This isn’t strictly a Rhino question, more about the whole 3D workflow -
I work largely in Rhino+ Lumion for a landscape architects and we are having a discussion at the moment on the best 3D workflow for the whole office – projects are now often needed to filter into larger Revit models which is causing us a few headaches… especially those using Lumion, the issue is around modelling on the geolocation or the origin location.
Currently I receive a .dwg/Revit file which is set at the geolocation, I then move it to 0,0,0 to model to avoid any snapping/mesh distortions caused by modelling away from the origin – I presume that is still the preferred way to model in any 3D program? Once the model is ready I can export to Lumion and as the model is at 0,0,0 I should not experience any issues.
The problem is to fulfil all the needs of Revit the model needs to often be moved back to it’s geolocation and then exported out. In a small team that’s an easy process, when the team is larger and people dip in and out they may not know to move the Rhino model in order to get it into the correct position for Revit – some of my colleagues have suggested that we should just model on the geolocation, I have strongly disagreed with that for reasons already given.
So I’m looking for possible solutions you may have in your workflows.
There are two possible solutions I’m looking at –
- https://wiki.mcneel.com/rhino/farfromorigin - there is a workflow here where you make a copy of the original file and move it to the origin, then link and embed it back over the original – then whenever you work on the copy and save the original will save as well at the geolocation.
- Revit isn’t my thing but I understand there is a ‘survey point’ and a ‘project basepoint’, in some of the models I notice the Revit model is coming in close to the origin and others it’s very far away, is it general practice to create a Revit file where the ‘project basepoint’ is close to 0,0,0? – it would solve a lot of issues if that was the case.