Thread: Constraints Issue

I'm having trouble with a parameter in this heat pump family I'm trying to make. There are a ton of sizes and different configurations but I want to limit this to one family. Instead of having dozens of types I've decided to limit the types to the unit sizes (6) and use instance parameters to deal with the different Left/Right hand configurations of the unit. I've managed to create a return connector that can rotate to the correct hand, but now I'm having trouble changing the size of it. The Width of the return also controls it's position and the center point for it's rotation. When I try to change the return width "A_Return_Width" I get "Constraints are not satisfied." I'm using a nested family for the return box.

The funny thing is I can move the Reference plane that is controlled by "A_Return_Offset Return Width" manually and it will change and the return width will change as well.

I would suggest making the extrusion, that you put the connectors on, as a nested family.
It is easier to set up the rotation system and parameters in one family, and then do the positioning of the connector in the main family.
Also means if you need to add more connectors, you can just copy the nested extrusion multiple times and put new connector points on it.

Attached is an example I use for pipes.

I am using a nested family for the extrusion right now.

I've managed to fix it and like most of my Revit family experience I'm not sure if I've learned anything.

I may have been using an old, out-of-date, or overly complex method of rotating nested families. The forum post I found described using two reference lines and using angular dimensions on the two lines and the object itself to rotate. I think the reference lines were creating the constraint issue. I decided to just blow everything away and before I deleted the dimension to the nested family I thought I'd try to rotate. It worked. I'm not sure how I had so much of a hard time getting it to work in the first place. Perhaps while setting up everything for the bad method I may have inadvertently fulfilled all the requirements to do the simpler correct method. You can see below that removing the reference lines has cleaned things up quite a bit