Dynamic Blocks

[#1]

Hello, all.

I've got a quick question about this dynamic block I've attached (an Electrical circuit breaker). In schematics, there are times when we want to show three identical breaker symbols stacked upon each other, with a line that connects the midpoints of the arcs. I have already handled creating the array action with a linear parameter to copy the breaker in parallel, as those who open this file shall see.

However, my question concerns the connecting line. When I only need 1 breaker, I would naturally like the line to disappear. And when I have 2 or 3 breakers (signifying two- or three-pole breakers), I'd like the line to connect appropriately. Can I manipulate the line simply by using the same linear parameter coupled with a stretch action? I hope to not have to add visibility parameters to this.

Thanks for all your help.

Chris Martin

[#2]

I read that you were not looking for Vis States but how about this?

[#3]

Dear Mr. Shade, thank you for your attempt. However, I only work in AutoCAD 2010, and I am unable to open your file the way it is. Would you please save down your file if you are able to? I look forward to see what you have done.

Chris Martin

[#4]

Thank you, Mr. Shade.

I saw how you created the block, and it was done just the way I expected it would have to be done. What I was hoping for, overall, was to simply be able to make the vertical line vanish with a stretch action that reduces the length to 0. Going into this post, I felt that such a trick would not be possible.

I did accept your block as a solution becuase it does solve my problem, and I thank you. With the lookups and the distance parameters, I feel that it might be too much of a hassle to have to remember to change all of the distance numbers each time, especially when someone else in my firm may be asked to change the block or how it is used in a drawing. I apologize if I offended you here.

It just may be best to take a single breaker symbol and use the good old Array command in model space, then draw my own vertical line.

Please have a good day, sir.

Chris Martin

[#5]

So the distance between your breakers is not static or is it?

[#6]

Not necessarily, Mr. Shade. Depends on how much room needed between lines for texts & symbols on schematics, plus space constraints on sheets. Things like that. I just wanted to keep the spacing as variable & fluid as possible.

Chris Martin

[#7 · Accepted solution]

I wonder if the line can be infinitessimally small but there so it is barely visible when not arrayed?

The problem though is that an Array has to be static so there would be no way to change that distance from somthing like you originally posted.

[#8]

hi

how about that version, if you wanna chage distance?

Juris

[#9]

Dear Mr. Shade and user Ojuris, both of you have done well to help me with this. Thank you.

Mr. Shade, I've attached a new block file below. This CB symbol is rigged that the connecting line disappears as the Distance1 parameter is set to 0, as you were interested in finding out about. All that this file has are the breaker components (arrayed per Distance1), and the connector line (stretched per Distance1).

Ojuris, your block works very well. I was merely hoping that a dynamic block wouldn't have to have been so complex with visibility, lookup, and extra linear parameters (no offense). However, I have a feeling the complexity will be necessary.

Upon opening my new file, you'll see 3 versions of the same block. The green one is Distance1 = 0 (the line vanishes). However, this is not the default state of the block (default state upon insertion is in blue; Distance1 = 0.25 with a line). And in red is when I array the block to show a multiple-pole breaker (Distance1 = 0.5, and the line is extended below the bottom breaker symbol). It would appear that I cannot have my connecting line at a default state of 0 length, for if I did it would be a mere point element that would move and always be invisible (drawn on top of the breaker).

Also, I'd like there to only be one connecting line element instead of two. The reason for this is that in some cases, the line would be displayed in a different linetype, like DASHED or HIDDEN to show a non-physical relation between the breakers. If there is only one line, the pattern would remain consistent.

Now, I will admit that I feel what I ask for is impossible, at least with AC 2010. If you both agree that it can't be done, thank you for your respective time & efforts and feel free to drop the issue.

Chris Martin