No announcement yet.

differences between family templates and corespondent ootb families

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    differences between family templates and corespondent ootb families

    attached is the OOTB M_Tub-Rectangular-3D (plumbing family). If you look at it`s instance properties in project envirorment you will see that Elevation parameter is missing. If wou edit the family you will see a wall, so I`m assuming that they`ve started with "Metric Plumbing Fixture wall based" template, or "Generic Model wall based and swicthed to Plumbing category". In bouth cases, if you use that templates the Elevation parameter will apear after you place the new family near a wall. So what template did they use to make it dissapear. I assume it`s an old familiy?
    I was just curious.

    The second example makes me sad. If you use an OOTB structural column(let say concrete) you have the posibility in the project to attach the top of the family at the upper level so you can controll the top and the bottom of the columns just by modifying the distance between levels or offsets to levels.
    If you use the structural column template(concrete) the top of the new column can`t be associated to the upper level anymore but just like an offset from the level bellow. So why the template remove the posibility to have the top of the column related to upper level as the ootb columns have. This makes the templates of structural columns with less features, maybe is better to modify an OOTB column for new column families?
    Attached Files
    Last edited by gaby424; November 1, 2011, 08:46 PM.

    Originally posted by gaby424 View Post
    maybe is better to modify an OOTB column for new column families?
    Seems so.

    Glad you posted this - I've been (slowly) addressing our .rft library so they're pre-loaded with our "must haves" and hadn't thought to ensure they're all as functional as each other - for instance I've consolidated the 4(?) different profile templates into one, but hadn't thought to check if they all behave the same... Something more to do I guess.


      Sorry, my mistake. It seems that the template of the default structural column is ok. It has the ability to constrain the column to upper level. My experience was a little different when i`ve tested. I`ve made a complex bridge column starting with a generic model (that have some other nested generic models) and than a switched to the category of structural column in the host family. So via this path you will not be capable to relate your column to the upper level.


        this is really bad if GM switched family will lose some important built-in functions, especially structural column for upper level constrain, i assume there's no way around it if using nested GM?!


        Related Topics