I would absolutely die, and go to heaven, if I was able to create tags that actually read the elevation relative to the level that my device is placed at. There's always special situations where you have to place devices at non-standard heights that differ from what we show on the legend or in the specifications.
Imagine placing a wall mount light fixture, a data junction box, a fire alarm horn strobe, and then being able to tag it with its exact elevations.
THEN. It get's even better. Now imagine if you were able to write formulas in the family that were based on the placed elevation of the device. OMG. It would be Family Nirvana. It would really open up a lot of advanced possibilities if this were a feture.
How cool would it be to do your speaker design layouts, based on a 90 degree polar pattern. And making a nested detail group that you can turn on, and then it calculates the radius based on the ceiling height! (the height the device is placed!)
Super cool right?
Do it Revit Team. Dooowit.
Tagging the Elevation Parameter would be the first step and I don't understand why this wasn't a possibility from day one. This has been a headache of an issue with us, and we found the options of dumb text (doesn't update or move with element) and a shared parameter (confusion due to two separate model and text elevations) requiring too much manual upkeep. In this post a while ago, I explained my method of creating an accurate "Elevation Tag" that follows the element and reads the elevation correctly, even if the element changes elevation. This has been working for us pretty well.
Now, I would also like to be able to calculate from this parameter in a family, but I refuse to expand on this until step 1 (above) is accomplished.
Just read your thread.
I too went through those hoops then I didn't bother. It's too much of a hassel and creating a text paramter to indicate height, defeats the purpose of tagging the elevation in the first place.
Cross your fiingers for 2013....
This guy had a good solution:
Skip ahead to about 12 minutes. What they do is actually make all their face-based devices default elevation at 0".
Then they use a parameter to push the Center (Front/Back) plane up and down to actually place the device at the correct height. It's a shared parameter as well, allowing you to tag it.
It's a pretty good work around. But still. I want tagging the elevation of the device OOTB. And I want to be able to able to create formulas around the placed elevation.
+1 for this also.
Displaying single line pipes by elevation with the use of a filter can currently only work on the ground floor due to filters only seeing the global elevation not the per floor elevation.
These are basic MEP drafting requirements.
Same here, when I first learned this was not possible, I was floored.
Tag inserted Elevation of all devices from their associated level, not the ground level.
Looks like: +48"
And by commercially available you mean free for all right?
But I do agree. It is a ****ty work-around. Currently I've used what CADastrophe suggested, I have a little shelf on a sub-category that I can hide for printing, but turn on when I'm tagging the elevation of the device.
Log into access your profile, ask and answer questions, share ideas and more. Haven't signed up yet? Register