Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Talk Me Out Of Flexing With Detail Lines vs Ref Planes

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

    Talk Me Out Of Flexing With Detail Lines vs Ref Planes

    Let's say I have a cube with instance based dims for width, depth and height. It means in plan, elevation and section I get grip arrows, as expected:
    PlanView.JPG

    Once I add a door swing though, Revit places the grip arrows at the new centre point of the family. This is relatively annoying in plan, and even more annoying in section views:
    PlanView_Doors.JPG
    SectionView.JPG

    If I switch the reference planes to "Not A Reference" then the grip arrows disappear, again as expected, but not what I'm after. Invisible detail lines can be drawn (shown dotted red), constrained to the desired shape, and the instance parameters can be added to these lines (shown blue). The grip arrows will now centre on the the detail lines.
    PlanView_Family.JPG

    This can be done in plan view for the Left/Right planes, in side view for Top/Bottom planes, and repeated again in front view for the Left/Right/Top/Bottom planes. (In this example the Front/Back ref planes aren't impacted by the door swing.)
    PlanView_New.JPG

    I have seen this "hack" used before with Invisible Model Lines in order to get grip arrows in 3D, however, in this instance that behaviour isn't desirable. I definitely want them in 2D views though. So the workaround is as above, creating several sets of Detail Lines in the various 2D views with the same parameters applied. Apart from the extra time required, are there any significant drawbacks to this approach?

    I'm worried mainly about all the additional constraints and flexing going on and wondering if this is going to impact performance on a large scale. Because technically it's no longer the reference planes being flexed, it's the detail lines being flexed and the reference planes following to suit, as they share the same parameter. To be clear, all the geometry is still locked to the reference planes and the reference planes have parameters assigned as usual. The one and only purpose of these details lines is to control the grip arrows, which will then update the parameter values for the rest of the family. (Hope that makes sense.)

    Being able to locate the grip arrows in a logical spot, and maintaining the ability to both stretch and move the geometry with the align tool is quite appealing though.
    Last edited by LeChumpOfStultz; September 5, 2021, 04:07 AM.

    #2
    The only part im not sure about is the multiple sets all being constrained, and if itll start to throw overconstrained warnings. if not... id do it. heck yeah.
    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


      #3
      This very interesting. I'm wondering if this strategy could be employed to control kenote tag leader lines in a more desirable way.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by JamieSchneider
        This very interesting. I'm wondering if this strategy could be employed to control kenote tag leader lines in a more desirable way.
        The invisible line methods have been used to control Keynote leaders for about a decade. Works like a champ.

        You can't do anything with instance parameter variables and pull tabs on tags, because the "annotation" instances aren't available to you. Its all by type.
        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


          #5
          Originally posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
          The only part im not sure about is the multiple sets all being constrained, and if itll start to throw overconstrained warnings. if not... id do it. heck yeah.
          I can avoid any over constrained issues by either:
          • not aligning the lines to the reference planes they sit on top of, just dimensioning them with the same parameter and letting them sit on top of the ref plane. (still aligning/locking the end points though)
          • aligning all sets of lines to the reference planes before doing any dimensioning. once they are all in place and locked, i don't get any errors when adding the parameters.
          Wondering if there is a preference for either of the above methods?

          I was originally concerned more about performance in a project environment once there are a lot of families/instances around the place, especially if some of them are also in groups. In my mind, Revit/Computer was having to process the movement of the invisible line and update the parameter value, and then having to update the 3 or 4 other locations where this parameter was also used, and then the reference planes and geo follow to suit. If this was done in group editor and then applied, it then takes 3 to 4 times longer to process the update. For the record (although I suspect it's painfully obvious at this point) I don't have any real knowledge of how Revit/Computer processes these sorts of computations, so there is nothing driving my concerns beyond an uneducated gut feeling and a history of good ideas always coming with catches.

          If nothing that's been said thus far is raising any red flags though then I'm full steam ahead!

          Comment


            #6
            You wont be able to constrain to a reference plane if you need it to flex on an angle (ie have the ref plane rotate when it flexes)

            Comment


              #7
              Unless Im missing something, shouldnt you just be using Reference lines instead of reference planes?
              If you use reference lines instead, the grips are in the middle of the ref.line, so completely controllable on where they go, and as well as that they show in 3d.
              Alex Page
              RevitWorks Ltd
              Check out our Door Factory, the door maker add-in for Revit

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Alex Page View Post
                Unless Im missing something, shouldnt you just be using Reference lines instead of reference planes?
                If you use reference lines instead, the grips are in the middle of the ref.line, so completely controllable on where they go, and as well as that they show in 3d.
                I am so sure I had a reason for why I went model lines (which also show in 3D) instead of ref lines on V1 of these things a couple of years ago and now I'm not going to be able to sleep until I remember.

                In any case, I find the arrows in 3D more of a hindrance for these families and would prefer to force people to use align to stretch things in 3D.

                Comment

                Related Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X