I have an assembly that I would like to place 3 times and then when I edit one of the instances, it would update the other 2 placements of the assembly. But when I edit the copied assembly, it reports that a new assembly is created instead of updating the copies. Is there a way around this behavior? IOW, is there a way to modify an assembly to propagate the changes?
Each change in the assembly creates a new type. But all of them are being saved, and are always available under the Assembly division of the project browser, meaning that if you need to update all the assemblies to the newest revision, simply select the assemblies and, using the type selector, assign the latest type to all.
Thanks Alfred. Guess that will do. For the particular application I was trying to implement, it ended up that assemblies were not appropriate (e.g. for apartment units). I ended up using groups instead.
This is what I have found as well... However, I'm not terribly happy with it. The functions available within the "assembly" format would be terribly useful without the added layer of complexity and organization required to use assemblies... Besides the difficulty in editing an assembly with multiple instances (in my case, there would many instances of most assemblies, and most of our work would be utilizing assemblies, which becomes a real pain..), elements in assemblies don't schedule correctly outside of schedules, and vice versa, and of course, assembly views can not be places on non-assembly sheets, and vice versa... So once something is made in to an assembly, its of little use for anything else outside of its own assembly, other than looking pretty...
What's needed, I believe, is a simlar functionality for Families and Types - where views of a "virtual" instance of a Family Type can be created, that are dependent on and organized by, the individual Types. These views would be able to be placed on any sheet, and of course, the Type they are referencing would inherently be available in all normal schedules... Am I crazy, or isn't this a good idea?
I think each feature has a certain usage. The confusion starts when a feature is used for what is not supposed to be used, such as in the previous post, as you can see, the user was using assemblies to repeat items in typical floors. That's not the tool for that task.
Assemblies = 3d Details, illustrations of a design, with materials, schedules, and sheets.
Groups = things that usually go together, or typical arrangements of furniture, etc.. (Hotel rooms, for example)
Links = a whole floor that needs to be repeated, etc...
Links can contain anything. Groups are divided into model groups and detail groups. Assemblies cannot contain some categories such as curtain walls and others.