is prone to error (I've seen filenames ending in "central" by mistake!).

Aaron Maller said...

Thats one of the reasons i dont put the word "Central" in the naming strategy we use here.

I have to say, i LOVE the new local file creator. Its pretty convenient.

I like the idea (in theory) of different file extensions, but im not sure how it would work. The file would have to *know* to change its extension after you copied it down to your local drive. And youre still in confusion-land if people NAME files with the word Central. :)

Robin Capper said...

Or even .bak for Revits back up files?
It's the only app I use that has the same file extension for the real file and app generated backups.

Post a Comment