Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

C4R - Moving links

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

    C4R - Moving links

    Once shared coordinates have been enabled within the C4R environment - you cant move the links ...yikes!

    Its even documented here.


    In our case, we have C4R building files linked into C4R site file, but since shared coordinates have been enabled, we are now unable to move the buildings around the site.
    Out workaround is to disable shared coordinates, then move the bldg in the site files, and move the site in the building file.
    We cant enable shared coordinates afterwards since it moves them back.

    How does one make shared coordinate work in a standard user process within C4R, does anyone know?
    Alex Page
    RevitWorks Ltd
    Check out our Door Factory, the door maker add-in for Revit

    #2
    Looks likes C4R and shared coordinates dint mix:
    I have read that maintaining a separate site model is good practice regardless of the size or complexity of the project. What is the recommended workflow for establishing shared coordinates between linked "building" and "site" models, both hosted on A360 via C4R?   According to the dialog I'm lookin...


    Good ol Steve Stafford to the rescue
    Alex Page
    RevitWorks Ltd
    Check out our Door Factory, the door maker add-in for Revit

    Comment


      #3
      Yes, shared coordinates is tricky because Publish Coordinates isn't allowed in the C4R environment. It may never be either because it's the only operation that Revit allows to alter a linked file directly. In the C4R world, behind the scenes, there isn't a project file in the way we think of them as discreet things.

      In the past I've written and recommended an approach that involves Acquire Coordinates (AC), which does work but if the models have to move again later is tedious to reconcile. We have to stop disable shared coordinates with the source model, AC from another Fake File and then repeat the AC process to reestablish it with the new building positions.

      It's a little more straightforward if we just adopt a process using Specify Coordinates at Point (SCaP) instead. We have to provide markers to position and align the models accurate with each other. Once positioned properly using SCaP defines the survey coordinate relationship so any exported data will line up with each other elsewhere later. If the buildings move then move them and reuse SCaP to redefine the relationship.

      Neither approach will just fix themselves when the site relationship with the building(s) changes...tedious no matter what. The SCaP approach might be perceived as a little simpler...the more changes there are and the more buildings and trades that are trying to line up their work.
      Last edited by Steve_Stafford; January 22, 2018, 06:53 PM.

      Comment

      Related Topics

      Collapse

      Working...
      X