Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Family Parameter Refuses to be Removed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Family Parameter Refuses to be Removed

    Okay, this is driving me crazy! I have got a non-shared family TYPE parameter of the LENGTH kind serving absolutely NO purpose (other than to tick me off). I want to remove it, but I can’t without breaking the family! I swear there is absolutely no parameter referencing it, and absolutely no elements in the family dependent on it. Yet, Revit insists that it cannot be removed because it is being “used by one dimension(s) and/or array(s)”. The family works fine otherwise (clean; no warnings), but this undeletable parameter is like a scab I can’t stop picking at. Anybody out there got an idea?

    #2
    Was the parameter there when you started the family? Most (all?) things that are default in the family template can't be removed.
    Greg McDowell Jr
    about.me/GMcDowellJr

    Comment


      #3
      Interesting, Greg. The Parameter is not a system type, like "width" and "height" are in a Window Family. It CAN be deleted, but doing so destroys the "link" it has to some "dimension(s) and/or array(s)". The parameter was in existence and used at one time in the family. The family has since been modified. There is nothing associated with this parameter now. That's what's so confounding. I cannot find anything now that's associated with it. But, obviously I'm overlooking something, because removing it causes parametric problems.

      Comment


        #4
        In that case I'd start looking inside sketches.


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
        Greg McDowell Jr
        about.me/GMcDowellJr

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by GMcDowellJr View Post
          In that case I'd start looking inside sketches.
          I agree with Greg. I'd delete it, let it break, see which parts aren't working and then undo and start with those parts when troubleshooting. Or, depending on time, I'd either leave the parameter be (perhaps setting it to a formula so its controlled), just delete it and fix the family as needed, or rebuild the family entirely.
          Julie Kidder
          Architect + BIM Director
          Hartman + Majewski Design Group

          Comment


            #6
            Also have a look at the forms, see if any of the little sneaky gray Associate Family Parameter buttons show an equal sign (=). If they do then the parameter may be mapped directly to the form. For example the Extrusion Start or End values can be associated with a parameter directly instead of aligning a lock their sketch to reference planes controlled by a dimension and parameter.

            Comment


              #7
              Do me a favor:

              Go in your family types dialogue, and cycle through EVERY type thats in there, hitting apply in between them. See if one of them breaks. My guess is one of them will, and the error will be "Failed to apply Family Parameters." In my experience (this happened last week, to me) there is a nested family or another object (that only shows up under another type), that has it referenced somewhere.
              Aaron "selfish AND petulant" Maller |P A R A L L A X T E A M | Practice Technology Implementation
              @Web | @Twitter | @LinkedIn | @Email

              Comment


                #8
                Thanks all! All great suggestions! The one you mentioned Steve, is one that dawned on me yesterday. Though it didn't apply in my case, it's noteworthy for anybody reading this thread. Good tip.

                So...here's the conclusion: After removing the parameter and deliberately breaking the family, I finally found that a "fine level" detail item was associated to the parameter - and, it actually was a very important parameter after all! ARRGH! I begrudgingly put it back into the family. HA!

                So, here's my parting advice: don't associate a nested family to a formula-driven parameter. Instead, associate it to a reference plane that's driven by the formula-driven parameter. This way, it can be easily identified in the future. Would you all agree?
                Last edited by Barth; April 5, 2016, 08:28 PM.

                Comment

                Related Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X